Drew said:
Matthew24:34 said:
What about Matthew 16:28, NBF? Does context matter to you there? Who was not going to die before THEY saw the Son of Man coming in His kingdom? Who, NBF? Please give me a solid reason why I and other preterists are guilty here? Are we not employing the literalism you dispies charge us of lacking? The words are clear, yet you would rather believe Katie Couric and the nightly news.
While I agree with you on this point, and am generally more of a "preterist" than many, I cannot go as far as you do, e.g. in respect to 1 Cor 15 (see below).
I think that Matthew 16:28 is indeed a reference to an event that is about to happen
soon - the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. When Jesus is raised, His Kingship is initiated. This is not a reference to the second coming.
[quote="Matthew24:34":2yfinqza]Whom did Paul intend to include when he said "WE shall not all sleep, but WE shall all be changed--in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, AT THE LAST TRUMPET" (1 Cor. 15)? Whom did Paul intend to include when he said "the dead in Christ shall rise first, then WE who are alive, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus WE shall always be with the Lord" (1 Thes. 4).
Do you really believe that the events of 1 Corinthians 15 do not lie in our future? I think that would be a very hard position to defend. Paul goes into great detail about the saints receivng a resurrection body like that Christ has already received. Surely you do not believe that this has already happened, do you?
I share your belief that many (likely most) Christians fail to understand that many of the prophecies made by Jesus and other New Testament writers have already been fulfilled. I am convinced, as I suspect you are as well, that much "end of the world" imagery used by Jesus (e.g. towards the end of Matthew) is not intended to be about the end of the world at all, but rather about more mundance events, such as the judgment on Israel in the form of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I would like to say two things for now:
1. Jesus has to be understood in all His Jewishness, as an eschatalogical prophet come to announce a new turn in the history of
Israel. Too often, we extract Jesus from his context and see his pronouncements as timeless truths. This is, I suggest, not the way to understand Jesus.
2. Apocalyptic language - talk of the stars falling and moon turning red, etc have to be understood in their appropriate Biblical context. There are clear Old Testament examples of such "end of the world" language being used to describe, for example, the fall of Babylon. So things are not what they always seem. In fact, I ascribe to the view that such apocalyptic imagery is not intended to be taken literally but is rather a distinctly Jewish mode of literary expression - using such wild imagery for the purpose of ascribing theological significance to much more "common place" events. So, for example, people misread some New Testament material as denoting a future (i.e. in our future) apocalypse, when, in fact (I believe), such material really describes an
imminent radical transformation to
Israel's socio-political status.
Nevertheless, I do believe that the Scriptures do describe a yet-to-realized return of Jesus to consummate the Kingdom that has already broken into history.[/quote:2yfinqza]
Greetings, Drew. Are you saying that most of Jesus' disciples died before His resurrection? He assured those who were some standing right there with Him that some of them would not die before they themselves saw Him coming in His kingdom. Certainly there had to be enough time for most of them to die (but not all) before He came. The Transfiguration and His resurrection do not fit. Note also that right before Jesus said that, He spoke of His coming "in the glory of the Father with His angels" at which time He would "reward each according to his works" (verse 27). Clearly, some of those standing right there with Him were going to live to see Him coming in His kingdom--in the glory of the Father with the angels--and there would then be judgment. These two verses must be seen together!
The three significant things that keep partial preterists (or partial futurists, as you appear to be) from becoming full preterists are the parousia, the resurrection, and the judgment. As for the parousia, Jesus and His inspired writers spoke of it as an event for their generation. Sadly (and perplexingly), the many places where they plainly stated as much are manipulated, perhaps sincerely and unconsciously, by those who simply cannot accept the truth of it. Why is that, Drew? Is it not due in great part to the concept of the nature of His parousia that has been propagated throughout the Church? IF Jesus was to physically and visibly to all who have ever lived on this earth, stand on the Mount of Olives and actually split it in two, then the concept of a first-century return is a hard sell. But is that what the Scriptures teach concerning His parousia?
There appear to be three main sources for this futurist perspective--Acts 1, the Sermon on the Mount, and Revelation 1:7. According to the futurist take on these passages, Jesus must come visibly in the clouds (Acts 1), great upheavals in the heavens must occur (Mat. 24, Mark 13, Luke 21), and every eye of everyone who has ever lived or will ever live must see Him simultaneously. But is that what these verses teach?
You yourself have properly recognized that the heavenly and earthly upheavals mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 24 are to be recognized as apocalyptic language. The failure to accept this causes most futurists to redefine and manipulate the plain meaning of Jesus' words found in verse 34--"this generation will by no means pass away till ALL these things take place." They wrongly reason that since the catastrophic occurrences in the heavens and on the earth have not yet happened, how could Jesus have already returned? They are then forced to redefine "this generation." Not doing so demands that they accept that the ALL things, including those very upheavals in the heavens, actually happened in that first-century generation. It also requires great exegetical gymnastics to disavow that Jesus was telling His disciples right there with Him that they were to recognize the signs of His coming as clearly as they recognized the signs of the coming of summer. In fact, everything that Jesus told those very disciples has to be stripped of any relevance to them whatsoever. They must also deny that a short time later, Jesus told those same disciples that they were to watch and be ready. The point is this--there are really only two approaches. (1) IF we insist on the popular view of the nature of Christ's return, we MUST redefine such time statements as "near," "soon," "at hand," and "shortly" and give Jesus' expression "this generation" a meaning He never gave it in the many other texts in which it is found. (2) IF we take Jesus and the inspired writers at their word (and we most definitely should), we must reassess the commonly accepted view of the NATURE of His coming, the resurrection, and the judgment in order to fit the clear first-century time frame in which they placed these things.
Jesus indeed associated His return with the attendant figurative heavenly upheavals and placed them within the time frame of His generation. That Jesus was to return in like manner as the disciples saw Him go in no way teaches that He was to literally touch down on the Mount of Olives and split it in two. This is yet another example of strict literalism leading to a false concept. It is assumed that "like manner" points to the physical, visible nature of His return. But as with other comings of God in judgment, there are the attendant clouds! Jesus Himself spoke of coming in the clouds (Mat. 24:30). He looked directly at the Sanhedrin, especially Caiaphas, and condemned them for their false accusation against Him of blasphemy and said, "YOU will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power and coming on the CLOUDS of heaven" (Mat. 26:64). How must we twist this to mean anything other than what it says--those very flesh-and-blood leaders of Israel were to see His coming! But twist it futurists must, because it does not play into their eschatological scheme!
What about "every eye" seeing Him? First of all, if this is taken out of the clear time frame in which the entire Revelation is placed ("the things which must SHORTLY take place" because "the time is NEAR"), there will be confusion. Furthermore, if the attendant players involved in the events of this verse are ignored, there will be confusion. Who are the players that shed light on the "every eye?" This event clearly was to involve "the tribes of the land" and "those who pierced Him." If we remove the critical Jewish element of the book of the Revelation, we can easily fall prey to the Hal Lindsey doctrine of "last things" which incorrectly makes everything about us and the world at large. The forefathers of that generation of Jews upon whom Jesus pronounced the woes and whom He judged guilty of all the righteous blood shed on the earth (Mat. 23) "saw" His coming in the destruction of the city and the Temple by the Romans! It is hard to imagine that anyone living in the time in which Jerusalem and the Temple were considered wonders of that world could not have "seen" their destruction as a judgment of the Jewish God upon them! According to Josephus, even Titus openly admitted as much. The whole world "saw" the ruin of the twin towers on September 11, 2001. "Every eye" of that first century world, especially of the Jews, saw His coming! It is an extreme stretch to make the "every eye" statement of Revelation 1:7 mean every eye of all people throughout all time simultaneously! Again, we must place statements in their contexts!
This is getting quite long. I will cover the resurrection and judgment in another post!
Have a great day in our Lord, Drew!
Matthew24:34
