Historic Premillennialism

[yeshua_seven]

The last time I was here, I was more of a dispensational premillennialist, but now I am part of the historical premillennial camp. Therefore, I believe in a post-tribulation rapture which is the same thing as the second coming. The church will go through the tribulation period. At Jesus' second coming, the elect will be resurrected and the elect who are alive will join Jesus and He will establish His kingdon on earth for a thousand years. After the thousand years are over, Satan will be released, the final battle will take place, and then the unbelievers will be resurrected at the Great White Throne and be thrown into hell forever. That is my current view which I felt like sharing.

I don't accept the amillennial view for heurmenuetical reasons, but I would say that amillennial is the second best view which fits scripture the best.

[sojourner]

The last time I was here, I was more of a dispensational premillennialist, but now I am part of the historical premillennial camp. Therefore, I believe in a post-tribulation rapture which is the same thing as the second coming. The church will go through the tribulation period. At Jesus' second coming, the elect will be resurrected and the elect who are alive will join Jesus and He will establish His kingdon on earth for a thousand years. After the thousand years are over, Satan will be released, the final battle will take place, and then the unbelievers will be resurrected at the Great White Throne and be thrown into hell forever. That is my current view which I felt like sharing.

I don't accept the amillennial view for heurmenuetical reasons, but I would say that amillennial is the second best view which fits scripture the best


Hi Yeshua_Seven,

I am still researching the different positions, but for now I believe, as you do, in the historical premillennial position. And I agree with all the points you wrote.

I have a couple questions for you.

What are the key differences between dispensational premillennialism and historical premillennialism? What led your view to shift from the first to the second?

What hermeneutical reasons led you to reject the amillennial view?

God bless,

Ben

[TheForgiven]

Greetings my friends. I'm glad to see you back, and I look forward to discussing these topics with you again.

I'm like you in many ways; we all change our position from time to time. Some view change as a weakness, as though we're like the foam being tossed from every pounding wave (Figurative for different doctrines). On the contrary, St. Peter was guilty of holding himself separate from Gentiles while he was with the Apostles; additionally, he refused to present the gospels to the Gentiles. But later, St. Paul rebuked him for his error, and Peter eventually preached the good news to a Gentile family......in short, he changed.

Here's my question to you both. If we all agree that the temple was destoryed in 70AD, as Jesus Himself testified, how then should we look for another coming if He came when He stated He would? All of these events are tied together, and it's imposible to separate the two. I'm confused as to how we can separate the destruction of the temple, and the coming of Christ by several thousand years.

Could you explain this to me?

Joe

[yeshua_seven]

"What are the key differences between dispensational premillennialism and historical premillennialism?" - sojourner

At this point I understand that the dispensational view teaches that the rapture and the second coming are two seperate events and that the rapture occurs before the Tribulation so the church does not have to go through it. Historical premillennialism teaches that the rapture and the second coming are the same event, and that the church will go through the tribulation.

I also understand a little that there are differences between the relationship between Israel and the church. Dispensationalism says that ethnic Israel and the church are seperate. If not exactly sure how to describe the historical view on that relationship, but I myself believe that spiritual Israel and the church are one (i.e. believing Jews and believing Gentiles), yet God still has plans for ethnic Israel. I think amillennialism sees ethnic Israel with no more significance, because the church replaced Israel and the church is fulfilling all of God's promises to Israel that have not been fulfilled yet.

Dispensationalism, if I recall, teaches that only the church saints will be at the marriage supper of the Lamb which takes place at the rapture, because the Old Testament saints won't be resurrected until after the tribulation. That is one thing I had a hard time accepting because that would mean Abraham won't be at the marriage supper of the Lamb. In historical premillennialism, the church saints and the OT saints will be resurrected at the same time, which is after the tribulation when Jesus comes again, and thus we will sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the marriage supper of the Lamb.


What led your view to shift from the first to the second? -sojourner

I gave one reason above, although it is based off my opinion that God wouldn't leave the OT saints out of the marriage of the Lamb and the supper of the Lamb.

As for the better reasons, one of them is that dispensational premillennialism is a recent doctrine which can't be traced back to the early church. There is much evidence, however, that historical premillennialism and amillennialism can be traced back to the early church, with the former going back the furthest. The writings of the early church fathers show evidence that they believed historical premillennialism.

Another reason is the Olive Tree which the Apostle Paul discusses in Romans 11. I kept hearing mainly two views: 1) Israel and the church are seperate, and 2) the church replaces Israel (i.e. replacement theology). I kept thinking that I don't believe neither of those, but rather that Israel and the church become one, with ethnic Israel remaining as a third entity. Romans 11 clearly teaches that the Olive Tree represents spiritual Israel. Unbelieving Jews are cut off and believing Gentiles are grafted in. Paul teaches that in the future, God will open the eyes of the Jews and much of ethnic Israel will accept Jesus as their Messiah, and thus be grafted back into their own Olive Tree. This is probably the main reason for my rejection of dispensationalism.


What hermeneutical reasons led you to reject the amillennial view? - sojourner

I believe in the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, and reject the allegorical method of interpretation. I'm not a historicist that can describe this is excellent detail, but to summarize: the allegorical method became popular in the fourth century(??) and was popularized by Augustine and was the method used by the Roman Catholic Church which was turning towards unorthodox doctrines. Amillennialism is a view derived from the allegorizing of scriptures. As a result, I reject amillennialism for these reasons. It was popular among the Reformation, but some in the Reformation also believed in historical premillennialism.

[yeshua_seven]

Here's my question to you both. If we all agree that the temple was destoryed in 70AD, as Jesus Himself testified, how then should we look for another coming if He came when He stated He would? All of these events are tied together, and it's imposible to separate the two. I'm confused as to how we can separate the destruction of the temple, and the coming of Christ by several thousand years.

Could you explain this to me? - TheForgiven


Sorry but I can't answer this question at this point other than by saying that first, it doesn't make any sense to me that the second coming already occured, and second, I do believe that prophecies can speak of future events which are seperated by time, as if they were the same event or occurred at the same time. I can't really give any good arguments at this time. The Olivet Discourse has always been a tough section of scripture for me and many others, and I still have to study it more.

[sojourner]

Hi Yeshua_Seven,



Historical premillennialism teaches that the rapture and the second coming are the same event, and that the church will go through the tribulation.


I think that is the correct view. All the verses about the rapture point to a fulfillment at the same time as the return of Christ, at the last trumpet.



I also understand a little that there are differences between the relationship between Israel and the church. Dispensationalism says that ethnic Israel and the church are seperate. If not exactly sure how to describe the historical view on that relationship, but I myself believe that spiritual Israel and the church are one (i.e. believing Jews and believing Gentiles), yet God still has plans for ethnic Israel. I think amillennialism sees ethnic Israel with no more significance, because the church replaced Israel and the church is fulfilling all of God's promises to Israel that have not been fulfilled yet.


I agree with you, that all believers, both Jew and Gentile are the church, and yet God still has plans for ethnic Israel, and will graft them in when many of them come to believe in Christ at the end of days.



Dispensationalism, if I recall, teaches that only the church saints will be at the marriage supper of the Lamb which takes place at the rapture, because the Old Testament saints won't be resurrected until after the tribulation. That is one thing I had a hard time accepting because that would mean Abraham won't be at the marriage supper of the Lamb. In historical premillennialism, the church saints and the OT saints will be resurrected at the same time, which is after the tribulation when Jesus comes again, and thus we will sit with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob at the marriage supper of the Lamb.


Yes, it seems absurd that the saints would be celebrating in Heaven, while the tribulation happens to the Jewish believers on earth. That is another reason to reject the pre-trib theory.



As for the better reasons, one of them is that dispensational premillennialism is a recent doctrine which can't be traced back to the early church. There is much evidence, however, that historical premillennialism and amillennialism can be traced back to the early church, with the former going back the furthest. The writings of the early church fathers show evidence that they believed historical premillennialism.


That is one of historical premillennialism's strengths. It matches up with early Christian's beliefs, and also with Jewish expectations of a millennial kingdom before Christ.



Another reason is the Olive Tree which the Apostle Paul discusses in Romans 11. I kept hearing mainly two views: 1) Israel and the church are seperate, and 2) the church replaces Israel (i.e. replacement theology). I kept thinking that I don't believe neither of those, but rather that Israel and the church become one, with ethnic Israel remaining as a third entity. Romans 11 clearly teaches that the Olive Tree represents spiritual Israel. Unbelieving Jews are cut off and believing Gentiles are grafted in. Paul teaches that in the future, God will open the eyes of the Jews and much of ethnic Israel will accept Jesus as their Messiah, and thus be grafted back into their own Olive Tree. This is probably the main reason for my rejection of dispensationalism.


I agree with you totally here.



I believe in the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, and reject the allegorical method of interpretation. I'm not a historicist that can describe this is excellent detail, but to summarize: the allegorical method became popular in the fourth century(??) and was popularized by Augustine and was the method used by the Roman Catholic Church which was turning towards unorthodox doctrines. Amillennialism is a view derived from the allegorizing of scriptures. As a result, I reject amillennialism for these reasons. It was popular among the Reformation, but some in the Reformation also believed in historical premillennialism.


Can you give me some examples of reformers or theological groups of that time that believed in historical premillennialism? I know Luther didn't.

Also, could you recommend any good books on the historical premillennial position?

Blessings,

Ben

[sojourner]

Here's my question to you both. If we all agree that the temple was destoryed in 70AD, as Jesus Himself testified, how then should we look for another coming if He came when He stated He would?


Hi Joe,

Richard and I will be discussing this in the future as we talk about the Olivet Discourse, if you would like to join the conversation you are welcome to. It appears that your assumption is that the Olivet Discourse refers to one event only, the second coming of Christ. It actually refers to two events, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the second coming of Christ preceded by the signs of the end of the age. Matthew makes this clear, as the question he has the disciples ask Jesus is twofold.



All of these events are tied together, and it's imposible to separate the two. I'm confused as to how we can separate the destruction of the temple, and the coming of Christ by several thousand years.

Could you explain this to me?

Joe

If it is impossible to separate the two, then why did Matthew separate the two in his question? There are various clues in the text that point to time gaps. Also, the destruction of Jerusalem is a type of the final tribulation. The Olivet Discourse is an example of a prophecy which has double fulfillment.

God bless,

Ben

[yeshua_seven]

sojourner, I can't give any specific examples at this point. I think I have read about some, but don't remember any names. I haven't read any books on the view yet, but just material on the Internet. I would like to read some books on it though.

[TheForgiven]

Hi Joe,

Richard and I will be discussing this in the future as we talk about the Olivet Discourse, if you would like to join the conversation you are welcome to. It appears that your assumption is that the Olivet Discourse refers to one event only, the second coming of Christ. It actually refers to two events, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the second coming of Christ preceded by the signs of the end of the age. Matthew makes this clear, as the question he has the disciples ask Jesus is twofold.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheForgiven
All of these events are tied together, and it's imposible to separate the two. I'm confused as to how we can separate the destruction of the temple, and the coming of Christ by several thousand years.

Could you explain this to me?

Joe

If it is impossible to separate the two, then why did Matthew separate the two in his question? There are various clues in the text that point to time gaps. Also, the destruction of Jerusalem is a type of the final tribulation. The Olivet Discourse is an example of a prophecy which has double fulfillment.

God bless,

Ben

Greetings Ben. I appreciate your response, and I look forward to joining you and Richard in this discussion.

To answer your question, I don't believe he did separate the answers or questions. We have to remember that Matthew wasn't the only Apostle there when these questions were asked. And even though the other Apostles record slightly different questions being asked, they all recorded the same answers. So in Luke or Mark's account, the answers they give point to the exact same questions that Matthew records.

It all boils down to one thing, and one thing alone....the Temple being destroyed.

The largeset, most singularly largest mistake I've uncovered with the theory that Jesus was telling the Apostles when He would return, is in this. He doesn't tell the Apostles when He's going to return. He's telling them when He's going to come, and in their mind, to destroy the temple.

Remember, Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days, I will raise it..." They (Pharisees and Sadducees) had no idea he was talking about his body, and neither did the Apostles. In fact, when they marvelled at the beauty of the temple, it was quite disheartening to them when Jesus explains and foretells its destruction.

So when Matthew asked, "When will these things be (Temple destroyed), and what is the sign that it's about to happen, and of your presence (coming)? Keep one solid fact in mind. They had no idea He was going anywhere. They didn't know he was leaving, much less did they know He was even going to die. They wanted to know when Jesus was going to claim his royal throne in Israel, set them free from the Romans, and rebuild the temle into a glorious temple; in short, they were still thinking in terms of a human kingdom; a kingdom that's ruled as the Gentiles rule, but better. They hadn't yet learned, nor was it revealed to them, of all the answers.

I look forward to discussing this with you further.

God bless you friends.

Joe

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, it seems absurd that the saints would be celebrating in Heaven, while the tribulation happens to the Jewish believers on earth. That is another reason to reject the pre-trib theory.

Hey Ben,


The Jews destroyed in the Great Tribulation of 70 AD were the unbelievers who murdered Jesus Christ. It was the fulfillment of the prophecy that the Lord Himself spoke directly to their hatefilled faces:
Matthew 23:33-37 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? 34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36 Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Note the obvious meaning of the plain text of the time reference "this generation." In my understanding of Revelation, this prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of the Great Harlot apostate Jerusalem, as it is written:
Revelation 18:24 And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
As far as I know, the prophecy against first century Jerusalem spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ has no Scriptural fulfillment in the futurist view, whereas it fits perfectly with the preterist view of Revelation.

It seems to me that the preterist view is the only view consistent with the plain meaning of these texts.

I'm still loving this conversation! I pray that my "strong opinions" will never discourage you from giving an opposing view. On the contrary, I pray they will encourage you to speak the truth as you understand it freely and with great passion.

Many blessings,

Richard

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Greetings Ben. I appreciate your response, and I look forward to joining you and Richard in this discussion.

To answer your question, I don't believe he did separate the answers or questions. We have to remember that Matthew wasn't the only Apostle there when these questions were asked. And even though the other Apostles record slightly different questions being asked, they all recorded the same answers. So in Luke or Mark's account, the answers they give point to the exact same questions that Matthew records.

It all boils down to one thing, and one thing alone....the Temple being destroyed.

The largeset, most singularly largest mistake I've uncovered with the theory that Jesus was telling the Apostles when He would return, is in this. He doesn't tell the Apostles when He's going to return. He's telling them when He's going to come, and in their mind, to destroy the temple.

Remember, Jesus said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days, I will raise it..." They (Pharisees and Sadducees) had no idea he was talking about his body, and neither did the Apostles. In fact, when they marvelled at the beauty of the temple, it was quite disheartening to them when Jesus explains and foretells its destruction.

So when Matthew asked, "When will these things be (Temple destroyed), and what is the sign that it's about to happen, and of your presence (coming)? Keep one solid fact in mind. They had no idea He was going anywhere. They didn't know he was leaving, much less did they know He was even going to die. They wanted to know when Jesus was going to claim his royal throne in Israel, set them free from the Romans, and rebuild the temle into a glorious temple; in short, they were still thinking in terms of a human kingdom; a kingdom that's ruled as the Gentiles rule, but better. They hadn't yet learned, nor was it revealed to them, of all the answers.

I look forward to discussing this with you further.

God bless you friends.

Joe
Hey Joe,

Excellent answer! :thumb:

I was going to write the same thing myself, but now I don't have to. I just highlighted your words bold red!

This looks like it is going to be a great discussion. We have some very thoughtful folks with different understandings coming together to dig into the truth of God's Word. It don't get no better than this! :D

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Hey Joe,

Excellent answer!

I was going to write the same thing myself, but now I don't have to. I just highlighted your words bold red!

This looks like it is going to be a great discussion. We have some very thoughtful folks with different understandings coming together to dig into the truth of God's Word. It don't get no better than this!

Richard

Well thank you kindly, Brother Richard. Oh, and by the way, I received my pay check....but it's a bit too much. :D Just kidding.

I hope to engage in a very thorough discussion of the Olivet Discourse. I think many have made the same mistake I made for years. The problem is caused when we have pre-conceived ideas to answers to a question we "think" is being asked, but may not be. When we begin digging into scripture looking for clues and signs to what we expect to happen, our thoughts are already conflicted, and our conclusions will not be based on what it may otherwise be. For instance, when we search the Bible for clues on the return of Jesus, we automatically assume that each passage referring to a type of end, restoration, or coming all has to do with a single moment in time. The Matthew 24 discussion is a classic example. We fail to keep the Matthew 24 discussion in its perspective, and context, and our logic is throne right out the window. The result is arriving at conclusions that were not part of the text.

I've proposed that Matthew was not recording the question, "Lord, when shall you return and what's the sign that this will happen?" It's improbable that Matthew would ask such a question, because even after His death on the cross, they were all saddened. Why? Because, "They had hoped He was the one who was prophesied about who would set Israel free from captivity..." Yet Jesus appeared to them and began explaining how the prophets predicted His suffering, and that He must rise on the 3rd day. And this event (or these events of his death) took place weeks after the Olivet Discourse discussion.

Even prior to His departure into Heaven, they still didn't understand. For they asked in Acts 1, "Lord will you at this time restore the Kingdom to Israel?", thus proving that even then they didn't understand. His reply was basically, "It's not for you to know these kinds of things, but wait for the gift my Father Promised...." This shows that even at this point, they still didn't understand everything.

Step forward in time, prior to Peter's death. He knew that Israel was not going to be set free, for he himself states, "The end of all things (involving Israel) is at hand...." For he wrote to the 12 tribes scattered abroad. Thus it would take years into their ministry before they began to understand.

I know I probably sound a little confusing, but my point is simply this. Matthew, Mark, and Luke all recorded the same Olivet Discourse. The question evolved around the temple's predicted destruction. The Apostles were expecting their new found Messiah to claim his rightful place as King of all Israel, restore the throne of David, and rule from geographical Israel, as it was in the days of David, and Solomon.....the glory days. Here sits a gorgeous temple that was built by the wealth provided from the Jews, along with converts of all the surrounding nations into Judaism. "But Lord! Look at the splendor of the temple...." cried the already confused Apostles, after Jesus just condemned the wealthy Jews for giving alms out of their wealth, and not their heart. Coincidently, the wealth was supposed to be used to support even the old lady, who showed that she not only gave from her heart, but all that she had to live. The result would be Jesus predicting the complete destruction of what their (Jews) wealth had built, which also showed where their heart was truly stuck on....the establishment of things, as opposed to their neighbor. This was not God's intension. As Paul stated, "They stumbled over the stumbling stone..." because they didn't understand what the temple's meaning was all about. Everything they practiced and worshiped was supposed to lead them to Christianity, a kingdom based on faith, body, Spirit, and love, and not on stones, man-made temples, and greedy priests.

Therefore, Matthew 24 records the question going through their minds. When was Jesus going to make his "Presence" known, declare himself the King of Israel, destroy the temple, rebuild it as prophesied (probably Ezekiel), and bring back the glory days of Israel's power. But this wasn't His plan, at least not how they probably perceived it. His plan was to bring all mankind unto Himself, building one glorious temple, through which is home of God's Spirit.

You see folks. God didn't send His son to die on the cross so that he could sit in temples of brick and stone. God became like man so that man could become like God. And God is love, and His love is for us, and NOT what we build. The temple served nothing more as a spiritual painting pertaining to Christianity, and all of that has been established. Therefore, why would we seek for another temple, other than the one that already exists?

Sorry I tend to skew off topic sometimes my friends...I have a tendency to do that. Forgive me once again Brother Richard.

In conclusion, the Olivet Discourse was solely about the temple's destruction, when it would happen, and how would they know that Christ was about to come and fulfill this terrible event. He thus gave them the listed signs, and concludes that "This generation would not pass" until everything, every sign, had come to pass, resulting in a New Heaven, and a New Earth.

Put all of this into one solidified context, and you have a grave error in how Matthew 24 has incorrectly been interpreted for centuries. Remember, how could they ask when His return would be, if they had no idea He was even leaving. I challenge those of opposing views to read the gospel of John. Jesus asked, "I'm going but none of you has asked where I am going....."

Joe

[yeshua_seven]

Historical Premillennialism was short lived. I am now Amillennial.

I hope I haven't frustrated anybody with my appearance on this site to discuss things, and then I disappear for several months.

[Brother Les]

yeshua_seven posted
Historical Premillennialism was short lived. I am now Amillennial.

I hope I haven't frustrated anybody with my appearance on this site to discuss things, and then I disappear for several months.

We are glad that you are back to the Forum. What made you change from your Dispensational thinking to the A-mil paradiym? I held to the A-mil paradiym for 45years and do not stray for from it.

Tell us about your journey if you like.

Blessings
Brother Les

[yeshua_seven]

There were always certain things about premillennialism that didn't seem to fit. Who would enter the Millennium? Why are there huge gaps in certain passages? Why would God have a literal temple rebuilt and sacrifices again in the Millennium? How come all saints are not at the marriage of the Lamb? Questions like that made premillennialism difficult.

I didn't like Amillennialism one bit though. I thought it was so stupid. How could Satan be bound right now? Didn't make any sense. A major factor that brought me into accepting Amillennialism is Reformed Theology. I learned about Martin Luther and John Calvin's believes on the Doctrines of Grace and from there it led me to study Amillennialism which I just accepted a month or so ago. Amillennialism makes much more sense, especially after realizing from the Bible that the church is the New Jerusalem, the city of God, the temple, etc, so why should they be fulfilled in the future literally? I am not fully Reformed and fully Amillennial and I expect to stay that way, because I believe in it very strongly...deep roots.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Hi folks,

I'm glad to see this thread revived. I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding that greatly confuses our understanding of the Olivet Discourse. It has been mentioned twice by two folks earlier in this thread. I quote:




Here's my question to you both. If we all agree that the temple was destoryed in 70AD, as Jesus Himself testified, how then should we look for another coming if He came when He stated He would? All of these events are tied together, and it's imposible to separate the two. I'm confused as to how we can separate the destruction of the temple, and the coming of Christ by several thousand years.

Could you explain this to me? - TheForgiven

Sorry but I can't answer this question at this point other than by saying that first, it doesn't make any sense to me that the second coming already occured, and second, I do believe that prophecies can speak of future events which are seperated by time, as if they were the same event or occurred at the same time. I can't really give any good arguments at this time. The Olivet Discourse has always been a tough section of scripture for me and many others, and I still have to study it more.



Hi Joe,

Richard and I will be discussing this in the future as we talk about the Olivet Discourse, if you would like to join the conversation you are welcome to. It appears that your assumption is that the Olivet Discourse refers to one event only, the second coming of Christ. It actually refers to two events, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the second coming of Christ preceded by the signs of the end of the age. Matthew makes this clear, as the question he has the disciples ask Jesus is twofold.


Both of these posts exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding that has clouded almost all discussions of the Olivet Discourse. There is absolutely no mention of a "second coming" in the text of the Olivet Discourse. Christ spoke of His "parousia - his "coming/presence." The disciples did not know He was leaving, so the idea of a "second coming" was not in their minds and is not part of the text. The text speaks only of "His coming" and given that He said this would happen when the Temple was destroyed, it seems to me that there can be little doubt He was talking of His Coming in power as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and executing judgment upon apostate Jerusalem.

It seems to me that the reason folks have trouble "believing" that the "second coming" happened in 70 AD is because they have inserted a lot of ideas that are not in the text.

I very much look forward to discussing the pros and cons of this view with everyone here.

Many blessings in Christ,

Richard

[yeshua_seven]

He was talking of His Coming in power as King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and executing judgment upon apostate Jerusalem.

Yeah I have read about this view as well and it is very possible. I think my pastor, John Piper, believes this coming was referring to Jesus' coming in judgment upon Jerusalem.

The Olivet Discourse speaks of the sun being darkened, the moon not giving its light, etc. Using the "scripture interpretes scripture" hermeneutic, we see that OT passages use the imagery of the sun being darkened, stars falling from the sky, the moon turning to blood, etc, and in those contexts it refers to the fading glory of a nation when God judges it. Therefore when Jesus says the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, it is referring to the fading glory of Israel when God judges it in 70 AD. I find this very convincing.

The part I'm still seeking to discover is whether this prophecy is one of those double reference prophecies which speak of a near-fulfillment (70 AD) and a distant fulfillment (second coming). I haven't been convinced either way on this aspect.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yeah I have read about this view as well and it is very possible. I think my pastor, John Piper, believes this coming was referring to Jesus' coming in judgment upon Jerusalem.

The Olivet Discourse speaks of the sun being darkened, the moon not giving its light, etc. Using the "scripture interpretes scripture" hermeneutic, we see that OT passages use the imagery of the sun being darkened, stars falling from the sky, the moon turning to blood, etc, and in those contexts it refers to the fading glory of a nation when God judges it. Therefore when Jesus says the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, it is referring to the fading glory of Israel when God judges it in 70 AD. I find this very convincing.

Hey there Yeshua_seven,

I find it very convincing for the same reasons. Thanks for making that clear!



The part I'm still seeking to discover is whether this prophecy is one of those double reference prophecies which speak of a near-fulfillment (70 AD) and a distant fulfillment (second coming). I haven't been convinced either way on this aspect.
I've seen many folks take this the approach, but I don't see any way we could ever determine if it were true. And more importantly, why would we even entertain this idea? What is there in the text that suggests a "near" and a "far" fulfillment? Christ gave a very specific time marker of "Temple destruction" that was fulfilled in it's completeness in 70 AD. I don't see anything in the text that suggests a second "far" fulfillment, and indeed, I don't see how that could be possible since the entire prophecy is centered on the events leading up to and including 70 AD.

It seems that the idea of a "double fulfillment" is really just an an attempt to rescue a doctrine of a "Second Coming" that is not and never was based on a proper interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

Or so it seems to me. ;) I look forward to your insights.

Many blessings,

Richard

[yeshua_seven]

Do you believe in "double fulfillment" in some prophecies, or do you not believe any prophecy in the Bible has double fulfillments?

I agree that based on the language of the Olivet Discourse, it is likely that it only refers to the first century.

I tend to believe that Matthew 24 verse one through verse 35 refers to Jesus' coming in judgment upon Jerusalem. Clearly though, or so it seems to me, the rest of chapter 24 is referring to Jesus' second coming at the end of the church age.

"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (Matthew 24:36)

I believe verses 36 through 51 refer to the Jesus' second coming. What is your view on this?

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Do you believe in "double fulfillment" in some prophecies, or do you not believe any prophecy in the Bible has double fulfillments?

Yes. For example, "Out of Egypt I have called my son" applied first to Israel and then to Christ. But the only reason I know this is because the Bible explained it. No such "second fulfillment" explanations are given for the NT eschatological prophecies. If there are doubles, then we can discuss them after establishing the "main and plain" things that actually ARE explicitly taught in Scripture. Until we establish that foundation, any speculations are worse than useless because they confuse the issues and lead people off into distant loonie lala lands like "Left Behind" and "Late Great."



I agree that based on the language of the Olivet Discourse, it is likely that it only refers to the first century.

Excellent! :thumb:



I tend to believe that Matthew 24 verse one through verse 35 refers to Jesus' coming in judgment upon Jerusalem. Clearly though, or so it seems to me, the rest of chapter 24 is referring to Jesus' second coming at the end of the church age.
"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. (Matthew 24:36)

I believe verses 36 through 51 refer to the Jesus' second coming. What is your view on this?

As mentioned earlier, I don't believe that the idea of a "Second Coming" is taught in the Olivet Discourse. So we should probably establish the foundation of that idea before attempting to apply it to our interpretation.

As for time of fulfillment of verses 36-51, I believe the Bible is explicit that those were fulfilled in the first century. Here's why:

Matthew 24:37-39 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, 39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

It seems to me that Christ was speaking of exactly the same judgment He mentioned just a few verses earlier when He warned of the destruction of 70 AD. Is there any reason to think that He suddenly changed topics? Note also that this coheres with the understanding of the "coming of the son of man" as the "coming in judgment on Jerusalem." It seems to me that preterist view is perfectly coherent.

Richard

[TheForgiven]

Here are two quotes from early century fathers, St. Epiphanes, and St. Eusebius:


Epiphanes (315-403)

"There is indeed a millennium mentioned by St. John; but the most, and those pious men, look upon those words as true indeed, but to be taken in a spiritual sense." (Heresies, 77:26.)

Eusebius (A.D.325)

"This same historian (Papias) also gives other accounts, which he says he adds as received by him from unwritten tradition, likewise certain strange parables of our Lord, and of His doctrine and some other matters rather too fabulous. In these he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection, and that there would be a corporeal reign of Christ on this very earth; which things he appears to have imagined, as if they were authorized by the apostolic narrations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in their representations. For he was very limited in his comprehension, as is evident from his discourses; yet he was the cause why most of the ecclesiastical writers, urging the antiquity of man, were carried away by a similar opinion; as, for instance, Irenaeus, or any other that adopted such sentiments. (Book III, Ch. 39)

"But Cerinthus, too, through revelations written, as he would have us believe, by a great apostle, brings before us marvelous things, which he pretends were shown him by angels; alleging that after the resurrection the kingdom of Christ is to be on earth, and that the flesh dwelling in Jerusalem is again to be subject to desires and pleasures. And being an enemy to the scriptures of God, wishing to deceive men, he says that there is to be space of a thousand years for marriage festivities." "One of the doctrines he taught was, that Christ would have an earthly kingdom." (Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 28)

I'm convinced that Papias was the first to teach a literal 1000 year reign, where-in he spoke of a time when the fruits and vegetation of the earth would be quite abundant. But, as St. Epiphanes pointed out, Papias (the possible cause of Error with Iranaeus, and even Barnabus) that Papias was not very wise in his interpretations, not realizing that prophesy is nearly always symbolic, and not literal. Eusebius also notes that Papias gave no scriptural support for his teachings, but insisted they were verbally passed down to him, as though he had a direct relationship with St. John, or Polycarp.

It wasn't uncommon for 2nd century fathers to bicker back and forth, each one claiming Apostolic connection over the other. Not much is known about Papias, but that in itself is enough for me to write Papias off as a young dreamer, who may have been a Saint of God, but not preaching the knowledge in truth. As St. Eusebius declares, many of the Old Testmant prophesies were to be taken allegorically, and not literally. It seems we have teachers making the same mistakes today; clear evidence can bee seen by false assumptions, and/or predictions. And lets be clear. "Assuming" that the end of the world is near, yet never coming to pass, is just as bad as declaring its end.

St. Eusebius was not a perfect instructor as some of his writings contained some strange points (particularly about Hell), I'd say that his contributions indicated that Preterism (although not called that) had acceptance within many congregations.

Sound off my fellow Saints....what say you all?

Joe

Oh, and here is what Papias had to say about the Millennium:


"the Lord taught and said, That the days shall come in which vines
shall spring up, each having 10,000 branches, and in each branch
shall be 10,000 arms, and on each arm of a branch 10,000 tendrils,
and on each tendril 10,000 bunches, and on each bunch 10,000
grapes, and each grape, on being pressed, shall yield five and
twenty gallons of wine; and when any one of the Saints shall take
hold of one of these bunches, another shall cry out, 'I am a better
bunch, take me, and bless the Lord by me.'"

Papias assumed that the Lord would fulfill his promise to "drink from the fruit of the vine when He comes in His kingdom...", and would thus create an extreme type of garden that produces fruit by the thousands. Apparently, Papias was unable to discern what Christ meant by drinking from the fruit of the vine.

Papias was a disciple of Iranaeus, and so it makes much more sense as to the reason why a few in the 2nd century were drawn into a teaching that contained quite a few errors; not as though all the early fathers were not without error. Iranaeus has stated a few errors which warrant enough criticism to discard his teachings as that of a mere man. Papias was obviously questioned about some of his teachings, and thus claimed that those teachings were not by writing, but by direct verbal descendants from the Apostle John. Apparently, a few other Bishops of the same century challenged Papias with his literal interpretation of the Millennium.

[joel]

Joe
Which of Church Fathers teach of the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, and what do they say concerning the "coming of the Lord", etc. that is fundamental to preterism?

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Greetings brother Joel. Great to see you again.

I searched the web and found an old website that had a list of ECF letters.

Here are two that stood out, but there are more:


150AD Justin Martyr (On the Significance of A.D.70) CHAP. XLVII.--Desolation Of Judaea Foretold. That the land of the Jews, then, was to be laid waste, hear what was said by the Spirit of prophecy. And the words were spoken as if from the person of the people wondering at what had happened. They are these: "Sion is a wilderness, Jerusalem a desolation. The house of our sanctuary has become a curse, and the glory which our fathers blessed is burned up with fire, and all its glorious things are laid waste: and Thou refrainest Thyself at these things, and hast held Thy peace, and hast humbled us very sore."(6) And ye are convinced that Jerusalem has been laid waste, as was predicted. And concerning its desolation, and that no one should be permitted to inhabit it, there was the following prophecy by Isaiah: "Their land is desolate, their enemies consume it before them, and none of them shall dwell therein."(7) And that it is guarded by you lest any one dwell in it, and that death is decreed against a Jew apprehended entering it, you know very well.(8)

160AD Clement of Alexandria (On Matthew 24:15, The Abomination of Desolation) "We have still to add to our chronology the following, -- I mean the days which Daniel indicates from the desolation of Jerusalem, the seven years and seven months of the reign of Vespasian. For the two years are added to the seventeen months and eighteen days of Otho, and Galba, and Vitellius; and the result is three years and six months, which is "the half of the week," as Daniel the prophet said. For he said that there were two thousand three hundred days from the time that the abomination of Nero stood in the holy city, till its destruction. For thus the declaration, which is subjoined, shows: "How long shall be the vision, the sacrifice taken away, the abomination of desolation, which is given, and the power and the holy place shall be trodden under foot? And he said to him, Till the evening and morning, two thousand three hundred days, and the holy place shall be taken away." … "These two thousand three hundred days, then, make six years four months, during the half of which Nero held sway, and it was half a week; and for a half, Vespasian with Otho, Galba, and Vitellius reigned. And on this account Daniel says, "Blessed is he that cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." For up to these days was war, and after them it ceased. And this number is demonstrated from a subsequent chapter, which is as follows: "And from the time of the change of continuation, and of the giving of the abomination of desolation, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." " (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 2, p. 334)

Here's a link for more reading.

http://www.bible.ca/H-Mt-24-destruction-jerusalem-70AD.htm

God bless brother Joel.

Joe

[TheForgiven]

Re-quoting Papias:


"the Lord taught and said, That the days shall come in which vines
shall spring up, each having 10,000 branches, and in each branch
shall be 10,000 arms, and on each arm of a branch 10,000 tendrils,
and on each tendril 10,000 bunches, and on each bunch 10,000
grapes, and each grape, on being pressed, shall yield five and
twenty gallons of wine; and when any one of the Saints shall take
hold of one of these bunches, another shall cry out, 'I am a better
bunch, take me, and bless the Lord by me.'"

Let's assume, if you will, that what the Lord stated what Papias claimed was verbally passed down to him. It's difficult to accept this parable as a true saying of Christ because nothing was recorded in the Gospels. At the same time, this parable does seem to have significance, if one takes it figuratively, as Christ nearly always spoke. In fact, almost nothing the Lord stated prophetically could be taken literally.

At any rate, let's assume that this was a true saying by the Lord Jesus. How could this be shown significant regarding His Kingdom?

We know that the Kingdom of God is spiritual. For Jesus taught the Apostles (and the Samaritan woman at the well) that the "mountain" of which the Kingdom represented would not be the same as the former physical Mountain; nay, the Kingdom of God would come in such a way that one would not be able to physically point it out, as if to say, "Over there!" and "Behold!" For (as the Lord taught) the Kingdom of God is within/among you. The Kingdom that was promised was that of faith, wherein dwells the righteous by faith, and not of works (of the law), lest anyone should boast. The Kingdom began with Christ, and was expanded by the works of the Apostles.

Now that we've established the Kingdom of Faith (as the Church), which makes up the Israel of God, and not of flesh, how then would the parable be applicable to the Church? First He says:

"the Lord taught and said, That the days shall come in which vines
shall spring up, each having 10,000 branches, and in each branch
shall be 10,000 arms, and on each arm of a branch 10,000 tendrils,
and on each tendril 10,000 bunches, and on each bunch 10,000
grapes, and each grape, on being pressed, shall yield five and
twenty gallons of wine...."

This sounds like a perfect picture of Church expansion, with each branch representing the Christians abiding in Christ. Jesus said in the Gospel of John, "I am the vine, you are the branches...." Thus, each branch expanded to more, and more, and more. The fruits represent the good-works of the Saints. The New Testament teaches us that, "By their fruit, ye shall know them...for every tree is known by its fruit..."

Thus, the first part of the parable sounds much like the growth of the Christian Church. Now what about the latter part of the parable?

and when any one of the Saints shall take
hold of one of these bunches, another shall cry out, 'I am a better
bunch, take me, and bless the Lord by me.'"

This to me sound like Churches boasting themselves over other Churches, and exclaiming that they are better (or perhaps more true) than the rest, and thus they welcome members to their Church, as opposed to the others. We see this happen all throughout the centuries; especially in our day.

In conclusion, if the parable of the Lord was true, as proclaimed by Papias, then I see this as very significant to the Churches throughout the centuries since her beginning. Papias was interpreting this parable literally, and assumed that Christ would literally set up a kingdom through which would produce literal fruits by the thousands, in order to make wine and fulfill the words of Christ when He said, "For I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the day I drink it with you within the Kingdom...." It's obvious that Papias was mistaken with his interpretation, as pointed out by St. Eusebius of the 3rd century.

Finally, I do not believe that Jesus taught this parable since it was not recorded in the Gospels, but I do believe its possible a later Bishop/Elder taught this, perhaps even from St. John. There's just no way of knowing if what Papias quoted is genuinely from Chirst, considering others questioned where he got this information from, and he claimed it something written on scrolls, but verbally passed down as though it came directly from the Apostles. Yet neither they, nor Christ, have spoken this parable in the New Testament. But, as I've stated, I can see the parable being true to early and modern Christianity.

Sound off my fellow Saints.

Joe

[joel]

Have you found, Joe, reference to Clement of Rome?

There is no dispute concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. There is, however, a lack of agreement on the significance of the event.

It is wise advise to compare any teaching to that of Paul as he is the Apostle to the Gentiles.

Your views concerning the resurrection occurring at 70AD do not harmonize with Paul's teachings concerning resurrection as found in his letter to the Corinthians, and expanded in Phillipians, and Thessalonians. It seems to me that these explanations should take precedence over the writings and/or oral traditions of anyone else.

Blessings, Joel

[TheForgiven]

Have you found, Joe, reference to Clement of Rome?


Could you refresh my memory as to what I was looking for brother Joel? I remember something about mentioning Clement. Did it have to do with him teaching a form of Preterist view? Or was it Futurist?


There is no dispute concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD. There is, however, a lack of agreement on the significance of the event.

A lot of the ECF's understood that Matthew 24 was fulfilled. However, there were a few that did not consider it fulfilled, and it was those who met with objection. That is why many of the ECF's bickered back and forth. This bickering went on even into the 3rd century (to even today). Constantine, after this theoretical conversion, attempted to unite the fathers and formed a counsel of some type. He published several books/letters and offered his opinion of different matters disputed. One such matter was the millennial reign of Christ, which he defined as the souls saved while upon earth. Revelation states that those who took part in the first resurrection, are those who have been baptized. John's Revelation states that these would be "Priests of God, and of His Christ...." St. Peter states that Christians are a royal priesthood, a holy nation. That is why Constantine was convinced that the first resurrection is symbolic of rebirth. I, of course, do not quite agree.


It is wise advise to compare any teaching to that of Paul as he is the Apostle to the Gentiles.

I would agree as I do not hold the fathers as without error. None of them were, just as none of us are. However, it shows that Preterist are not as uncommon as most would think. A form of Preterism did exist as early as the 2nd century; as did Futurism.


Your views concerning the resurrection occurring at 70AD do not harmonize with Paul's teachings concerning resurrection as found in his letter to the Corinthians, and expanded in Phillipians, and Thessalonians. It seems to me that these explanations should take precedence over the writings and/or oral traditions of anyone else.

Actually, I think Paul's letters complement the resurrection. Please specify exactly where you do not agree.

Joe

[joel]

Joe,

since we are to be "in the likeness of His resurrection, it seems to me that such a resurrection is actual, and not figurative or symbolic.

according to Paul, the resurrection(s) occur in groups, or companies (tagma). Christ is the Firstfruit (the 1st company).
then, they are His at His coming, (as a group)....which includes us, both believers who have fallen asleep in Christ and those who alive at His coming...as one group.
then,......the consummation, when there will be a resurrection of the just, and unjust.

If there was a resurrection occurring at the 70 AD destruction, then, it would comprise yet another group which conflicts with Paul's explanation. Also, if there were such a resurrection occurring in 70 AD I find no eye witness report or second-hand report in the writings of the early Fathers.

Joel

[TheForgiven]

Joe,

since we are to be "in the likeness of His resurrection, it seems to me that such a resurrection is actual, and not figurative or symbolic.

according to Paul, the resurrection(s) occur in groups, or companies (tagma). Christ is the Firstfruit (the 1st company).
then, they are His at His coming, (as a group)....which includes us, both believers who have fallen asleep in Christ and those who alive at His coming...as one group.
then,......the consummation, when there will be a resurrection of the just, and unjust.

If there was a resurrection occurring at the 70 AD destruction, then, it would comprise yet another group which conflicts with Paul's explanation. Also, if there were such a resurrection occurring in 70 AD I find no eye witness report or second-hand report in the writings of the early Fathers.

Joel

How do you know that a resurrection has not happened? I know you assume that, but that doesn't mean we are not raised, or nobody has not yet been raised, other than Christ.

Consider Matthew account of a resurrection which took place. That was a very significant event, and there are outside sources (non-Christian) which spoke of Matthew's resurrection. One such document is a letter written from Pliny to Caesar, inquiring on how to handle such a magnificent event, and what to do. But since you brought up the early fathers, how come none of them mentioned the resurrection which happened according to Matthew? Does their silence mean it never happened? Think about it.

Now regarding the resurrection, Jesus was raised, thus proving that there is a resurrection. But the difference between His, and ours, is that our bodies decay, whereas his did not. The prophets spoke of how the body of the Lord would not see decay. We, on the other hand, do see decay. But we also know that it's not impossible with the Lord to raise someone even from nothing.

Christ, the first fruits, then those who have fallen asleep at his coming. I see no reason or indication why this could not have happened in 70AD.

I believe the difficulty you are having is that you seem to believe in two resurrections, as of no more resurrections will occur after the 2nd one. One group will be in eternal fire, and the other group in eternal paradise. There are no scriptures which speak of merely two resurrections (first and last). Notice that Revelation says "First and Second" resurrection. No verse ever speaks of a "Last" resurrection. Yet God calls Himself the "Alpha and Omega; the First and the Last" indicating that he's the starter of all things, as well as the finisher. Yet we're never told that only two resurrections would occur with mankind. We're told of a first, and a second. And those resurrections had to do with those who suffered Martyrdom, and those who died during the thousand years. Now notice also how John writes, "The rest of the dead (when the 1000 years are completed) did not come to life...." After the 1000 years is completed, Satan is let loose to deceive the nations, and amass an army of deception. But John is told that the "rest of the dead" lived not again until the 1000 years is completed. Well, this would indicate that a resurrection must take place when the 1000 years is completed (2nd resurrection), and then another one must happen even after that one when Satan and his amassed army is destroyed, leading to the GWT judgment.

So, if we use the literal approach, the resurrections must look like this.

1. First resurrection (prior to the 1000 years)
2. Second resurrection (at the completion of the 1000 years)

3. Satan released; builds army of deception
4. Final battle

5. Last resurrection (Great White Throne Judgment)

See the problem?

Think about it.

Joe