# Acts 1:9-10: A challenge to preterist theology



## Bandguy

In my understanding of preterism, the return / coming of the Lord is equated to the Old Testament idea of the Day of the Lord where God judges the wicked and redeems the righteous remnant. This has, indeed, been most foundational to my own views of eschatology. I must admit, however, that my own preterist views are quite challenged when Sproul quotes the passage in Acts 1:9-10 in his book: _The Last Days According to Jesus_, which reads:



> 9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.
> 
> 10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11"Men of Galilee," they said, "why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven."



Acts 1:9-10

If the preterists believe that the end of the Jewish Age was at the destruction of the temple, how do they explain the fact that this appearing was not a visible return. I think we have a big problem arguing that his second coming alluded to here was in any way a metaphor, like it is in the Old Testament. It seems to me to be rather clear that this appearing will be different in that we will physically see him return as we saw him go away. Any thoughts or strong arguments for the preterist point of view based on this information?


----------



## Bandguy

Paul manata said:


> 1. I doubt you'll get a reply from any hyper-preterists here since they'd not be allowed to be members of the board.
> 
> 2. So, which preterists are you referring to?
> 
> 3. The simple answer to your query is to point out a distinction between Jesus' coming in judgment on apostate Israel (which was not bodily) and His second advent (which is His future bodily return) at the end of all things.



2. I figure any preterist would do since all preterists I know, myself included, argue that the second coming was fullfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem.

3. Where does the Bible make that distinction?


----------



## Bandguy

BTW,

What is a "Hyper-Preterist"?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

A hyper preterist, or full preterist teaches that all prophecy has been fulfilled and denies a future bodily resurrection and a bodily second coming of Christ or a new heavens and new earth. I am a partial preterist in the respect that I believe that Mat 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 were mostly fulfilled in 70AD. However I do not believe that 70AD was the second coming. A full preterist is a heretic.


----------



## toddpedlar

Bandguy said:


> BTW,
> 
> What is a "Hyper-Preterist"?



um, you, apparently. So you truly believe the Second Coming took place in 70AD? What is left to be fulfilled, then?


----------



## Bandguy

toddpedlar said:


> um, you, apparently. So you truly believe the Second Coming took place in 70AD? What is left to be fulfilled, then?



I am? I didn't realize that. You tell me. What is left to be fullfilled? I am open, I think, to changing my mind if I am in error. Perhaps, I am confused in my eschatology. When Jesus says in the Olivet Discourse that all these things will happen in their generation, what does he mean?

Joseph Botwinick


----------



## Anton Bruckner

What is left to be fulfilled is Revelations 20:7 and onwards.

The Second Advent with the judgment before the White Throne is left to be fulfilled. This is when the millennium officially closes.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Bandguy said:


> I am? I didn't realize that. You tell me. What is left to be fullfilled? I am open, I think, to changing my mind if I am in error. Perhaps, I am confused in my eschatology. When Jesus says in the Olivet Discourse that all these things will happen in their generation, what does he mean?
> 
> Joseph Botwinick




Do you believe in a future bodily resurrection? Do you believe in the visable return of the Lord Jesus Christ in judgment and bringing in the new heavens and new earth, or a 1000 millenial kingdom for that matter?


----------



## Bandguy

Blueridge reformer said:


> Do you believe in a future bodily resurrection? Do you believe in the visable return of the Lord Jesus Christ in judgment and bringing in the new heavens and new earth, or a 1000 millenial kingdom for that matter?




Can I claim confusion? How about if I say I don't know and I need to study more? You guys sure have given me some stuff to think about. Can I get back to you before I am officially declared a heretic?


----------



## toddpedlar

Bandguy said:


> Can I claim confusion? How about if I say I don't know and I need to study more? You guys sure have given me some stuff to think about. Can I get back to you before I am officially declared a heretic?



Just think a little more...you made a straightforward claim to something that has been judged by the church to be well outside the bounds of orthodoxy. If the Second Coming occured in 70AD, well, you got a lots a 'splainin to do, Lucy. I'm more than happy to accept your revision that you 'need to study more'. Don't we all...


----------



## toddpedlar

Slippery said:


> What is left to be fulfilled is Revelations 20:7 and onwards.
> 
> The Second Advent with the judgment before the White Throne is left to be fulfilled. This is when the millennium officially closes.



So are you arguing that Jesus came the second time in 70AD?


----------



## Anton Bruckner

I'm arguing that the Second Advent still needs to be fulfilled with the bodily resurrection and judgment of all men.

What has been fulfilled in the judgment on Jerusalem circa A.D 70, the inauguration of the Reign of the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Father at the Ascencion of Jesus, and the inauguration of the Millenial Kingdom with Christ at the head, for He must needs be ruled until He puts his enemies under his footstool.


----------



## Bandguy

toddpedlar said:


> Just think a little more...you made a straightforward claim to something that has been judged by the church to be well outside the bounds of orthodoxy. If the Second Coming occured in 70AD, well, you got a lots a 'splainin to do, Lucy. I'm more than happy to accept your revision that you 'need to study more'. Don't we all...



Question about the Olivet Discourse:

What do you believe Jesus is describing here? I think he is talking about the signs of the end of the age. Is the end of the age different from his second coming?


----------



## Robin

Joseph,

It is first good to consider the real (historical) context of Jesus' response to his own disciple's questions:


Mark 13:1-37 
(Jesus Foretells Destruction of the Temple)
And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.

And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?" 

And Jesus began to say to them, "See that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray. And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains. 

"*But *be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them. And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 

(The Abomination of Desolation)
"*But* when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that it may not happen in winter. For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. False christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. *But* be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand. 

(The Coming of the Son of Man)
"But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. 

(The Lesson of the Fig Tree)
"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 0Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. 

(No One Knows That Day or Hour)
"But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard, keep awake. For you do not know when the time will come. It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to stay awake. *Therefore *stay awake--for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or when the crows, or in the morning-- lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. And what I say to you I say to all: Stay awake."

First, read the whole encounter in context. Pay attention to the grammar. Another item is the "double-fulfillment" quality of prophecy (as established in the OT.) Much of Jesus' language is overlapping events such as the tighter application to his disciples in that "generation" while also referring to the ultimate Day of the Lord (Second Advent.)

Much confusion occurs over simple grammar/reading errors.

Robin


----------



## RamistThomist

Robin, can you prove (premise, conclusion following premise) the following:



> Another item is the "double-fulfillment" quality of prophecy (as established in the OT.) Much of Jesus' language is overlapping events such as the tighter application to his disciples in that "generation" while also referring to the ultimate Day of the Lord (Second Advent.)



Can you also prove (premise, conclusion following premise) that it applies to this passage?


----------



## Robin

Bandguy said:


> Question about the Olivet Discourse:
> What do you believe Jesus is describing here? I think he is talking about the signs of the end of the age. Is the end of the age different from his second coming?



He's referring to BOTH events, J.

Something we miss in our time is the important connection the disciples had to their own life and culture.

Imagine, a first century Jew before 70 AD viewed his "entire world" as being defined by the temple! The temple itself had become a stumbling block in the disciples' mind. They were disturbed at the thought of not "needing" the Temple as the center of worshipping God.

The physical presense of that building was stunningly majestic and had every trait of being "eternal." Yet, Jesus warns of a time when it will be gone. That probably had the same effect on the disciples as would our learning the Capital or the White House would be razed to the ground. ??? They could not have imagine such a time! In a sense, in this dialog, the disciples expressed a very "preterist" eschatology and Jesus corrects them!

r.


----------



## Bandguy

Robin said:


> Much of Jesus' language is overlapping events such as the tighter application to his disciples in that "generation" while also referring to the ultimate Day of the Lord (Second Advent.)



Much of what you said made a lot of sense to me until you got to this part. This is the second time I have seen this phrase used in this thread, and if need be, as everyone has clearly seen, I am ready to claim ignorance and beg for your grace in responding to it. What is this "second advent" and where is it taught in scripture? Is this a third coming of the Lord? What is the distinction between the second coming and the second advent?

Thanks.


----------



## Bandguy

Robin said:


> The physical presense of that building was stunningly majestic and had every trait of being "eternal." Yet, Jesus warns of a time when it will be gone. That probably had the same effect on the disciples as would our learning the Capital or the White House would be razed to the ground. ??? They could not have imagine such a time! In a sense, in this dialog, the disciples expressed a very "preterist" eschatology and Jesus corrects them!
> 
> r.



Huh? What is your definition of preterist eschatology?


----------



## RamistThomist

Robin said:


> He's referring to BOTH events, J.
> 
> Something we miss in our time is the important connection the disciples had to their own life and culture.
> 
> Imagine, a first century Jew before 70 AD viewed his "entire world" as being defined by the temple! The temple itself had become a stumbling block in the disciples' mind. They were disturbed at the thought of not "needing" the Temple as the center of worshipping God.
> 
> The physical presense of that building was stunningly majestic and had every trait of being "eternal." Yet, Jesus warns of a time when it will be gone. That probably had the same effect on the disciples as would our learning the Capital or the White House would be razed to the ground. ??? They could not have imagine such a time! In a sense, in this dialog, the disciples expressed a very "preterist" eschatology and Jesus corrects them!
> 
> r.



You are supposed to *prove* that, not reassert it.


----------



## bookslover

Bandguy said:


> What is the distinction between the second coming and the second advent?
> 
> Thanks.



No distinction. "Second coming" and "second advent" are two names for the same thing - the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Advent" is just a more expensive word than "coming".


----------



## Bandguy

bookslover said:


> No distinction. "Second coming" and "second advent" are two names for the same thing - the return of our Lord Jesus Christ. "Advent" is just a more expensive word than "coming".



It seems to me that some are treating them as two seperate events. Am I misunderstanding what they are saying here?



> The simple answer to your query is to point out a distinction between Jesus' coming in judgment on apostate Israel (which was not bodily) and His second advent (which is His future bodily return) at the end of all things.






> Much of Jesus' language is overlapping events such as the tighter application to his disciples in that "generation" while also referring to the ultimate Day of the Lord (Second Advent.)


----------



## Robin

Draught Horse said:


> Robin, can you prove (premise, conclusion following premise) the following:
> 
> Can you also prove (premise, conclusion following premise) that it applies to this passage?



Sure, but there's so much to it it's for another thread. ??

For now, it's good to sit and think about this dialog. It had great import to the disciples at the time. 

There is no doubt that the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD partially, fulfills the Lord's prophecy to the disciples. It is also clear that the Bible does not teach of Christ's coming in judgment which is invisible and local to Jerusalem. Behold, the real "tension" between the "already" and "not yet" style language of Jesus.

(Let's see if we can learn things from the Text only, OK? I think Scripture is pretty clear.)

r.


----------



## RamistThomist

> (Let's see if we can learn things from the Text only, OK? I think Scripture is pretty clear.)



With all due respect, I believe the same thing. Thus, on that belief, I hold that I am right and you are wrong. You are arbitrarily asserting your paradigm. Since it is an assertion, all I have to do is merely deny it and counter-assert my own paradigm.


----------



## Robin

Bandguy said:


> It seems to me that some are treating them as two seperate events. Am I misunderstanding what they are saying here?



No, that's not quite it, Joseph.

There are only (2) advents: incarnation and consummation. Both are physical appearances by the God-Man.

However, many folks misconstrue the understanding of how God declares what he will do and then acts -- over the broad, epic of Redemptive history.

The events of 70 AD do not mark the dawn of the "age to come" - the final consummation does (Luke 20:35.)

While the events of 70 AD are vital to the course of redemptive history, they do not constitute our Lord's Parousia or the judgment. The contrast between this age and the age to come is a contrast between things eternal and things temporal.


----------



## Bandguy

Draught Horse said:


> With all due respect, I believe the same thing. Thus, on that belief, I hold that I am right and you are wrong. You are arbitrarily asserting your paradigm. Since it is an assertion, all I have to do is merely deny it and counter-assert my own paradigm.




Jacob,

I think Robin is right about at least one thing for sure, which is the issue of this thread. The Bible clearly teaches in Acts 1:9-10 that Jesus' return would be a visible physical return. Since this is true, the preterist position stands in peril. Don't you think?


----------



## bob

Joseph,

Most preterists teach that Jesus' return will be a visible, physical return. There are some preterists, usually referred to as hyperpreterists, who do view the Second Coming has having been fulfilled in history. This position does indeed stand in peril and should be considered as unbiblical and heretical.

His Second Coming is visible. His return at the last trump (1 Cor 15:52) marks the end of history. He gathers the elect from the four corners of the earth, the resurrection take place, the last of his enemies are placed beneath his feet, and he delivers the kingdom to the Father.

There is some debate even among orthodox preterist as to how to best interpret the Olivet discourse. Some view the verses regarding the coming of the son of man as referring to His coming in judgment, and not to his bodily return. Others allow a tension in the text, allowing it to refer to a lesser extent as a means of not only describing the destruction of Jerusalem, but also to a greater extent the second coming. A third view suggests that Christ shifts gears so to speak and begins to teach about His coming. He writes that the Coming of the Son of Man will come AFTER that tribulation, but he does not reveal how much time will expire. I take this third view.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

http://www.sermonaudio.com/play.asp?ID=10205224633&sourceID=ccc

The heresey of full preterism. Worth the listen.


----------



## MW

I think if you interpret the Olivet discourse according to its prophetic nature, that is, as covenant driven, as over against event driven, you will discover that there is nothing in it that refers to AD 70. In fact there is nothing in the whole NT that has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem at that time.

Let's not forget the basics of reformed biblical theology. Act-revelation is always accompanied with word-revelation, which provides infallible interpretation of the works of God. Act-revelation, the fulfilment of prophecy, requires word revelation to show the significance of what God has accomplished. The second coming of Christ is the next revelation which believers are to expect. With the epiphany of Christ will come the unveiling (apocalypse) of the plan of God thoughout the ages with relation to his church in the world.


----------



## Robin

armourbearer said:


> I think if you interpret the Olivet discourse according to its prophetic nature, that is, as covenant driven, as over against event driven, you will discover that there is nothing in it that refers to AD 70. In fact there is nothing in the whole NT that has reference to the destruction of Jerusalem at that time.
> 
> Let's not forget the basics of reformed biblical theology. Act-revelation is always accompanied with word-revelation, which provides infallible intepretation of the works of God. Act-revelation, the fulfilment of prophecy, requires word revelation to show the significance of what God has accomplished. The second coming of Christ is the next revelation which believers are to expect. With the epiphany of Christ will come the unveiling (apocalypse) of the plan of God thoughout the ages with relation to his church in the world.



 

And...recall, Jesus, as Covenant Head in Prophetic office pronounces the Covenant curses upon Israel when He does the "Woe unto, xyz..." on the Pharisees. Then, the renting of the Temple veil is evidence that it's over (aka the temple/building et al) with national Israel - the true Temple: Jesus Christ has come! In many ways, 70 AD does in fact result from Jesus' words (in part) in the Olivet.

Jesus speaks the same way in that he is deliberately excerpting prophecy to apply to a particular moment (in the synagogue at Nazareth in Luke 4:18-19)

"The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
because he has anointed me
to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives
and recovering of sight to the blind,
to set at liberty those who are oppressed,
to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."

This is an excerpt from Isaiah 61:1-4. Here is some of what Jesus left out:

and the day of vengeance of our God;
to comfort all who mourn; 
to grant to those who mourn in Zion--
to give them a beautiful headdress instead of ashes,
the oil of gladness instead of mourning,
the garment of praise instead of a faint spirit;
that they may be called oaks of righteousness,
the planting of the LORD, that he may be glorified. 
They shall build up the ancient ruins;
they shall raise up the former devastations;
they shall repair the ruined cities,
the devastations of many generations. .... Etc.

Why did Jesus edit this prophecy? His ministry at that time was not about vengeance (that's for judgment day.) Isaiah 61 has both first and second advents in them. It's not meant to be chopped up. There's a completely different spin when it's read in context but also in the flow of the entire book of Isaiah! Plus, keeping the covenantal tenents intact throughout all of it.


----------



## RamistThomist

Robin, again, you have reasserted your position. I am no longer going to address it.

Now to address Bandguy: It can either go end of space-time universe or AD 70. Either way is fine for me and does not affect the partial-preterist reading.

Rev. Winzer:
You said *none* of this applies to 70 AD. My question, When Jesus said *this* generation will not pass away, to what generation was he referring?


----------



## Robin

Joseph,

The New Testament unfolds an eschatalogical tension between things which are already fulfilled in Jesus Christ and things which yet remain to be fulfilled. The resurrection of the body is one example. In the Olivet Christ taught that his coming is both immanent ("this generation will not pass away") and distant (the parable of the ten virgins.) This tension between signs and suddeness of the Lord's return prevents two potential problems - date setting and idleness.

Paul's writings are similar, stressing the "already" and "not yet" sorts of things. Rom. 8:23-25 those present blessings which are ours in Christ but which are not yet the full blessings of the consummation. Ex. Paul said those who are in Christ through faith have already been raised with him and are seated in the heavenlies (Eph. 2:6), while the redemption of our bodies (the resurrection) has not yet occurred.

The tension of this language throughout the NT raises the difficult interpretive questions. Partial preterism tries to relieve the tension by emphasizing this age ended in AD 70-Christ came back in judgment. Full preterism leaves no place for eschatology while partial preterism reduces it. Reducing eschatology opens the door to interpreting passages that speak of a new heaven/new earth as applying to the present age (Isa. 2:2-4). This comports well with postmill assumptions about a future golden age happening before the Second Advent - which does explain why postmill leanings relate to partial preterist views.

Dealing with Jesus and Paul's language on the "two ages: this present evil age" and "the age to come" is important too.

The two ages are not merely two periods in redemptive-history time but are two distinct eschatological epochs - with the age to come not being fully realized until our Lord's second advent. (Use the above examples for Scriptural references: resurrection and our present blessings, Etc.)


----------



## Anton Bruckner

I am of the Matthew Henry position.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=mt&chapter=024

The Olivete Discourse can be interpreted as being fulfilled whilst still holding to the view that the second advent is future.

Here is Matthew Henry's commentary on Acts 1:9-10
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/MatthewHenryComplete/mhc-com.cgi?book=ac&chapter=001


----------



## MW

Draught Horse said:


> Rev. Winzer:
> You said *none* of this applies to 70 AD. My question, When Jesus said *this* generation will not pass away, to what generation was he referring?



Semantically, "generation" not only refers to a period of time in which contemporaries live, but also to a race of people sharing the same characteristics. Thus it is used in Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15. This leads good commentators to the conclusion that it refers to the people of the Jews. I think they are not looking at the language according to its prophetic nature, which requires that words of this kind be understood according to their moral overtones. The word "generation" is used pejoratively in the ministry of Jesus in relation to the wicked and adulterous generation. "This generation" does not pertain to a chronological or geographic group, but to a morally depraved people.

Theologically, it was believed that the coming of God's kingdom would usher in the destruction of the wicked. On the basis of this belief the disciples asked their initial question in verse 3. The whole discourse in fact is only properly understood in the light of the disciples' eschatological understanding as reflected in that question. Throughout the discourse Christ, the great prophet, is correcting the disciples' misbelief concerning the kingdom of God. He is essentially showing the spiritual nature of the kingdom in contrast to their Jewish fictions.

Given that Christ is teaching the spiritual nature of His kingdom, it is contrary to the spirit of the discourse to apply the individual sayings to specific events, whether of Israel's history or the history of the world. An event driven hermeneutic fails to grasp the theological message, the interpretation of which can only be understood in the light of God's covenant with Israel.


----------



## turmeric

[QUOTE}


> Originally Posted by armourbearer
> I think if you interpret the Olivet discourse according to its prophetic nature, that is, as covenant driven, as over against event driven, you will discover that there is nothing in it that refers to AD 70.




And to this Robin inserted an  right below it.

But above, Robin makes this claim,[/QUOTE]





> Mark 13:1-37
> (Jesus Foretells Destruction of the Temple)
> And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.[/QUOTE}
> 
> And so it looks like she's all over the map here.
> 
> *You know when someone has an axe to grind when they make elementary blunders of this type.*
> 
> But, we won't debate this, after all, to her it's like we're disagreeing with her beloved pastor. It's good to love and be devoted to your pastor. And I know I have more fruitful things than to debate someone who's heart is deciding which arguments she finds to be persuasive. I can't contend with that. I admit it.



So what's her ax, I hadn't noticed, which isn't surprising.
Maybe she agreed with the last part of the quote, not the part you quoted? Yes, it was an error.

Is Riddlebarger a preterist? Is that what you meant about her pastor's position? I feel like I got into the middle of a conversation and missed the first part.


----------



## Robin

Proverbs 18:12-13 

Before destruction a man's heart is haughty,
but humility comes before honor. 
If one gives an answer before he hears,
it is his folly and shame. 

No, Paul, I don't agree with Winzer's further unpacking. The Olivet does indeed hold multiple prophetic qualities.

We must not ignore the simple reading of the Text which is Jesus speaking to the disciples' questions.

(Btw, aren't you tired of "gun-slinging?" It must be exhausting...what kind of witness is it - Christian?)


----------



## Robin

armourbearer said:


> Semantically, "generation" not only refers to a period of time in which contemporaries live, but also to a race of people sharing the same characteristics. Thus it is used in Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15. This leads good commentators to the conclusion that it refers to the people of the Jews. I think they are not looking at the language according to its prophetic nature, which requires that words of this kind be understood according to their moral overtones. The word "generation" is used pejoratively in the ministry of Jesus in relation to the wicked and adulterous generation. "This generation" does not pertain to a chronological or geographic group, but to a morally depraved people.
> 
> Theologically, it was believed that the coming of God's kingdom would usher in the destruction of the wicked. On the basis of this belief the disciples asked their initial question in verse 3. The whole discourse in fact is only properly understood in the light of the disciples' eschatological understanding as reflected in that question. Throughout the discourse Christ, the great prophet, is correcting the disciples' misbelief concerning the kingdom of God. He is essentially showing the spiritual nature of the kingdom in contrast to their Jewish fictions.
> 
> Given that Christ is teaching the spiritual nature of His kingdom, it is contrary to the spirit of the discourse to apply the individual sayings to specific events, whether of Israel's history or the history of the world. An event driven hermeneutic fails to grasp the theological message, the interpretation of which can only be understood in the light of God's covenant with Israel.



I'm going to ponder this carefully...but on the surface, I think it might harmonize. Here's why...

It's right to assume the disciples had a faulty understanding of what Jesus meant in his teachings about the Kingdom. The disciples had every sensible reason hold to the (several) messianic expections of their day.

It was clear they continued to mistake Christ's mission for a (at least) a physical liberation from Roman oppression.

As Jesus had to remind Peter "...God doesn't think as men think, get thee behind me, Satan!"

Hmmmm......


----------



## Robin

"Given that Christ is teaching the spiritual nature of His kingdom, it is contrary to the spirit of the discourse to apply the individual sayings to specific events, whether of Israel's history or the history of the world. An event driven hermeneutic fails to grasp the theological message, the interpretation of which can only be understood in the light of God's covenant with Israel."

I think I know what you're saying, pastor Winzer. (I hope so.) I might say it differently, but the last part is especially right.

I think it's important to consider Jesus is really addressing his questioners seriously. He's not ignoring them or the weighty moment in their discussion. 

(I think one of our huge mistakes is we sinfully think everything is about US.
The Story is NOT about us, remember? We all must get on track with what God's Story is doing.)

God has unfolded his own eschatological story in the OT and NT and is still acting today. It is best understood in the big picture. Preterism/partial preterism and dispensationalism truncates eschatology; postmill look for the same things the Jewish zealots looked for in their day. It's wise to be considerate of Jesus' and Paul's teachings on the subject.

Eschatology is not about us getting our "goodies" whatever that means to each of us. It is consistent with the words and actions of God's character throughout all of redemptive history.

r.


----------



## MW

Robin, I fully agree with you about the tendency to see the words as directly applying to us. As one reads the Gospel of St. Matthew it is surprising how much of it relates on a narrative level to what we already take for granted, e.g., the disenfranchising of Israel as the exclusive people of God. Because we take this for granted and hasten to individual application, we miss the rich theological insights the narrative intended. The element of disenfranchisement has also been ignored in Matt. 24. In the interpreter's haste to apply the words to specific events in Israel's history, they have lost sight of what is the single most important covenantal event as far as the move from New Testament to Old Testament is concerned.

I would agree with the comment on postmillennialism only insofar as it relates to a certain kind of it, which tends to make prophetic portions of Scripture find fulfilment in post-canonical events. There is a more spiritual kind of postmillennialism, which is in accord with our Lord's parables of the kingdom, and which considers the kingdom as slowly pervading the whole world, as is depicted in the leaven and the mustard seed.


----------



## turmeric

Paul & Robin,

Don't *make* me come over there!


----------



## puritan lad

I, as well, am an Orthodox (Postmillennial) Preterist, and I love Acts 1:9-11.

See The Errors of Hyper-Preterism


----------



## Kevin

Pau, is that a photo of you defending your bookcase? Against whom? And what must it contain to warrent such a well armed defense?


----------



## puritan lad

Somebody must have tried to sneak a Joel Osteen book into his collection


----------



## Robin

Paul manata said:


> Robin, Robin, Robin,
> 
> You continue to slander theonomists, preterists, postmillennialists,You frequently treat us as if we deny the gospel (in fact I think you've said those exact words)...., and seek to promote ourselves rather than what we believe Scripture teaches.



Prove it.

Btw, Paul...I'm not angry. Since the "charges" are so serious I only ask for a quote/example, please.

r.


----------



## Robin

Bandguy said:


> Huh? What is your definition of preterist eschatology?



Sorry for any potential confusion, Joseph...what I mean by this is the disciples carried an attitude towards the Messiah needing to exact judgment on Jerusalem's enemies and establish a physical kingdom. In some senses this has both preterist and dispensational qualities to it. They misunderstand Jesus' ministry on many various counts -- but it's not blind confusion. It's informed by their Jewish thinking.

For what it's worth...

r.


----------



## turmeric

Paul manata said:


> Be sure to strap on your gat, G.
> 
> Sure, like you really don't want to come out to California, riiight.




Actually, I do. We're having a snowstorm up here in Ore-gone.


----------



## Robin

turmeric said:


> Actually, I do. We're having a snowstorm up here in Ore-gone.



You're welcome, Meg! Mi casa, su casa...

r.


----------



## Robin

I'm especially thinking of people like Joseph...

Though I'm strongly convinced that Scripture upholds a case for "amillennialism" (which is NOT the subject of this thread, btw) I heartily acknowledge and honor the uncomfortable and confusing journey that occurs when one begins to get serious about his/her ideas and convictions about their position on eschatology.

Joseph's remarks about his confusion on his stance and perhaps leaning towards a "heretical" view (full preterism) remind me of myself and others. We are *ALL* stuggling to understand God's Word. It takes time to work things through.

Though my own position may be different, I encourage those who are waffling to keep struggling - and uphold the sensible reading of Scripture. Depend on your pastors and elders to help and rely on their authority. Read honest representations of all sides of the arguments for yourself. The Bible teaches respect and honor to pastor's and elders.

The most serious danger of eschatology is when central doctrines (resurrection and Christology) are threatened. Unless we think the resurrrection is not physical (full preterism), we are all connected to the very same body of Jesus Christ. 

There is something gravely wrong when those new to eschatology fear rage or condemnation from other Christians, whilst attempting to work-out their thinking on a matter. It is sin on the part of those, so zealous for their position that they rush to judge; project their own anger onto others; foist reams of extra-Biblical data to assert dominance; shout others down, Etc. The behavior is self-evident.

People like Joseph should not have to "fear" reaching out and learning in the Christian (especially Reformed) community.

At least, this is the way I see things....

Saved from God's Wrath,

Robin


----------



## bookslover

Bandguy said:


> It seems to me that some are treating them as two seperate events. Am I misunderstanding what they are saying here?



"Jesus second coming on apostate Israel (which was not bodily)..."

A non-physical second advent of Christ? That's certainly not a biblical idea. Sounds like something the Jehovah's Witnesses believe...


----------



## RiverCritter

Orthodox preterists consider the events of 70 A.D. as part of Christ's _first_ advent rather than a "non-physical" second advent.

Daniel 7:13-14 connects the "coming with the clouds" to the ascention of the Son of Man to God the Father, and the giving Him of all dominion and authority. ("Coming" from the Father's point of view)

Isaiah 19:1-4 connects "riding on clouds" as refering to judgment on Egypt.

Micah 1:3-5 speaks of a "coming of the Lord" as refering to the judgment on
Jerusalem via the Babylonian conquest in 586 BC.

Malachi 3:5 speaks of a coming of the Lord for judgment.

Zepheniah 1:14-15 speaks of a "day of clouds" and the "great day of the Lord" in reference to the (then) imminent invasion of the Babylonians in 586 BC.

Joel 2:1-2 speaks of the coming "day of the Lord" and a "day of clouds" in
reference to judgment on Jerusalem. This was written around 820 BC and
could refer either to the Babylonian invasion in 586 BC or the Roman invasion in 70 AD. Either way, "coming on the clouds" means judgment on Zion.

Ezekiel 30:1-4 speaks of a "day of clouds" in reference to judgment on Egypt.

So the Jewish Christian, who knew the Scriptures, understood "coming on the clouds" to mean judgment (especially on Jerusalem) through invasion of Gentile nations. The 70 AD invasion of the Romans on Jerusalem fits that language very well. Most orthodox preterists look at all the events over that 70-year period from Christ's birth to His coming in judgment in 70 AD as all part of Christ's _first_ coming. During that 70-year period Jesus Christ established His church, finished the writing of scriptures, and then destroyed all the old covenant symbols, including the temple, and opened the kingdom to all the nations of the earth. 

The church was predominantly Jewish before 70 AD. Immediately after 70 AD it became mostly Gentile. This fits the "gathering His elect from the four winds" language. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was key to opening the gospel to all the Gentile nations. But that event had to await the completion of scripture, because the temple priests were given the duty to preserve and protect the scriptures from false prophets. Their job ended in 70 AD because prophecy also ceased, the word of God had become complete.

As for Christ's _second_ coming, it will occur when all the historic creeds and confessions say it will occur, at the final resurrection of the living and the dead at the end of history.


----------



## puritan lad

Bookslover,

Jesus said that His "cloud coming" would take place within the Apostle's generation (Matthew 24:30-34). He also made it very clear that the owner of the vineyard would "come" in judgment of the Pharisees (Matthew 21:40-45). In fact, it would happen before the Apostles had "have gone through all the towns of Israel" (Matthew 10:23), while some of his hearers were still alive (Matthew 16:28). Was meaneth this?


----------



## Robin

puritan lad said:


> Bookslover,
> Jesus said that His "cloud coming" would take place within the Apostle's generation (Matthew 24:30-34). He also made it very clear that the owner of the vineyard would "come" in judgment of the Pharisees (Matthew 21:40-45). In fact, it would happen before the Apostles had "have gone through all the towns of Israel" (Matthew 10:23), while some of his hearers were still alive (Matthew 16:28). Was meaneth this?



These references are to the numerous judgments made upon Israel for her unbelief - Christ acting in prophetic office: 1. pronounces the "woes" 2. rents the veil 3. explains the temple going away, Etc.

Jesus Christ was in the "cloud" in the OT. See Jude 5:
"...that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe."

Bottom line, Jesus was teaching an unthinkable notion to the disciples: the Messiah IS the True Israel; the True Temple! 

Judgment upon national Israel (not only in 70 AD but all the other previous judgments/exiles, btw - so Jacob, here's a great example of the multiple fulfillment quality of OT prophecy) is a picture of the Great Day when God consummates his promises to judge the earth; raise the dead; make all things new. The Second Advent is loud, physical and "global". 

It's simple.

What is being missed, apparently, is understanding what Jesus Christ's prophet/priest office works like. During his ministry Christ dispenced Covenant blessings AND curses to Israel.

r.


----------



## Robin

....more about "cloud" references.

Rarely do clouds appear in the Bible in a simple meteorological context. 

The cloud represents God's presence and his appearances are marked with clouds in the OT. Clouds also serve as God's war-chariot in the imaginations of OT poets and prophets (Ps 18:9; 68:4, 104:4; Dan 7:13.) The image of the warrior god riding a chariot into battle is ancient.

The NT use of the cloud theme returns to a theophanic or more specifically, Christophanic, function. At the transfiguration God speaks out of the cloud to identify Jesus "whom I have chosen" Lk 9:35. Jesus, like God in the OT rides on a cloud Acts 1:9. Frequent references to the warrior god is Christ's return as one who rides his cloud chariot into battle (Mtt 24:30; Mk 13:26; 14:26; Lk 21:27; Rev 1:7; cf. Dan 7:13.)



r.


----------



## bookslover

Paul manata said:


> Bookslover, if you refer to post number two on page 1, I never had a "second" in there. Why would you do that?
> 
> You'll notice that in that post I called the physical return of Jesus, the second advent (or coming) of Christ.
> 
> Why don't you explain why you did the above.



The quoted material (the part in quotation marks) was me quoting Bandguy (if I remember rightly), not you. So, either I quoted Bandguy misquoting you, or I quoted Bandguy correctly but one of us threw in the extra word, or...something. Now I'm confused.

In any case, no harm was intended.


----------



## puritan lad

Amen Robin. I agree fully. The question was written as a challenge to non-preterists.

Thanks


----------



## KMK

Bandguy said:


> 2. I figure any preterist would do since all preterists I know, myself included, argue that the second coming was fullfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem.



A little heresy goes along way as is demonstrated by this thread. As a pastor who has had to deal with a full/hyper/consistent preterist for several years now I have come to the following conclusions:

1. This view is not just another eschatalogical view. It is heresy. It is divisive. It is a lust of the flesh. (Gal 5:20) These men get a rush out of shocking us with their ability to quote verses from all over the Bible to support their system. They mysteriously never get excited about discussing any other doctrine. They are a one-trick pony.

2. This view is entirely driven by systematic theology. There is very little exegesis and absolutely no regard for historical Christian thought. Whereas most believe that sound dogma must be built upon the foundation of biblical and historical theology, they view any reliance on the expert witness of 2000 years of Christianity as a weakness. In their minds they are modern day Luthers, standing up to the error of the church. Therefore, there is a general downplay of the power of the Holy Spirit to lead the church into all truth.

3. Because they must at all cost preserve their precious time texts, they pervert large portions of scripture. They believe there are no more pastors or teachers because the 'fullness of Christ' has already come. (Eph 4:13) They believe that there will never be a bodily resurrection (although I don't think they have an answer for Christ being the 'firstfruits' in 1 Cor 15:20). Interestingly, they still take the Lord's Supper.

4. This view is growing and that makes it dangerous. The church needs to get together and put the fire out. That might require we put aside some of our minor differences as those of Dort and Westminster etc. did.

5. I believe the best way to argue with these types is from a biblical and not a systematic point of view. I have a short argument against the full/hyper/consistent preterist view that I would love for some of you to read and critique for me. I am hoping it will be a death blow to my dear friend who has been led astray. It is about 12 pages and I could email it to anyone who has time to read it. My little flock has been exposed and I want to protect them.

6. Bandguy, what kind of church are you in?


----------



## BJClark

RiverCritter;



> The church was predominantly Jewish before 70 AD. Immediately after 70 AD it became mostly Gentile. This fits the "gathering His elect from the four winds" language. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was key to opening the gospel to all the Gentile nations. But that event had to await the completion of scripture, because the temple priests were given the duty to preserve and protect the scriptures from false prophets. Their job ended in 70 AD because prophecy also ceased, the word of God had become complete.



Scripture was complete in 70 AD? How then, can we account for the Three letters of John and the book of Revelation? Which is said to have been written AFTER 70 AD--the three letters of John are said to have been written between 85-96 AD, and Revelation is said to have been written between 90 and 96 AD. 

one is incorrect, either they were all written before 70 AD and we dismiss the latter books of the Bible based on the dates alone that they were supposed to be written, or Scripture was not complete in 70AD, and this is a false teaching. as both can not be true.


----------



## KMK

Paul manata said:


> Hyper-preterists are about as consistent preterists as hyper-calvinists are consistent calvinists.



'Consistent' is a name they give themselves just to rile up the preterist crowd. Again, they get a rush out the shock value of their doctrine.


----------



## Apologia

Preterist means "past", to believe prophecies are in the past. Hyper-preterist would mean extremely, hyper past?

A "full" Preterist (what you are calling Hyper) is best suited for the plain and simple term "Preterist," while the majority of us not in the "full preterist" camp, are best called Partial-Preterists, since we obviously believe parts of the prophecy are past, and parts are not.

When referring to the fulfillment of specific passages, it is simple to say something like, I am a preterist when it comes to Matt. 24. But when referring to yourself in an eschatological standing, you would say "I am a Partial-Preterist when it comes to Bible prophecy as a whole."

Just some clarification of terms,


----------



## Apologia

Paul manata said:


> No, hyper-preterism needs to be constantly exposed for what it is.
> 
> Preterism means 'past.' Yes. It doesn't mean "all is past."
> 
> When referring to myself in an eschatological standing, I would say that I'm either an optamistic amil or a postmill (depends on who I'm talking to  ). If someone asks me about something or other, I'll tell them that I'm a preterist w/ respects to my hermeneutic, and so I interpret that passage as past.
> 
> If they say, "So you believe everything happened?" I'll tell them, no, I'm not a *hyper*-preterist.



Well, I am just saying that logically, the term is applied properly as I stated. You can choose to try to redefine things to better suit your desire, but that doesn't change the root meaning. If you say you are a Preterist in your eschatological standing, you are saying you believe that the eschaton is past. If you are not saying that, then in fact you are a partial-past, partial-futurist, or "partial" preterist. The term Hyper Preterist makes no sense...they are not going "beyond" the realm of past, they are saying it is past, we are saying it is partially-past.


----------



## Apologia

BJClark said:


> RiverCritter;
> Scripture was complete in 70 AD? How then, can we account for the Three letters of John and the book of Revelation? Which is said to have been written AFTER 70 AD--the three letters of John are said to have been written between 85-96 AD, and Revelation is said to have been written between 90 and 96 AD.



Most people (at least in my circles of Reformed "friends") believe Revelation to be written pre-70 AD. You can check out Ken Gentry's book "Before Jerusalem Fell" for a very, very in-depth examination of this. (In case you don't know, Gentry is a Partial-Preterist).

If you can handle reading online, it is free here http://s155777461.onlinehome.us/docs/html/kgbh/kgbj.html


----------



## Apologia

Paul manata said:


> 1. I doubt you'll get a reply from any hyper-preterists here since they'd not be allowed to be members of the board.



But wait, why would it take a "hyper" preterist to respond to his questions? With as many people on here who call Preterism heresy, I assume they have thoroughly studied the position, and should be able to easily provide the Preterist view point on such a passage, as well as a refutation of it, right?


----------



## Apologia

Blueridge reformer said:


> A hyper preterist, or full preterist teaches that all prophecy has been fulfilled and denies a future bodily resurrection and a bodily second coming of Christ or a new heavens and new earth. I am a partial preterist in the respect that I believe that Mat 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21 were mostly fulfilled in 70AD. However I do not believe that 70AD was the second coming. A full preterist is a heretic.



Most partial Preterists I know believe the New Heaven and Earth are already here, so that is not a distinction of Preterism, but partial Preterism too.

We are told in Isaiah what the New Heavens and New Earth are, they are the Gentiles being accepted into God's people. The removal of the Old Heavens and Earth is the removal of the old system, the Temple, the reliance of the people/nation status, and bringing in a new people/covenant, the New Heaven's and Earth. 

So, a good summation of Preterism, is they deny a future bodily resurrection and a future bodily return of Christ. People often say they deny the resurrection and the second coming, but that is not accurate...they just believe those things already happened.


----------



## Apologia

armourbearer said:


> Semantically, "generation" not only refers to a period of time in which contemporaries live, but also to a race of people sharing the same characteristics. Thus it is used in Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15. This leads good commentators to the conclusion that it refers to the people of the Jews. I think they are not looking at the language according to its prophetic nature, which requires that words of this kind be understood according to their moral overtones. The word "generation" is used pejoratively in the ministry of Jesus in relation to the wicked and adulterous generation. "This generation" does not pertain to a chronological or geographic group, but to a morally depraved people.



I would have to disagree with this understanding. This is the same thing the dispensationalist try to argue. Jesus is there standing talking to literal, breathing people, and tell them their generation shall not pass. They would have never understood it to be a race, as is evident from the teachings of immenence later by Peter, Paul and others. Plus, Jesus clears us his point even further in versus such as Matt 16:28, Mark 9:1 and Luke 9:27 where he says "I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

So the expectation, from Jesus own words, were that whatever it was that was to happen, it would be soon, before some of them died (and no, the transfiguration won't qualify to fulfill these verses). He told his people _*they*_ would see it, and he warned _*them*_ of the signs and issues. He was telling _*them*_ how it would take place and what to expect.

We have to remember the context and the audience relevance on such issues. So whatever it was that was to happen, we already know the when, we just have to make our understanding of the how fit with the when.


----------



## Apologia

Paul manata said:


> Well, logically, preterist means "past." It doesn't mean "all" is past.
> 
> I don't say I'm a preterist in my eschatological standing. It's a hermeneutic, not an eschatology.



Well, not sure if this is really worth arguing over, so this is all I will say further...I know what you are saying, and I know how you feel, but I am just saying it is honestly and logically to use the terms like this.

It does mean "past." Past is past, not partially past, but past. You can't say my hermeneutic for "last things" is Preterist, without meaning you believe the full eschaton is past...not just partially past and some partially future, you are saying it is past, plain and simple. 

And you are right, it is a hermeneutic, not a position. But therefore, you can't say your hermeneutic is Preterist when it comes to interpreting prophecy, you would have to say you interpret many things preteristically (is that a legitimate word...lol), and many things futuristically. Making you not a Preterist interpreter by definition, but a Partial-Preterist interpreter. At least it seems clearly that way to me.

Today, it is often used to refer to a position more than to a hermeneutic, so it is hard for anyone to say "When it comes to bible prophecy interpretation, I am a Preterist" without an immediate question from someone...."Full or partial?"


----------



## Apologia

RiverCritter said:


> So the Jewish Christian, who knew the Scriptures, understood "coming on the clouds" to mean judgment (especially on Jerusalem) through invasion of Gentile nations. The 70 AD invasion of the Romans on Jerusalem fits that language very well. Most orthodox preterists look at all the events over that 70-year period from Christ's birth to His coming in judgment in 70 AD as all part of Christ's _first_ coming. During that 70-year period Jesus Christ established His church, finished the writing of scriptures, and then destroyed all the old covenant symbols, including the temple, and opened the kingdom to all the nations of the earth.



Hmmm, I don't know, maybe I have missed something, but I have not really ever heard partial Preterists refer to it all as first coming. The fact that Jesus told his people he was going away and would return in their life time kind of breaks up the idea of all the first coming, doesn't it. It does seem confusing, and seems like we have a second coming in judgment, and a future third coming for the partial Preterist expectation.



RiverCritter said:


> The church was predominantly Jewish before 70 AD. Immediately after 70 AD it became mostly Gentile. This fits the "gathering His elect from the four winds" language. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD was key to opening the gospel to all the Gentile nations. But that event had to await the completion of scripture, because the temple priests were given the duty to preserve and protect the scriptures from false prophets. Their job ended in 70 AD because prophecy also ceased, the word of God had become complete.



I mainly agree with this, it was the destruction of the Old Heaven and Earth system that would allow the coming of the New Heaven and Earth system (per Isaiah 64-65), but that would also follow that the last days, the final hour, the time of the end, and the end of the ages spoken of prior to AD 70 were referring to the end of the Jewish age, right?


----------



## Apologia

puritan lad said:


> Bookslover,
> 
> Jesus said that His "cloud coming" would take place within the Apostle's generation (Matthew 24:30-34). He also made it very clear that the owner of the vineyard would "come" in judgment of the Pharisees (Matthew 21:40-45). In fact, it would happen before the Apostles had "have gone through all the towns of Israel" (Matthew 10:23), while some of his hearers were still alive (Matthew 16:28). Was meaneth this?



At this time in my understanding, I would say this means exactly what you are implying it means. Jesus spoke plainly about the end of the temple system, the end of the age as defined in all of the OT places like Deut. 34, Daniel 12, Isaiah, etc., and he said ALL the things he mentioned would occur during that generation alive when he spoke, before they went throughout all of the cities, before some of them died, etc. 

Again, whatever it was he was saying was to happen, if it did not happen before those breathing people before him had died, then he was lying to them. That is the way I see it at this time in my study.

I have another "interesting" set of passages for discussion, but first, I need to make sure it has not already been discussed on this board (since I am new and haven't browsed all of the discussions, and second, I need to start a new thread...this one has went down way to many rabbit holes from the initial comment.


----------



## puritan lad

In actuality, when a Christian hears the word "preterist", they assume partial. Full preterism is clearly heterodox to the Christian faith, and full preterists disprove their own eschatology everytime they get married (Matthew 22:30).


----------



## Apologia

puritan lad said:


> In actuality, when a Christian hears the word "preterist", they assume partial. Full preterism is clearly heterodox to the Christian faith, and full preterists disprove their own eschatology everytime they get married (Matthew 22:30).



Well, as I already stated, I disagree. I have rarely ever said Preterist and not have some one ask for a qualifier.

And the fact that you would make a comment such as you have on Matthew 22:30, shows your lack of study and understanding of the issue. A quick Google search on the topic found me this (at http://www.newjerusalemcommunity.net/?c=54&a=1405) , which may help you in this area. I only breeze over it, but knowing the author, and from what I saw, it seems to be adequate:

*Why are People Still Given in Marriage?*
Here is an analysis of Luke 20. I hope this will answer the question of why people are still given in marriage today.
*Ward Fenley*

In Luke 20 we read: Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, {28} Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. {29} There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. {30} And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. {31} And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. {32} Last of all the woman died also. {33} Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. {34} And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: {35} But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: Luke 20:27-35 

Whatever the Sadducees believed regarding the nature of the resurrection, it was obviously VERY close to, if not, a physical resurrection (i.e. whose WIFE shall SHE be etc.)

In Matthew Jesus answers them FIRST with this statement: Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God."

This tells us something: Their view of resurrection was ENTIRELY erroneous. It is not a matter of them having the right view at all. Jesus answered them with the correct view. Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.

There is no marriage. As we have seen, the transformation was transforming the first century believers from OC death and glory into NC life and glory (2 Corinthians 3:18; Hebrews 8:13; 9:6-12). But because they had already been given the Spirit, it could be said of them:

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

There is neither MALE NOR FEMALE, for they are all ONE IN Christ. This corresponds perfectly with Christ's statement that there is no marriage in the kingdom of heaven. We are all one in Christ and there is neither male nor female. His kingdom has nothing to do with this world, for His kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, the fact that there is still marriage in this physical life does not negate the fact that there is NOT marriage in the kingdom anymore than the fact that there are males and females in this physical life does not negate the fact that there are NOT males or females in the kingdom.

Also, remember that they are like the angels. The angels are spirits and in Christ we are spirits just like Christ was raised a life-giving Spirit. Peter says Christ was put to death in the flesh and made alive in the spirit.

Luke says: Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 

Luke 20:34

There are TWO primary worlds or ages according to the Bible. Jesus decribed them as "this age" and "the age to come" or "the age about to come."

Full preterists usually define the OC age as the "this age" of which Jesus spoke and the "age to come" as the New Covenant age. A question we must consider is, have we obtained that New Covenant age?

Now, if those who affirm that physical death accomplishes the resurrection addressed in Luke 20 then, because they marry and are given in marriage, do they consider themselves children of the Old Covenant age?

Furthermore, if they consider themselves SONS of THAT age, how is it from the passage that they conclude they have that age but have not obtained the resurrection?

The passage also says: Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

What passages come to mind here? John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.

Will we ever see death? John 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
John 11:26 And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this? John 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

Will we ever die? There was only ONE death to be swallowed up in victory, therefore Christ had to be referring to this death. Keep in mind that this is the exact same situation in John 11. Christ was addressing a woman who had an errant view of the resurrection. Christ corrected her by saying "I AM the resurrection and the life." Just like Christ is the Bread, Water, Light, Life, Way, Truth, so also He IS the resurrection. This brings us to an important point.

Consider this verse: Acts 28:20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain.

What was this hope? Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

So then, the hope of Israel was the resurrection. What does the Bible say the hope of Israel is? Jeremiah 17:13 O LORD, the hope of Israel, all that forsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living waters. Colossians 1:27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of
glory:

Since the HOPE of Israel is the Lord, and since the hope of Israel was the resurrection, and since Christ IS the resurrection, then if we are IN Christ then we have partaken of the exact same resurrection blessings of Israel. After all, in the resurrection (In Christ) they are neither married nor given in marriage (male nor female), for they are all one in Christ: John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Why were they already one? Because they were already given the Spirit at Pentecost, by which they were being transformed into Christ NC IMAGE and GLORY. They were being raised a spiritual body IN Christ. Therefore they could already be identified as one in Christ through this transforming work of the Holy Spirit.

The passage in Luke then reads: Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Notice that IN the resurrection or IN Christ they are the children of God: Romans 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Through the transforming work of the Spirit, Paul and the first century believers were already firstfruits of this same glorious resurrection of the OC body of death into the NC body of life IN Christ Jesus. They were the children of God. The whole purpose of the AD 70 event was to make MANIFEST the children of God (Romans 8:18-23). Christ was clear: IN the resurrection (IN Christ) they were the children of God:

Galatians 3:26-29 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. {27} For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. {28} There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. {29} And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Heirs of what promise? The promise for which Abraham looked. Abraham died in faith WITHOUT the promise of the better resurrection. He could not be made perfect (resurrected) without the firstfruits of the first century:

Hebrews 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
Hebrews 11:13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
Hebrews 11:16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
Hebrews 11:35 Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:
Hebrews 11:39 And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:
Hebrews 11:40 God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect.

The difference between those living in the first century and those OT believers who had died is this-Jesus said: John 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead (OT believers), yet shall he live: {26} And whosoever liveth (NT believers) and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

Notice it is through FAITH IN Christ. Paul said: Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. {29} And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Paul also seems to make this distinction between OT believers and first century believers, but nevertheless says they will all be manifested as the children of God. This would be the complete redemption of the OC body of death/law into the NC body of life or Christ:

Romans 8:18-23 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. {19} For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. {20} For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, {21} Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. {22} For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. {23} And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our (plural) body (singular).

The completion of the NC would result in the fullness of life for the first century believers who were being transformed (children of God) and the resurrection of OT believers into the glorious liberty of the children of God.

Christ goes on to say in Luke: Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. {38} For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. Luke 20:37-38 

There is a grave misinterpretation of the verse by some in saying that under the OT, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were "living." However, we must remember that the whole context begins with: "In the resurrection." Therefore when it says God is not a God of the dead but of the living, it is speaking of that time "in the resurrrection." The context is clear. In other words, in the resurrection:

1) They are as the angels
2) They are not married nor given in marriage
3) They are sons of the age to come
4) They cannot die anymore
5) God is the God of the living

It would be foolish to say he was the God of the living (the resurrection) during the time of Abraham. This would FORCE a difference in definitions of resurrection and "living." There is no such difference, neither does the passage even hint at such a difference.

Finally Christ says, "In the resurrection…all LIVE UNTO HIM."

Consider these passages: Romans 6:9-11,13 Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. {10} For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he LIVETH UNTO GOD. {11} Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but ALIVE UNTO GOD through Jesus Christ our Lord. {12} Let not sin therefore reign in your (plural) mortal body (singular-OC body of death), that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.{13} Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves UNTO GOD, as those that are ALIVE FROM THE DEAD, and your members as instruments of righteousness UNTO GOD.

It is incredible that Paul says RECKON or UNDERSTAND yourselves to be alive from the dead JUST LIKE Christ is alive from the dead. Because they had already been given the downpayment of the Spirit, they could already be dubbed as ALIVE from the dead since they were in fact being changed from their DYING mortal body of death (OC body of death) into the glorious image and body of Christ. Therefore they, LIKE Christ were to reckon themselves as ALIVE UNTO GOD. What did Christ say? Luke 20:38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for ("in the resurrection") all live unto him.

Paul confirms this: Galatians 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live UNTO GOD.

At the destruction of Jerusalem Christ came to indwell His people and the fullness of their (OT believers and first century believers) were blessed with the fullness of the blessing of the Gospel of resurrection life in Christ Jesus, their Glory and their Resurrection.


----------



## puritan lad

I agree with your view of the First Resurrection. This is not what the Pharisees were referring to in Matthew 22. They were referring to the physical resurrection, which takes place on the last day, which the Bible plainly teaches over and over again. As I pointed out an another post, 1 Corinthians 15 clearly teaches a bodily resurrection, of which Christ Himself is the first fruits. Was His resurrection bodily or Spiritual?


----------



## unlearnedlearner

Jeff,

Do you hold to the chapters 32 and 33 of the WCF? 

Edit: I guess, if you are hyper about your preterism, then this needs to be qualified: Do you hold these as written and intended by the frames of the WCF? For example, no sleight of hand with "I agree, but disagree with the timing" sort of tricks.

Thanks,

UL


----------



## Theoretical

unlearnedlearner said:


> Jeff,
> 
> Do you hold to the chapters 32 and 33 of the WCF?
> 
> Edit: I guess, if you are hyper about your preterism, then this needs to be qualified: Do you hold these as written and intended by the frames of the WCF? For example, no sleight of hand with "I agree, but disagree with the timing" sort of tricks.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> UL


----------



## Apologia

puritan lad said:


> I agree with your view of the First Resurrection. This is not what the Pharisees were referring to in Matthew 22. They were referring to the physical resurrection, which takes place on the last day, which the Bible plainly teaches over and over again. As I pointed out an another post, 1 Corinthians 15 clearly teaches a bodily resurrection, of which Christ Himself is the first fruits. Was His resurrection bodily or Spiritual?



I think you misunderstood...that was not MY view, that was just an article I found that answered your objection.


----------



## Apologia

This is sad, I can't even play devil's advocate and make a comment, without guilt and error being ascribed to me, and this is not just happening on this thread.

Jeepers, how can anyone have any kind of descent conversation, if at the first sign of presenting "the other side" the swords come out? is it only acceptable to discuss issues from one side of the topic? is this just a board of preaching to the choir, or does anyone care about learning the issues and controversies?

Follow the conversation...he said the Preterist view was self-contradictory...I said he obviously didn't understand their view, and I presnted him with an article on THEIR view on the subject. And immediately, it became my view, and a barrage of questions.

How about everyone take a deep breath, read the posts twice, grasp what is being said...BEFORE wielding the sword at me?


----------



## unlearnedlearner

So, Jeff, to the question at hand, do you hold to the WCF 32 & 33? No swords, but a simple question? Despite your claim to others brandishing their swords, how do you get that from my question? I once heard some good advice: "How about taking a deep breath, reading the post twice, grasp what is being said, or asked, before wielding your sword?"

Thanks for the answer in advance.



Apologia said:


> This is sad, I can't even play devil's advocate and make a comment, without guilt and error being ascribed to me, and this is not just happening on this thread.
> 
> Jeepers, how can anyone have any kind of descent conversation, if at the first sign of presenting "the other side" the swords come out? is it only acceptable to discuss issues from one side of the topic? is this just a board of preaching to the choir, or does anyone care about learning the issues and controversies?
> 
> Follow the conversation...he said the Preterist view was self-contradictory...I said he obviously didn't understand their view, and I presnted him with an article on THEIR view on the subject. And immediately, it became my view, and a barrage of questions.
> 
> How about everyone take a deep breath, read the posts twice, grasp what is being said...BEFORE wielding the sword at me?


----------



## Theoretical

Apologia said:


> This is sad, I can't even play devil's advocate and make a comment, without guilt and error being ascribed to me, and this is not just happening on this thread.
> 
> Jeepers, how can anyone have any kind of descent conversation, if at the first sign of presenting "the other side" the swords come out? is it only acceptable to discuss issues from one side of the topic? is this just a board of preaching to the choir, or does anyone care about learning the issues and controversies?
> 
> Follow the conversation...he said the Preterist view was self-contradictory...I said he obviously didn't understand their view, and I presnted him with an article on THEIR view on the subject. And immediately, it became my view, and a barrage of questions.
> 
> How about everyone take a deep breath, read the posts twice, grasp what is being said...BEFORE wielding the sword at me?


Jeff, this statement is what concerns us.



> Most partial Preterists I know believe the New Heaven and Earth are already here, so that is not a distinction of Preterism, but partial Preterism too.
> 
> We are told in Isaiah what the New Heavens and New Earth are, they are the Gentiles being accepted into God's people. The removal of the Old Heavens and Earth is the removal of the old system, the Temple, the reliance of the people/nation status, and bringing in a new people/covenant, the New Heaven's and Earth.
> 
> So, a good summation of Preterism, is they deny a future bodily resurrection and a future bodily return of Christ. People often say they deny the resurrection and the second coming, but that is not accurate...they just believe those things already happened.



I have never heard of partial preterists saying we are in the New Heavens and New Earth - that that view is _precisely_ the demarcation line separating partial and full Preterism, from everything I've heard. _That_, I'd say, is what led to the concerns of unlearnedlearner and I.


----------



## Theoretical

Also, another question. Would you consider full preterism, including that one view you posted from another article, to be heresy?


----------



## KMK

Thank you for cutting to the chase Theoretical and unlearnedlearner. I see this situation as support for the arguments in my previous post.


----------



## KMK

I am working on a 'position paper' for my church on this subject. I argue against the hyper-preterist by arguing for the necessity of a future universal judgment. I am looking for constructive criticism on the 12 page paper if anyone has some extra time to read it. These hyper-preterists have nothing else to do but look for errors so I want to make it as air-tight as possible.


----------



## Theoretical

KMK said:


> Thank you for cutting to the chase Theoretical and unlearnedlearner. I see this situation as support for the arguments in my previous post.


----------



## unlearnedlearner

Scott,

Briefly, there are partial preteristst that believe the New Heavens and New Earth have arrived in their inception like the resurrection. Bahnsen argues for this in his lectures on post-millennialism, making a distinction between John and Isaiah's vision due to the nature of the fulfillment – Isaiah still has death, “serpent” crawling, etc., but John has no death and the serpent is in the lake of fire. One arguing for the consummation of the New Heavens and New Earth (Rev. 21 & Romans 8) is dabbling with great error, but the idea that the New Heaven and New Earth has broken in/arrived, then there are no problems on the surface. Gentry also argues a similar case, although making Rev 21-22 a present reality, for the New Heavens and New Earth.

Ward's paper, however, is so full of errors and heresy that I cannot believe Jeff would post it. His heresy is blatant throughout but two quotes should stop anyone with the Spirit of Christ in their tracks: “*His kingdom has NOTHING to do with this world*, for His kingdom is not of this world” & “*in Christ we are spirits* just like Christ was raised a life-giving Spirit. Peter says Christ was put to death in the flesh and made alive in the spirit.” This is completely insane and has nothing to do with the historical faith. His response will be his anachronistic understanding of sola scriptura, which sets the framework for his anachronistic interpretation of the Scriptures, but these two lines alone should cause anyone reading this paper to immediately stop in their shoes.

Lets take a quick look at Ward's paper and the passage. Side note: the Sadducees come to Jesus, much like Satan did, with their crass sola scriptura, seeking to catch him in error. In both instances, their ability to quote Scripture, especially in a concordance like fashion ,is not a sign of knowing the Scriptures or the power of God, but their ability to misconstrue the Scriptures. Claims to sola scriptura should not be mistaken for understanding the Scriptures, which includes the fact that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. 

Look at these words: 



> “Whatever the Sadducees believed regarding the nature of the resurrection, it was obviously VERY close to, if not, a physical resurrection (i.e. whose WIFE shall SHE be etc.) In Matthew Jesus answers them FIRST with this statement: Matthew 22:29 Jesus replied, "You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. This tells us something: Their view of resurrection was ENTIRELY erroneous. It is not a matter of them having the right view at all. Jesus answered them with the correct view. Matthew 22:30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.”



First, the Sadducees rejected that the Torah taught the resurrection & were seeking to catch Jesus in an error, so they proposed a strawman, thinking they found something in the law and the prophets to go against the teachings of the Pharisees & Jesus. Their question & framing of the discussion, like the hyper-preterists, is faulty from the word “go”. Jesus' response, as we shall see, is not an issue of their view being “ENTIRELY erroneous”, but rather their understanding of the Scriptures, the law and prophets, is “ENTIRELY erroneous”. 



> “There is neither MALE NOR FEMALE, for they are all ONE IN Christ. This corresponds perfectly with Christ's statement that there is no marriage in the kingdom of heaven. We are all one in Christ and there is neither male nor female. His kingdom has nothing to do with this world, for His kingdom is not of this world. Therefore, the fact that there is still marriage in this physical life does not negate the fact that there is NOT marriage in the kingdom anymore than the fact that there are males and females in this physical life does not negate the fact that there are NOT males or females in the kingdom.”



I think every sentence of this paragraph is “graced” with errors. First, this is an absolutely terrible exposition of this Scripture. To take Jesus' words here and try to make the context the same as Paul's is just plain bad and a terrible concordance exposition at that. Ward makes this error throughout this paper. Second, marriage is tied into the first creation ("this age"), as is the male/female distinction, each equally bear the image of God, so distinction between the two genders is not predicated on the Old Covenant (Ward's interpretation of "this age"), but creation. Galatians needs to be seen in light of all of Paul's teachings regarding women as well, which is beyond this response and this passage, but it clearly reveals distinctions. Ward will have to make his old covenant [this age] begin at creation to try and make this work, making Adam and Eve already under death, i.e., having nothing to do with “resurrection” life. Third, these ideas regarding the physical life and the Kingdom would have no truck with 1st century thought. Fourth, his argument is mere assertion of a dichotomy that he has never established. Scripturally, it makes sense that there would be no marriage in the consummation, because the goal and ends of marriage is complete. There is no need for pro-creation, as the “cultural mandate” is complete. Also, look at Ward's inconsistency on the use of "world" and "age". He tells us that Christ's kingdom is not of this "world", which he later points out is the old covenant age, and then he seems to roll right into an understanding of "world" as "physical life". So, given Ward's use of "world" here and later you would think that he could grasp different usages & contexts of words. Finally, go ahead and have homo sex, multiple wives, or fornicate at will, because the Christ's kingdom has "NOTHING" to do with the physical world. Welcome to gnosticism & bad literalism. 



> “Also, remember that they are like the angels. The angels are spirits and <b>in Christ we are spirits</b> just like Christ was raised a life-giving Spirit. Peter says Christ was put to death in the flesh and made alive in the spirit.”



The bold is simply heresy. How anyone can buy into this teaching is beyond me. Does he really think he is a spirit? This is gnosticism, folks. 



> “Luke says: Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. Luke 20:34 There are TWO primary worlds or ages according to the Bible. Jesus decribed them as "this age" and "the age to come" or "the age about to come. Full preterists usually define the OC age as the "this age" of which Jesus spoke and the "age to come" as the New Covenant age. A question we must consider is, have we obtained that New Covenant age?”



Why are people of the Old Covenant given in marriage given the hyper-prets paradigm? Marriage is a creation ordinance and not an old covenant ordinance. He seeks to make the kingdom have no bearing on the physical, so he can make a false antithesis in the Scriptures, including the denial of our resurrection and, essentially, Jesus'. There is no basis in this paradigm for Christ's bodily resurrection, aside from, at best, apologetic purposes, but with the assumption this body was later shed, dissolved, or, even worse, returned to dust. 



> “Now, if those who affirm that physical death accomplishes the resurrection addressed in Luke 20 then, because they marry and are given in marriage, do they consider themselves children of the Old Covenant age?”



This is just crazy. One, who "affirms that PHYSICAL DEATH accomplishes the resurrection addressed in Luke 20?” Seriously, who affirms that physical death accomplishes resurrection? Two, I consider myself as participating in the New Heavens and the New Earth and the resurrection, although not their consummation, which will be complete at the resurrection of the body and the dissolving of marriage not the body.



> “Furthermore, if they consider themselves SONS of THAT age, how is it from the passage that they conclude they have that age but have not obtained the resurrection?”



Already and not yet, Ward. And, the same way that Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob participate.



> “The passage also says: Luke 20:36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. What passages come to mind here? John 8:51 Verily, verily, I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.”



What passage comes to mind? Is he being serious? Is he just playing word association? Who does exegesis like this? I nixed the rest of his John discussion, because the whole “with respect to what” needs to be asked when addressing/discussing “death” and “resurrection”. Context determines the understanding and not our word association.



> “Will we ever die? There was only ONE death to be swallowed up in victory, therefore Christ had to be referring to this death. Keep in mind that this is the exact same situation in John 11. Christ was addressing a woman who had an errant view of the resurrection. Christ corrected her by saying "I AM the resurrection and the life." Just like Christ is the Bread, Water, Light, Life, Way, Truth, so also He IS the resurrection. This brings us to an important point.”



Again, here is an error. Yes, there is only “one death” to be swallowed up, but his understanding is completely shallow. There are many facets to this one death – legal, physical, spiritual, and second. Again, his exegesis is shallow and his dilemma is false. So, yes, Jesus is the resurrection!



> “Consider this verse: Acts 28:20 For this cause therefore have I called for you, to see you, and to speak with you: because that for the hope of Israel I am bound with this chain. What was this hope? Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question. Acts 24:15 And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.”



More bad concordance and word association. Look what he does with it in the next paragraph:



> So then, the hope of Israel was the resurrection. What does the Bible say the hope of Israel is? Jeremiah 17:13...Col 1.
> 
> “*Since the HOPE of Israel is the Lord, and since the hope of Israel was the resurrection, and since Christ IS the resurrection, then if we are IN Christ then we have partaken of the exact same resurrection blessings of Israel.[/b>]After all, in the resurrection (In Christ) they are neither married nor given in marriage (male nor female), for they are all one in Christ: John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:”*


*

His understanding of “hope” might be more shallow than his understanding of death, so his opening sentence is one giant non sequitur. This is unbelievably bad. 




“Heirs of what promise? The promise for which Abraham looked. Abraham died in faith WITHOUT the promise of the better resurrection.”

Click to expand...


What does “WITHOUT” mean? This is against Hebrews: “[Abraham didn't receive promises, although] having seen them [the promises] and greeted them from afar, and having acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.” He conveniently leaves out: “He considered that God was able even to raise [Isaac] from the dead...” Did he believe that God was able to raise him out of the Old Covenant? This would be an extremely silly interpretation given the fact that he was going to kill him physically. 




“The difference between those living in the first century and those OT believers who had died is this-Jesus said: John 11:25-26 Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead (OT believers), yet shall he live: {26} And whosoever liveth (NT believers) and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?”

Click to expand...


That is just crazy. How do you even argue with someone that sees the “dead” here as OT believers? This has nothing to do with this, given the context. Please read his interpretation people, because it is horrendous. Jesus said, “I am the resurrection and the life: the Old Testament believer that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall the old testament believer live (NT believer?): and whosoever liveth (NT believers) and believeth in me shall never die (Old Testament believer). Believest thou this?” O.k., I threw in an extra parenthesis, but just seeking to demonstrate how crazy his interpretation is. This is crazy stuff




“Christ goes on to say in Luke: Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. {38} For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. Luke 20:37-38 

There is a grave misinterpretation of the verse by some in saying that under the OT, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were "living." However, we must remember that the whole context begins with: "In the resurrection." Therefore when it says God is not a God of the dead but of the living, it is speaking of that time "in the resurrrection." The context is clear.”

Click to expand...


To think he has the audacity to being this paragraph with “there is a grave misinterpretation”, because have you ever seen a more grave misinterpretation than what he provides here? I like that he finally wants to appeal to something like a “context”, but he completely misses it & the words, which he doesn't even quote at the beginning of his treatment. Jesus is not talking about “that time 'in the resurrection.'” He is referring back to Moses and the burning bush, so, ironically, Jesus is using a preterist hermeneutic at this point and he is too hyper to miss it. Jesus says, “But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob. Now he is not God of the dead (Old Covenant believer?), but of the living (New Testament believer?), for all live to him.” No, he is not talking about the time of the resurrection, but “life” has always been there for the believer and Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived, although they were dead, which the Sadducees thought was the end all be all. Again, the context corrects the Sadducees understanding of the Scriptures & their denial of the resurrection. If the Lord is the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob, then he is the God of living, i.e. there God, although they are dead. Matthew brings this out more: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead, but the living.” Namely, for God to be the God of Abraham...they (Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob) have to be living and they were. So, contra Sadducees understanding of the Torah that it did not teach a resurrection Jesus is affirming that it does. 





“In other words, in the resurrection:

1) They are as the angels
2) They are not married nor given in marriage
3) They are sons of the age to come
4) They cannot die anymore
5) God is the God of the living

It would be foolish to say he was the God of the living (the resurrection) during the time of Abraham. This would FORCE a difference in definitions of resurrection and "living." There is no such difference, neither does the passage even hint at such a difference.”

Click to expand...


What? It would force you away from your hyper-preterist interpretation, but it would not effect the orthodox believer. Yes, the Scripture is clear that there is a difference. 

His treatment of Romans 6 is more horrendous exegesis, as well as his “give life to your mortal bodies” as being the Old Covenant. One more thing, as he adds words, changing the meaning, “For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for [“in the resurrection”] all live unto him.” That's not what the Bible says.

So, briefly, what is this passage teaching? 1. That the Sadducees do not know the Scriptures or the power of God in their denial of the resurrection. They thought the Torah didn't teach the resurrection, but Jesus says it teaches it contrary to their understanding. God is and was the God of the living. 2. Angels don't marry and are not given in marriage. The reference isn't an ontological statement (physical vs spiritual), but statement regarding marriage and man not dying, being equal or like the angels. 3. I can affirm the other three points Ward outlines above. Herein Jesus teaches that the Torah, contrary to the Sadducees, teaches the resurrection and that the God they claimed to follow was the God of the living, hence a resurrection. The Sadducees wouldn't squabble with describing the “Exodus” as a “resurrection”, but they denied the resurrection of the body, which is the context of the discussion. The hyper-preterists are in tune with the Sadducees, denying the Law & the Prophets, despite their claim to the Scriptures. 

The doctrine of the resurrection is taught from the Fall to the Consummation. Make no mistake, the hyper-preterists are heretics, not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God. If the dead are not raised then not even Christ has been raised. Jesus died and was raised physically. This doesn't negate a more rich and multi-faceted understanding of "death" and "resurrection", but denying the physical is to deny the faith. The hyper-prets deny the faith.*


----------

