Heaven and earth passing away is the destruction of the temple?

[Calvin Codger]

Matthew 24:35 mentions the passing away of heaven and earth in the context of the Olivet discourse. It has been generally believed
that this refers to the literal, physical destruction of the cosmos. However, Beale and Wright have shown that "heaven and earth" was common metaphor referring to the meeting place of heaven and earth - the temple. This phrase was often used in OT prophecy and is almost certainly what Jesus had in mind when he used the phrase in the midst of the Olivet Discourse. Jesus words in Matthew 24:35 are best understood a reference to the coming 70 AD destruction of the temple. This understaninding clarifies the design and meaning of the temple, accounts for the OT temple references, harmonizes Luke 17 and Matt 24, and affirms the connection between Isiah 65 and 2 Peter 3.

Please See the blog article for details

Heaven and Earth will Pass Away

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Matthew 24:35 Matthew 24:35 mentions the passing away of heaven and earth in the context of the…

postalpundit.com

 

[MW]

Good blog post. I completely agree with the application to the old and new economy. The covenant with Israel called heaven and earth to witness it, and these are called in as witnesses in the prophets. Within the Olivet discourse this appears to be the main thrust. And yet something "ideal" happens here which suggests more than the 70AD event. What happens in 70AD is more of a consequence of fulfilment than the actual fulfilment itself. Later views of "Jerusalem above," in Gal. 4 and Heb. 12, indicate a transition has already taken place prior to 70AD.

I think some attention needs to be given to the implications of what Storms has said. A smaller cosmos representing a larger cosmos suggests there will be a fulfilment on a larger scale; and the language of Peter and the Apocalypse move in this direction. So while the interpretation of the Olivet Discourse can be limited to some degree we should also be open to a final cosmic fulfilment on a larger scale.

 

[Calvin Codger]

What happens in 70AD is more of a consequence of fulfilment than the actual fulfilment itself. Later views of "Jerusalem above," in Gal. 4 and Heb. 12, indicate a transition has already taken place prior to 70AD.

I appreciate your reading and responding brother.

I think the new creation (NHNE) creation process began at the resurrection while the corresponding destruction of the old heaven and earth didn't occur until 70 AD. I think this corresponds to your "indicate a transition has already taken place prior to 70AD." comment?

 

[MW]

I appreciate your reading and responding brother.

I think the new creation (NHNE) creation process began at the resurrection while the corresponding destruction of the old heaven and earth didn't occur until 70 AD. I think this corresponds to your "indicate a transition has already taken place prior to 70AD." comment?

Interesting question. "New creation process" sound like it could be a useful category. I would have to think about how it works in a now/not-yet schema. We are new creatures in Christ. The end of the world has come upon us. Paul's epistles abound in this type of language. What is "not yet" seems to me to be relegated to a final end of all things which is inclusive for Jew and Gentile alike. I cannot see how 70 AD fits into this schema. While at the same time I can appreciate it within the context of our Lord's Jewish ministry. In other words, it works in the Gospels, not so much in the Epistles.

 

[Calvin Codger]

I cannot see how 70 AD fits into this schema.

70 AD is the termination of the old heavens and earth (physical temple) alluded to in Matt 24:35
The "not yet" is the eternal state in the consummated NHNE. In the eternal state, the entire cosmos is God's temple.

 

[MW]

Still trying to work through this -- if you have a "consummated" NHNE, when does the "consummation" of the OHOE take place? Given Hebrews 8, the new makes the first to be old. There must be a corresponding "old" in consummation. So if you apply NHNE at all to the larger cosmos you also have to have a corresponding OHOE in the larger cosmos; and that seems to me to be what Peter and the Apocalypse is describing -- something that is not only for Jews, but for the world of Jews and Gentiles.

 

[Calvin Codger]

when does the "consummation" of the OHOE take place? Given Hebrews 8, the new makes the first to be old.

At the destruction of the temple. The Old Covenant is probated/consummated along with the end of the sacrificial system and rituals.

you also have to have a corresponding OHOE in the larger cosmos;

There is an end to the OHOE at 70 AD and not of a "larger cosmos" scope. The Old Covenant wasn't worldwide ("larger cosmos") in scope. It was relegated to the "old" Israel.

 

[MW]

At the destruction of the temple. The Old Covenant is probated/consummated along with the end of the sacrificial system and rituals.

There is an end to the OHOE at 70 AD and not of a "larger cosmos" scope. The Old Covenant wasn't worldwide ("larger cosmos") in scope. It was relegated to the "old" Israel.

I think you are going to have a whole range of issues if this is the climax. Israel was doing something in relation to the world under that old economy. It didn't exist for itself. That is why I think Storms' insight has to be appropriated in some way to the new economy and we have to look for an end of the world on the larger scale. What is the church doing in the world now? The descriptors for Israel apply to the church, as in 1 Peter 2. This has to have an end? You have to have some concluding point for this economy. That is what Peter and John are pointing to.

 

[Calvin Codger]

Israel was doing something in relation to the world

Not sure what you mean here. "Israel was doing something for the world"?
What "Storms insight" are you referring to?
We do look "for an end of the world on the larger scale." Its the future second coming, judgment, resurrection and the eternal state.

That is what Peter and John are pointing to.

This is pretty vague.

concluding point for this economy.

The OT economy formally ended at 70 AD.

The NHNE begin at the resurrection ("already"). The NHNE will be consummated at the second coming (not yet).
The church is now the new Israel of God. The new temple is simultaneously defined as Christ Himself (Mark 14:58), believers individually (1 Corinthians 6:19) and collectively as the church (2 Corinthians 6:16).
The point at which God’s presence in heaven was linked to earth has shifted from the Jerusalem temple to the person of Jesus Christ who is the true temple. As Beale notes, “The entire new creation is what the localized temple pointed to and symbolized all along…The physical (and spiritual) curses of the fall are beginning to be removed by Jesus, as he is reestablishing the new creation, temple, and kingdom that Adam should have established. Seen within the framework of the new creation, Christ’s miracles of healing not only inaugurated the end-time kingdom but signaled the beginning of the new creation, reversing the curse of the old fallen world….Just as the old temple and even old cosmos began to be destroyed in Jesus’ death, so His resurrection was the beginning of a new temple and new cosmos, a new creation.” The passing away of the old creation, the old heavens and earth was completed with the AD 70 destruction of the old temple as the Lord predicted in Matthew 24:35. The new creation, the new heavens and new earth (NHNE) began at His resurrection.

 

[MW]

The Storms insight is the microcosm of the macrocosm. To complete the thought in his own words: "Thus, the temple is understood as a microcosm of the cosmos, so that its destruction becomes a prophetic or proleptic paradigm for what will occur in the macrocosm at the close of history."

Matthew 24 and the Olivet Discourse - Part III

Matthew 24 and the Olivet Discourse - Part III

www.samstorms.org

Israel was a light to the world. The world doesn't just disappear in 70AD. The mission has been taken over by the Jew-Gentile church. Thus the old heavens and the earth continue even while the NHNE emerges in the church as a manifestation of the new creation.

Sorry for sounding vague. 2 Pet 3:5-7 speaks of the heavens and the earth in connection with creation and the flood. It is not simply the microcosm which melts away. It is the macrocosm understood from the same religious perspective.

 

[Calvin Codger]

"Thus, the temple is understood as a microcosm of the cosmos, so that its destruction becomes a prophetic or proleptic paradigm for what will occur in the macrocosm at the close of history."

Yes. Exactly. This is an essential point to the blog article. The old physical temple was a "microcosm of the cosmos". The temple is now the body of Christ. After the second coming, the temple will be the entire cosmos "the macrocosm at the close of history." The physical temple was the OHOE "microcosm" The consummated NHNE is the "macrocosm." Storms is making the same point I am making.

Thus the old heavens and the earth continue

No. The point of the article is that the temple was the OHOE. It was destroyed in AD 70. Matt 24:35

Sorry for sounding vague. 2 Pet 3:5-7 speaks of the heavens and the earth in connection with creation and the flood. It is not simply the microcosm which melts away. It is the macrocosm understood from the same religious perspective.

That was addressed in the blog article. I agree with John Owen, John LIghtfoot, John Brown, and Milton Terry that 2 Peter 3 is referring to 70 AD and not the second coming. Admittedly this is the minority view but as expressed in the blog article, I believe it is the correct one.

,
.

 

[Calvin Codger]

Israel was a light to the world. The world doesn't just disappear in 70AD.

The "world" has absolutely nothing to do with this.
The "OHOE" is for participants in the Old Covenant which formally ended with the destruction of the temple and its rituals and sacrifices.
The NHNE is only for participants in the New Covenant.
This is about God's covenantal relationships with His people.
The OHOE is a temple with a covenantal relationship. The NHNE is also a temple with a covenantal relationship.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Dr. John Owen On​

The "New Heavens and Earth"​

(2 Peter 3:13)​

• ---

  The apostle makes a distribution of the world into heaven and earth, and saith they were destroyed with water, and perished. We know that neither the fabric nor substance of the one or other was destroyed, but only men that liveth on the earth; and the apostle tells us (ver. 7) of the heaven and earth that were then, and were destroyed by water, distinct from the heavens and the earth that were now, and were to be consumed by fire; and yet as to the visible fabric of heaven and earth they were the same both before the flood and in the apostle's time, and continue so to this day; when yet it is certain that the heavens and earth, whereof he spake, were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing of our foundation a little, consider what the apostle intends by the heavens and the earth in these two places.' 1. It is certain that what the apostle intends by the world, with its heaven, and earth (vers. 5, 6), which was destroyed ; the same, or some-what of that kind, he intends by the heavens and the earth that were to be consumed and destroyed by fire (ver. 7) ; otherwise there would be no coherence in the apostle's discourse, nor any kind of argument, but a mere fallacy of words.' 2. It is certain that by the flood, the world, or the fabric of heaven and earth, was not destroyed, but only the inhabitants of the world; and therefore the destruction intimated to succeed by fire is not of the substance of the heavens and the earth, which shall not be consumed until the last day, but of person or men living in the world.'3. Then we must consider in what sense men living in the world are said to be the world, and the heavens and earth of it. I shall only insist on one instance to this purpose among many that may be produced: Isa. li. 15, 16. The time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth, was performed by God was when He divided the sea (ver. 15) and gave the law (ver. 16), and said to Zion, Thou art my people; that is, when He took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state; then He planted the heavens and laid the foundation of the earth: that is, brought forth order, and government, and beauty from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens and laying the foundation of the earth in the world. And since it is that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that languaue which seems to set forth the end of the world. So Isa. xxxiv. 4, which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. The like also is affirmed of the Roman Empire (Rev. vi. 14), which the Jews constantly affirm to be intended by Edom in the prophets. And in our Saviour Christ's prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv.) He sets it out by expressions of the same importance. It is evident, then, that in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by heavens and earth, the civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, were often understood. So were the heavens and earth that world which then was destroyed by the flood.' 4. On this foundation I affirm that the heavens and earth here intended in this prophecy of Peter, the coming of the Lord, the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men, mentioned in the destruction of that heaven and earth, do all of them relate, not to the last and final judgment of the world, but to that utter desolation and destruction that was to be made of the Judaical church and state; for which I shall offer these two reasons, of many that might be insisted on from the text:-'(1.) Because whatever is here mentioned was to have its peculiar influence on the men of that generation. He speaks of that wherein both the profane scoffers and those scoffed at were concerned, and that as Jews, some of them believing, others opposing, the faith. Now there was no particular concernment of that generation, nor in that sin, nor in that scoffing, as to the day of judment in general ; but there was a peculiar relief for the one and a peculiar dread for the other at hand, in the destruction of the Jewish nation ; and, besides, an ample testimony both to the one and the other of the power and dominion of tile Lord Jesus Christ, which was the thing in question between them.'(2.) Peter tells them, that after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of (vers. 7-13), " We, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,' etc. They had this expectation. But what is that promise? Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. lxv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God shall create these new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness? Saith Peter, " It shall be after the coming of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell." But now it is evident from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi. 21, 22, that this is a prophecy of Gospel times only; and that the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of Gospel ordinances to endure for ever. The same thing is so expressed Heb. xii. 26-28.' This being the design of the place, I shall not insist longer on the context, but briefly open the words proposed, and fix upon the truth continued in them.'First, There is the foundation of the apostle's inference and exhortation, seeing that all these things, however precious they seem, or what value soever any put upon them, shall be dissolved, that is, destroyed; and that in that dreadful and fearful manner before mentioned, in a day of judgment, wrath, and vengeance, by fire and sword; let others mock at the threats of Christ's coming: He will come- He will not tarry; and then the heavens and earth that God Himself planted, -the sun, moon, and stars of the Judaical polity and church, -the whole old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinancy against the Lord Christ, shall be sensibly dissolved and destroyed: this we know shall be the end of these things, and that shortly.'There is no outward constitution nor frame of things in government or nations, but it is subject to a dissolution, and may receive it, and that in a way of judgment. If any might plead exemption, that, on many accounts, of which the apostle was discoursing in prophetical terms (for it was not yet time to speak it openly to all) might interpose for its share.'*

John Owen On the New Heaven and New Earth-Preterism, new heaven and new earth, and eschatology and Preterist soteriology; Preterism and Preterist eschatology, rapture and prophecy from a preterist perspective

Even John Owen interpreted 2 Peter 3 from the preterist perspective of eschatology concerning the new heaven and new earth.

eschatology.com

 

[Phil D.]

From a historical perspective, I would question the statement that 1st Century Jews were "well aware" that heaven and earth was "a common metaphor" for the temple. Asserting that such was the case by splicing together two disparate passages from two pseudepigraphic books seems a stretch. Is there other direct evidence of this?

I also have a hard time thinking 2 Pet. 3:8-13 would have been understood by Peter's immediate readership in the allegorical/symbolic way proposed, rather than in a natural cosmological way.

 

[Calvin Codger]

From a historical perspective, I would question the statement that 1st Century Jews were "well aware" that heaven and earth was "a common metaphor" for the temple. Asserting that such was the case by splicing together two disparate passages from two pseudepigraphic books seems a stretch. Is there other direct evidence of this?

Hi Phil. Great questions. This is more along the lines of the type of discussion that I was expecting when I created the OP. If you don't mind, I will respond to your to points in two separate posts. With regards to first one....

To be fair, my primary evidence for " that 1st Century Jews were "well aware" that heaven and earth was "a common metaphor" for the temple" is scripture:

In Isaiah 51:15–16, we read “I am the Lord your God, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the Lord of hosts is his name. And I have put my words in your mouth and covered you in the shadow of my hand, establishing the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and saying to Zion, ‘You are my people.’” Here, God likens his covenantal relationship with His people to the creation of the heavens and the earth. If the institution of God’s covenant with his people is likened to the creation of the heavens and the earth then it follows that the dissolution of this covenant is likened to heaven and earth passing away. That is, the dissolution of the Old Covenant and the AD 70 destruction of the temple is likened to heaven and earth passing away. In short, the establishment and the destruction are described with the heaven and earth phraseology. In reference to the impending destruction of the First Temple and burning down of the city of Jerusalem (587 BC). Jeremiah 4:23 says, “I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light.” Here, Jeremiah portrays this judgment as a reversal of the creation process. Jerusalem and the temple cease to exist and this is likened to the earth being once again without form and void. The literal earth is not predicted to pass away. In fact, it never passes away. In Psalm 104:5 David said that God “laid the foundation of the earth, that it shall not be removed forever.” And in Ecclesiastes 1:4 Solomon said, “A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.”

 

[MW]

Calvin, I appreciate you referring back to the blog post to anchor the discussion; but my comment about Storms is that he applies the microcosm language to the macrocosm. He does not say the microcosm IS the macrocosm or that the destruction of the one WAS the destruction of the other. Perhaps you could interact with this particular point.

What does the world have to do with this? Everything. Microcosm means "little world." The reason it is a microcosm is to demonstrate something about Israel's connection with the world at large under divine government.

If you look at 2 Peter 3 you will see that the world is verbally connected with the heavens and the earth.

 

[Calvin Codger]

I also have a hard time thinking 2 Pet. 3:8-13 would have been understood by Peter's immediate readership in the allegorical/symbolic way proposed, rather than in a natural cosmological way.

The last days are a reference to the impending destruction of the temple and the OC system. Peter and his audience were well aware
of the impending destruction of the temple. The last days refers to the last days of the old covenant with its physical temple, sacrificial system, rituals, and earthly sinful priesthood. His audience as looking for "these things" (v3:3). As Owen says, “whatever is here mentioned was to have its particular influence on the men of that generation.” Peter's audience was actively "waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God..." They undoubtedly knew of the multitude (10 or so) of OT cosmic decreation passages predicting God's local judgment and lived in the shadow of the predicted temple destruction. They most certainly knew the OT passages indicating the earth will never be physically destroyed (Psalm 104:5 Ecclesiastes 1:4) and would therefore understand the figurative meaning of the destruction language.

 

[Calvin Codger]

but my comment about Storms is that he applies the microcosm language to the macrocosm. He does not say the microcosm IS the macrocosm or that the destruction of the one WAS the destruction of the other. Perhaps you could interact with this particular point.

Storms is Amil. I am Postmil. I did not assert that Storms agrees with everything I say. Quoting Fletcher approvingly, Storms does agree with an essential point of the blog post however:

Sam Storms explains, “Matthew 24:35 (Mk. 13:31) records Jesus’ words: “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away.” Most commentators have given scant attention to the significance of this statement in its context, simply assuming that our Lord had in mind the destruction/collapse of the space-time cosmos at the close of history. However, Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis has put forth a compelling argument “that ‘by heaven and earth’ is meant the Jerusalem temple and the Torah constitution at the center of which the former stands. . . . [Thus the phrase ‘heaven and earth shall pass away’ refers] to the imminent end to the social, religious and economic structure of Israel’s covenant relationship with God with the attendant destruction of the temple.”

What does the world have to do with this? Everything. Microcosm means "little world." The reason it is a microcosm is to demonstrate something about Israel's connection with the world at large under divine government.

I already answered this. This is about God's covenant people and not the world.

If you look at 2 Peter 3 you will see that the world is verbally connected with the heavens and the earth.

This was addressed in the blog post and again above.

 

[MW]

I appreciate your blog post. But if I bring up something that challenges your blog post it is not going to further discussion to refer me back to your blog post. If you care to interact with the challenge in the terms provided by Storms I will be happy to continue discussion. Otherwise, I leave you to your blog post.

 

[Calvin Codger]

I appreciate your blog post. But if I bring up something that challenges your blog post it is not going to further discussion to refer me back to your blog post. If you care to interact with the challenge in the terms provided by Storms I will be happy to continue discussion. Otherwise, I leave you to your blog post.

The only thing you've provided is this -> "Thus, the temple is understood as a microcosm of the cosmos, so that its destruction becomes a prophetic or proleptic paradigm for what will occur in the macrocosm at the close of history."

Why don't explain what that means and provide a scriptural basis for how you think it "challenges my blog post"?

 

[MW]

To state the issue: my contention is that 70AD doesn't exhaust the prophetic language of heavens and earth passing away. Storms says that the events provide "a prophetic or proleptic paradigm." In other words, what happened in the microcosm around the events of 70AD is in some sense a pattern of what is going to happen on a world (cosmic) scale. He refers this to "the close of history."

Do I need to explain what this means or how it challenges your blog post? I wouldn't have though it was difficult to understand. But in case there is some confusion, I will let Storms explain himself: "Therefore, my opinion is that the pattern of events that transpired in the period 33-70 a.d., leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, functions as a local, microcosmic foreshadowing of the global, macrocosmic events associated with the Parousia and the end of history. The period 33-70 a.d. provides in its principles (though not necessarily in all particularities), a template against which we are to interpret the period 70-Parousia."

As for Scripture, we have Peter's own clear words in 2 Peter 3. He refers to the heavens and earth in reference to creation, and then in reference to the flood. He then goes on to speak of the world that now is. His use of the word "world" must be as extensive in meaning as his prior reference to creation and the flood since he is giving a parallel as to the kinds of change of which the scoffers are willingly ignorant. He then says that the heavens and earth, which are now, are reserved unto fire against the day of judgment. There is no internal marker in Peter's argument to restrict this to the "world" of the old testament dispensation.

 

[iainduguid]

Another way of reinforcing Matthew's point might be to ask, "If the old heavens and old earth completely passed away in AD70, which heavens and earth are we currently living in?" We still live in a fallen and broken world, not yet the "new heaven and new earth" of Rev 21:1, the place of no more tears (21:4). Most Reformed theologians would argue that there is a "now and not yet" aspect to our present experience. Yes, in Christ we are already new creation; the old has gone and the new has come (2 Cor. 5:17). But we are not yet what we shall be. There are transformative events yet to come (of which the destruction of the temple in AD70 may have been a foreshadowing) for the universe, as well as for us individually (1 Cor 15:24-26). We ought not to deny the reality of the latter, even if we take the Matt 24:35 passage as referring to the destruction of the temple in AD70. Does that make sense?

 

[Calvin Codger]

"If the old heavens and old earth completely passed away in AD70, which heavens and earth are we currently living in?" We still live in a fallen and broken world, not yet the "new heaven and new earth"

Hello Ian. I'll have more to say regarding Matthew's comments later. In the meantime, I wanted to clear up this one fundamental point.
"heaven and earth" in Matt 24:35 and elsewhere is metaphorical for God's covenantal relationship with his people and not a reference to the physical world. So to ask your question above doesn't really make sense from my point of view. In other words, the New Covenant (NHNE) with Christ as temple is currently the church. In the eternal state, God's temple and the NHNE will fill the entire cosmos.
If you think that "heaven and earth" passing away in Matt 24:35 and elsewhere is a reference cataclysmic events that happen to the literal heaven and earth, then that might be a discussion worth having.
Mixing the two views will just result in us talking past each other.

 

[iainduguid]

Mixing the two views will just result in us talking past each other.

Herein lies the point of concern, I think. My point (and I think Matthew's) is that the destruction of the temple in AD70 has a typological aspect to it, pointing forward to the final destruction of the physical heavens and earth and their replacement with the new heavens and earth of Revelation 21. I would argue that the passage in Matthew itself links those two by following Matthew 24 with the parables of Matthew 25 which, it seems to me, deal with the latter series of events. See Matt 25:31-32: when is it that the Son of Man comes in glory with all his angels and is seated on his glorious throne with all nations gathered before him separating the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats? Did that happen exhaustively in AD70 with the destruction of the temple, so that there is no further glorious appearing of our Lord to be expected? Or were the events of AD70 in some sense a foreshadowing of that final climactic replacement of the old heavens and old earth with a new heavens and new earth. I don't think the two things can be completely separated.

 

[Calvin Codger]

See Matt 25:31-32: when is it that the Son of Man comes in glory with all his angels and is seated on his glorious throne with all nations gathered before him separating the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats? Did that happen exhaustively in AD70 with the destruction of the temple, so that there is no further glorious appearing of our Lord to be expected?

Ian, I gotta get to work. But please at least do me the courtesy of actually reading the blog post which your critiquing.

Here is what I said:

"In this scenario, the AD 70 dialog carries on all the way until Matt 25:31 which begins the discussion of the end of the age and the second coming. The end of the age is the last part of the disciples’ question and the last part of the answer in 25:31. This brackets the answer regarding the 70 AD destruction. The answer leading up to and including the destruction of the temple continues through Matt 25:30. "

 

[Ploutos]

I am sometimes surprised at the brusqueness with which pastors and seminary professors are addressed in here. Such positions are not sacrosanct, but it is a great blessing especially to have multiple seminary professors on here willing to lend their expertise and time at no cost.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

I am sometimes surprised at the brusqueness with which pastors and seminary professors are addressed in here. Such positions are not sacrosanct, but it is a great blessing especially to have multiple seminary professors on here willing to lend their expertise and time at no cost.

Thank you for this. Serving as a moderator, and in my place and station, my activity is mostly to deal with new registrations and generally try to help keep an eye on things. I appreciate you as a member speaking up here and wanted as a member to add my hearty agreement. We have such a treasure here in the persons of wise ministers of the gospel; and lay persons do well to listen and consider more than they pontificate. (I have been a pontificator myself in the past, at which I blush.) (Edited because I pontificate still.)

 

[Calvin Codger]

Matthew and Ian I am sorry for being disrespectful. I value your educated opinions and your service to the Lord.
I guess sometimes I get overzealous because I really enjoy these discussions and I don't consider my tone.
I was actually really looking forward to interacting with your latest post Matthew but I probably better move on.

 

[MW]

This is not a straightforward issue, so I appreciate the need to speak bluntly to the points under discussion.

As Iain said, we are still living in something that is old -- a fallen and broken world. There is a post flood reality that existed prior to the call of Abraham and the theocratic nation of Israel. It is important to make sure we do not swallow up all NT eschatology under the end of the Jewish dispensation. The NT speaks to Jews and Gentiles, not just to Jews, and it does so under a two age schema.

I am happy to discuss this but we need to be clear that this goes beyond what was written in the blog post. Please note that I accept what has been written about the Olivet Discourse. My challenge is that it does not exhaust the prophecy of Isaiah, and that Peter and John cannot be assumed to speak in the same terms as our Lord. He was addressing the theocracy whereas they were addressing a situation where the new creation has already been inaugurated but not consummated. If there is to be a consummation of the NHNE then there must also be a final passing away of the OHOE because the two coincide.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

This may be helpful to some looking in on this discussion, "Critiques of full and partial preterism", Excerpted from Dean Davis’ High King Of Heaven.