Redirectionalism

[reba]

If we have 10 posters will we read 10 different ideas on what the millennium is?
I have not heard or read orthodox preterist that do not hold the Cross of Christ ( all its meaning ) in the highest regard...

 

[donald perry]

26 "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood, And till the end of the war desolations are determined.

• Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. - 33 AD

• And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. - 70 AD

Verse 26 teaches that the Temple was destroyed, which history tells us occurred in 70 AD.

27 Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; But in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, Even until the consummation, which is determined, Is poured out on the desolate." Daniel 9:26-27

He in verse 27 refers to the last person mentioned - "the prince who is to come".

Verse 27 shows us another Temple in which the prince who is to come, [future to 70 AD] will confirm a covenant for a 7 year period.

Clearly 70 AD could not fulfill this scripture, as it would require the destruction and rebuilding of the temple in that year.


JLB

Daniel 9:25-26 “… the Messiah pthe Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street * shall be built again, and the * wall, qeven * in troublous times. And rafter threescore and two weeks sshall oMessiah be cut off, * * tbut not for himself: * and uthe people of the prince that shall come vshall destroy the city and wthe sanctuary …”


JBL wrote: “Clearly 70 AD could not fulfill this scripture, as it would require thedestruction and rebuildingof the temple in that year.”


Answering what JBL is proposing in these verses Edward J. Young argues as follows: Edward J. Young The Geneva Series of Commentaries page 211:


“All of the above statements fall to the ground, because they read into the text what does not belong there. All speak of the making of a covenant, whereas the text says nothing whatsoever about this. Furthermore, vs. 26 states that the city and the sanctuary will be destroyed by the people of a prince that will come. All of the above writers believe that the allusion is to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. The people are the Romans, but the prince is not Titus, not a prince who will not appear for years (nearly 2000 have already elapsed) after they themselves have perished. But how can this be? How can the Roman armies of Titus possibly be regarded as belonging to a prince who has not even yet appeared? This interpretation can be adopted only because of extreme exegetical necessity. … The view, therefore, that a future Roman prince is to make a covenant with the Jews must be abandoned.”


From Don: God would only confirm the covenant for one week, that week is over, we are not going back to the OT. See Hebrews 10 and Hebrews 6. A new High Priest and new temple cannot be called a temple of God and a high priest of God as it once was in 2 Thess. 2, it would have to be called the temple to Antichrist. Double fulfillment is impossible. We are now the temple of God and Jesus Christ is the High priest. These names belong to us. Also, the words are confirm a covenant not cut a covenant.


What verse refers to rebuilding a temple? I see what has to do with the coming of the Messiah close to 33 AD as foretold by Daniel here. See The Coming Prince by Sir Robert Anderson page 51ff. Page 72 “As already noticed, the prophetic era is divided into two periods, the one of 7+62 heptades, the other of a single heptade. Connected with these eras, two “princes” are prominently mentioned; first, the Messiah, and secondly, a prince of that people by whom Jerusalem was to be destroyed, ---a personage of such pre-eminence, that on his advent his identity is to be as certain as that of Christ Himself.”


1 Thess 2: 3-4 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

What do you think? Although I do not hold to the same eschatology, you should take a look at Kenneth Gentry's books. They explain a lot of these things.

 

[JLB]

Daniel 9:25-26 “… the Messiah pthe Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street * shall be built again, and the * wall, qeven * in troublous times. And rafter threescore and two weeks sshall oMessiah be cut off, * * tbut not for himself: * and uthe people of the prince that shall come vshall destroy the city and wthe sanctuary …”


JBL wrote: “Clearly 70 AD could not fulfill this scripture, as it would require the destruction and rebuilding of the temple in that year.”


Answering what JBL is proposing in these verses Edward J. Young argues as follows: Edward J. Young The Geneva Series of Commentaries page 211:
[/quote]

I am interested in what Donald Perry has to discuss here.

Could you address the points that I posted, and discuss them here.

Do you agree that the prophecy here is chronological in it's structure?

Do you believe the "he" in verse 27 refers to the last person mentioned, which is the prince who is to come?


Lets start there and discuss this prophecy and its content.


Thanks JLB

 

[donald perry]

the reason I like those two is that they take the lesson from matthew 24 and apply for the audience. "this is how jesus felt about that and look to ad 70 and we see what happened, don't do that because his coming back" simple easy and ya cant fail in that. ie be HOLY!

Yes, but there is a problem. It is too easy. It is just as easy to say all of Matt 24 is fulfilled. And then all of Revelation is fulfilled. And then Jesus is coming back for some other reason you have to invent. And then the only reason to question what you are doing is in the creeds and in soteriology where you then need to contradict yourself. Once you start down that road what is there to stop you from becoming full preterist?

 

[JLB]

Yes, but there is a problem. It is too easy. It is just as easy to say all of Matt 24 is fulfilled. And then all of Revelation is fulfilled. And then Jesus is coming back for some other reason you have to invent. And then the only reason to question what you are doing is in the creeds and in soteriology where you then need to contradict yourself. Once you start down that road what is there to stop you from becoming full preterist?

Great Point!

 

[jasoncran]

Yes, but there is a problem. It is too easy. It is just as easy to say all of Matt 24 is fulfilled. And then all of Revelation is fulfilled. And then Jesus is coming back for some other reason you have to invent. And then the only reason to question what you are doing is in the creeds and in soteriology where you then need to contradict yourself. Once you start down that road what is there to stop you from becoming full preterist?

jesus was asked by whom about the end? the audience who asked him then. if they are the YOU, why are they dead then? there shall be some of you standing here that shall not see death till all these come to pass. where is these men and women today? dead.

 

[jasoncran]

im may have preterist leanings. but I am not going to say I know it all and have it locked in. that is the closest position that I take. its ok to say and teach we don't know but be ready. I say this if you study genesis and learn that god did it and you don't know but believe, you have good understanding. I also say the same with revalation. if you look at that and say, well god is coming back. I don't know when but he is and I say then you have it right.

1) America isn't mentioned in prophecy, yet futurists always say that god must allow America to fall so that isreal will be attacked. uhm yeah about that. until 1967 we didn't arm isreal. imagine that. we had good relations with them but we didn't until after the six day war assist them like do now
2) jesus isn't coming back to make another church.

just a snippet. and VIC C whom reba knows and others were here when I was a futurist will attest that I didn't come to this position by blindly following men. I asked vic and others and sought to counter argue without any commentary. I simply couldn't.

 

[donald perry]

"jasoncran, post: 861363, member: 352

"]jesus was asked by whom about the end? the audience who asked him then.
I agree.

"if they are the YOU, why are they dead then?"
I said I agree.


"there shall be some of you standing here that shall not see death till all these come to pass. where is these men and women today? dead"
I agree, they are dead.

 

[jasoncran]

ok so that makes most of matthew 24 as far as being anything but fulfilled.

 

[donald perry]

ok so that makes most of matthew 24 as far as being anything but fulfilled.

I believe it was fulfilled to them. That the second coming applied to them. The temple in Jerusalem is gone.

However now I believe the same principles are applied to us idealistically. We can interpret our future based on what happened in the past. Nether man nor God Has changed that much. So now when we read Matt. 24 we can picture the same kinds of things happening again to people who reject the Gospel as it is preached again in all the world a second third forth etc etc time. And the Bible does say the Gospel was preached in all the world back then a few times in different ways. I do not think it applies only to the past or only to the future, but I will give that first generation credit for being the "first fruits".

 

[jasoncran]

how on earth did you get that we preterists don't look at that and say no need to study it and not learn? that is exactly what I said earlier! matthew henry on that says the same!!!!

 

[donald perry]

I am used to the RC Sproul Partial Preterists, and Ed Stevens and then Max King Full and Hyper Preterist systems.

But, Preterists are not idealists. And I suppose I am really not an idealist either, which I way I say Redirectionalism.

I think the second coming is just as real to us right now anytime in our future as it was to them in their future.

Apparently we are talking about two different kinds of Preterism. I guess this is why you said Matthew Henry was a Preterist.

 

[turnorburn]

Are Redirectionalism & Preterism doctrines saying that the things Jesus said about future events in Matthew and Revelation have already happened, then how does this verse fit into the picture?

Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

Thanks..

tob

 

[donald perry]

Preterism and Redirectionalism are not the same thing at all. I consider Preterism Heresy, I cannot find anything from keeping a Partial Preterist from becoming a Full Preterst to then become a Hyper Preterist. Can you? If you cannot then I think it is heresy. Redirectionalism is a form of Idealism, but not the kind of Idealism that has already been defined by Christianity. I am saying it is about ideas more then it is about specific points in time, God's ideas.

"Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Do you know about all the verse that say that happened? I will assume you do. Rather than look them up and list them here I will answer your question further "...how does this verse fit into the picture?".

When I read Matt. 24:14 I read it in the perspective of my world. And I would say only God knows when the Gospel has been preached into all the world for a coming and end that He might be concerned with today. Jesus could come at any moment, but I would plan that He may come 100 years from now and keep building the church.

But I do not think God needs to destroy America and support for Israel so that all the nations can come against it. That's silly.

 

[turnorburn]

donald said:

But I do not think God needs to destroy America and support for Israel so that all the nations can come against it. That's silly.

Where did you see that, i must have missed it?

tob

 

[JLB]

jesus was asked by whom about the end? the audience who asked him then. if they are the YOU, why are they dead then? there shall be some of you standing here that shall not see death till all these come to pass. where is these men and women today? dead.

Not necessarily.

John saw them come to pass before he died, and wrote about it in the book of Revelation.

Stephen himself saw the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God before he died.

How many others, who are not spoke of in the scriptures, witnesses to these things,

as it is written

21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, "But Lord, what about this man?" 22 Jesus said to him, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me." 23 Then this saying went out among the brethren that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you?" John 21:21-23

Many have misinterpreted what Jesus has said, and built whole doctrines on these misinterpreted words.


JLB

 

[donald perry]

Where did you see that, i must have missed it?

I forget, but it is logical for those futurists. If all the nations are to destroy Israel and American Israel Public Affairs Committee [IPAC for short] is over here, then it would be reasonable that America could be destroyed first.

 

[turnorburn]

O.k. first we have the disciples walking up to Jesus he looks at the temple and tells them its going to be taken down.. he did that as he was leaving the temple, probably a few people milling around.

Matthew 24:1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.

2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Down here in verse 3 we see Jesus and the disciples having a private conversation, no people milling around here, its as if he didn't care what those people milling around the temple heard, but now he has something he wants to discuss privately with his own disciples, as they ask him..

Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Here its a completely new revelation "the end of the world" and "the sign of his coming" two distinctly different conversations, haven't you joined these two encounters into one?

tob

 

[Deborah13]

Preterism and Redirectionalism are not the same thing at all. I consider Preterism Heresy, I cannot find anything from keeping a Partial Preterist from becoming a Full Preterst to then become a Hyper Preterist. Can you? If you cannot then I think it is heresy. Redirectionalism is a form of Idealism, but not the kind of Idealism that has already been defined by Christianity. I am saying it is about ideas more then it is about specific points in time, God's ideas.

"Matthew 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Do you know about all the verse that say that happened? I will assume you do. Rather than look them up and list them here I will answer your question further "...how does this verse fit into the picture?".

When I read Matt. 24:14 I read it in the perspective of my world. And I would say only God knows when the Gospel has been preached into all the world for a coming and end that He might be concerned with today. Jesus could come at any moment, but I would plan that He may come 100 years from now and keep building the church.

But I do not think God needs to destroy America and support for Israel so that all the nations can come against it. That's silly.

In this day and age, Matthew Henry, Adam Clark, Wesley, Bunyan, Calvin, Spurgeon, would have all been called partial preterists it seems because of their views about Daniel 9, in fact almost all of Daniel was thought to be in past. Almost all the Reformation people thought that way.
Their views of Revelation were very different.
It's called the Historical view. None of them became Full Preterists or Hyper Preterists (whatever that is).

Could you state your argument for believing that if one is partial preterist they Will become......


They did not believe in a 'rapture' apart from the resurrection of the saints and the Second Coming.
They believed that Revelation was talking about the RRC and the pope. (Rome)

 

[JLB]

In this day and age, Matthew Henry, Adam Clark, Wesley, Bunyan, Calvin, Spurgeon, would have all been called partial preterists it seems because of their views about Daniel 9, in fact almost all of Daniel was thought to be in past. Almost all the Reformation people thought that way.
Their views of Revelation were very different.
It's called the Historical view. None of them became Full Preterists or Hyper Preterists (whatever that is).

Could you state your argument for believing that if one is partial preterist they Will become......


They did not believe in a 'rapture' apart from the resurrection of the saints and the Second Coming.
They believed that Revelation was talking about the RRC and the pope. (Rome)

The Book of Daniel has only "opened up", as it were, since the 20th Century, since knowledge has increased and world travel have progressed.

"But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase." Daniel 12:4

And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Daniel 12:9

...many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase, is the key to when the book will be "opened up" to understanding.


JLB