Hebrews 12:26 preterism

Status
Not open for further replies.

RJ Spencer

Puritan Board Freshman
I've considered myself an optimistic Amillennial for many years now, but lately have been getting closer and closer to post millennialism. I'm starting to accept Doug Wilson's separation of the two ages, and I agree with the post mill understanding of Psalm 110:1.
Than, just today, I came across Hebrews 12:26, which of course led me to Haggai 2:6. Many modern commentators tend to place this shaking at the second coming of Christ, but Clarke seems to take a preterist approach. He suggests that this shaking took place in 70 AD. Is it possible, from a post mill perspective, that the shaking began in 70 AD, but will continue till all of Christ's enemies be made his footstool? Would this interpretation link the "shaking" with the groaning of creation found in Romans 8:22-23?
Also, since we're on the subject, what percentage of the earth do you believe will be Christian before Christ comes? I still believe that His second coming will lead to a great slaughter because those unregenerate will not be able to stand at His coming. And one last question; The Golden age will be a time of great peace and christianization, will the majority of "Christian's" at that time be in the covenant internally, or only externally? In other words, does the separation of the wheat from the chaff happen before or after Christ's coming?
 

JimmyH

Puritan Board Senior
I've considered myself an optimistic Amillennial for many years now, but lately have been getting closer and closer to post millennialism. I'm starting to accept Doug Wilson's separation of the two ages, and I agree with the post mill understanding of Psalm 110:1.
Than, just today, I came across Hebrews 12:26, which of course led me to Haggai 2:6. Many modern commentators tend to place this shaking at the second coming of Christ, but Clarke seems to take a preterist approach. He suggests that this shaking took place in 70 AD. Is it possible, from a post mill perspective, that the shaking began in 70 AD, but will continue till all of Christ's enemies be made his footstool? Would this interpretation link the "shaking" with the groaning of creation found in Romans 8:22-23?
Also, since we're on the subject, what percentage of the earth do you believe will be Christian before Christ comes? I still believe that His second coming will lead to a great slaughter because those unregenerate will not be able to stand at His coming. And one last question; The Golden age will be a time of great peace and christianization, will the majority of "Christian's" at that time be in the covenant internally, or only externally? In other words, does the separation of the wheat from the chaff happen before or after Christ's coming?
Such a complex topic, with contradicting points of view that differ yet all seem plausible. Some more than others. Dr Ken Gentry came closest to convincing me of partial Preterism, but then I read something like this latest blog post, 'Three Views On The Millennium' from @BayouHuguenot
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/author/theogothic/
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Asserting it happened in AD 70 is one thing. Proving it is quite another. It requires making a connection to an extra-biblical historical event that the Bible itself doesn't make.
. Is it possible, from a post mill perspective, that the shaking began in 70 AD, but will continue till all of Christ's enemies be made his footstool?

If things are "still continuing," then that means the persecution of the saints which began when the Beast (Nero? Caiaphas? Titus?) emerged is still ongoing. Only the return of Christ cuts short the great tribulation. Consider:

“Immediately (eutheos) after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken.” (Matt 24:29).

The abomination of desolation causes the Great Tribulation. That means that believers today who are being persecuted can trace their persecution back to Titus. That just doesn't work.
 

RJ Spencer

Puritan Board Freshman
Such a complex topic, with contradicting points of view that differ yet all seem plausible. Some more than others. Dr Ken Gentry came closest to convincing me of partial Preterism, but then I read something like this latest blog post, 'Three Views On The Millennium' from @BayouHuguenot
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/author/theogothic/
I've always wondered why it has to be one or the other? If there are "types of Christ" found throughout the old testament, isn't it possible to use typology to show that there are types of anti Christ throughout the church age? Couldn't Nero have been a type of anti-Christ, the pope a type, and a future persecutor be a type?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top