The Footsteps of the Messiah

[Areopagus]

I just began reading Arnold Fruchtenbaum's book "The Footsteps of the Messiah." I'm reading this on the tails of "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry. Currently I am digging through anything that I can in order to better understand a "brand" of eschatology.

As I step into the pages of Mr. Fruchtenbaum's book, I read on page 13:

Verse one further states that the things that are being revealed *must shortly come to pass.* This is often misunderstood to mean that all the prophecies of the book were to be fulfilled soon after they were given. Others use this phrase to teach that since these prophecies were not fulfilled soon after they were given, it is not necessary to take these prophecies too seriously. However, the word *shortly* simply means that once the day for fulfillment comes, there will be no delay in its execution.

This seems to me to be a very cavalier dismissal of the weighty evidence given by Gentry concerning the epistemology of the word "shortly" (tachos) and "near" (mello) in Revelation, and in Scripture throughout. Granted, I'm not a Greek scholar, albeit I have a working knowledge of the language, but this concerned me. The seeming immediacy of the content of the book and its grammatical structure would press me to think that John believed these things truly were about to take place; shortly, were near; must soon come to pass. Or, maybe I'm wrong and John was writing to say, "These things must soon come to pass, which means in the far future."

I don't mean to seem sarcastic. Truly, I'm not. But if anyone has any further studies on this word, those phrases, etc, I'd be obliged. I've read much of what Thomas Ice wrote. It is indeed compelling stuff.

To me, if this issue of the immediate expectancy of these things to happen cannot be reconciled, then I cannot get past the beginning of this book. Does that make sense?

Thanks and blessings,

Dustin...

[Edited on 28-12-2004 by Areopagus]

 

[Areopagus]

Are there no takers? Where is "Houseparent?"

If the recipients of Gods Revelation to John, those who were to expect those things that were to "soon take place," were not his contemporaries then doesn't that present a problem to the Postmillenialist, et al? It would seem that if Ice and Fruchtenbaum are right then Gentry's position, and a great many other Preterist, are going to have to figure some things out.

I still lean towards Post Millenialism because Scripture doesn't seem to give way to Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology at all. But again, I say that I'm in no way an expert. I'm still studying.

In Him,

Dustin...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Dustin...
Your two posts have confused me just a bit. I don't know what exactly you are asking. But I'll try a response by first offering some factual data, and then asking you a question for clarification.

Who is Arnold Fruchtenbaum? I don't know. All I know from his quote is that he and Gentry are not on the same page with respect to interpreting certain temporal indicators (TI's). Gentry takes them seriously, i.e. pregnant with contemporary (to author John) reference, but that does not make him a full- or hyper-preterist, or a liberal. Here are some things I do know about Gentry:

Gentry is a partial-preterist, meaning that he thinks the book's message is aimed (initially) straight at his first century audience, and through them, to us and everyone in between. Specifically (as his book on dating Rev. shows) he thinks the book was composed before 70 AD, and has much to say regarding the final removal of the vestiges of the Old Covenant, and judgment on the crucifiers of the Messiah. And he does not interpret certain passages in the book in a way that contradicts teaching elsewhere in the NT (or Rev. itself) about the future Second Coming, or compromising the integrity or veracity of Scripture by promising the early church something, and failing to deliver.

Gentry is a post-millenialist, meaning that with regard to the infamous Rev. 20 passage, he takes it as speaking of a binding of Satan that a) has already happened with Christ's first coming, and b) will ultimately bear fruit in an historical (i.e. in time, not eternity) gospel victory over a defeated foe. His post-millenialism does not appear to conflict with his partial-preterism.

I don't think Fuchtenbaum's understanding of the TI's does them justice, but I suspect I know why he interprets them the way he does, assuming he's not a liberal writer. Probably because he already thinks about the book in a futuristic fashion. Ergo, he finds a way to make the TI's say something that harmonizes with his other interpretations, because probably his doctrines of God and Scripture are better (In my humble opinion) than his hermeneutical technique.

Tommy Ice is dispensational and futuristic in his approach to Revelation; which fits your statement in the second post, tying him to Fuchtenbaum. If you want a single-source work that critiques Ice, et al, you can read Bahnsen & Gentry, House Divided: The breakup of dispensational theology, 1989, which is available online for free at http://www.freebooks.com/docs/21fe_47e.htm
I'm not trying to convert you from anything or to anything, just letting you know where to find one resource.

Lastly, a question for you (do to my confusion from your posts):
Are you conflating the views dealing with "rapture" and "tribulation" with the views dealing with "millennium"? Rapture and tribulational views are the exclusive domain of dispensational pre-millenialists. Pre-, mid-, and post-trib views are simply not relevant to non-dispensational interpretations of Revelation. Neither amillennial nor post-millenial nor historic-pre-millenial views deal with these topics in ways that correlate to dispensational thinking.

Back to you...

 

[Areopagus]

Contra,

I'm sorry for any confusion. Let me try and clarify just a bit.

I am very much leaning towards a Post Millenial eschatology. After reading Gentry, talking with my mentor (who is Post Millenial and a Covenant Theologian), and glancing at some works by Edwards and Piper, it's going to be hard to push me in any other direction. However, in order for me to be satisfied, I do want to look at all angles. Now, I've considered the Dispensational/Futuristic approach before and found it lacking. But Fruchtenbaum is now considered to be one of the strongest "exegetes" for the Dispensational position, albeit a somewhat different *brand* of Dispensationalism. So my questions and promptings are meant to confuse, but to clarify.

Now, Fruchtenbaum, as I pointed out, completely dismisses the "shortly come to pass" and "near" phrases cavalierly. I didn't like that at all. Ice, however, deals with it at good length. I read his work on the matter and found it compelling, but not convicing. So I am asking if anyone has any other resources for that particular topic - the tenses, grammar, and structure of those phrases in Revelation in particular, and elsewhere in Scripture. If "A House Divided" is going to do that, then great. I have that book on order and should get it very soon.

Contra, you ask:

Lastly, a question for you (do to my confusion from your posts):
Are you conflating the views dealing with "rapture" and "tribulation" with the views dealing with "millennium"? Rapture and tribulational views are the exclusive domain of dispensational pre-millenialists. Pre-, mid-, and post-trib views are simply not relevant to non-dispensational interpretations of Revelation. Neither amillennial nor post-millenial nor historic-pre-millenial views deal with these topics in ways that correlate to dispensational thinking.
____

You lost me there. In other words, I don't know how to answer you. I'm not sure if I'm conflating the views. I don't believe so, but maybe. I know that Post Millenialists, Amillenialists, and Historic Pre-Millenialists don't entertain the pre, mid, or post rapture idea, correct? Further, the idea of the "millennium" is different as well, yes? Maybe some insight on your part could help me see if I'm confusing terms.

Paul,

I too thought Fruchtenbaums comments were laughable. I called my pastor and told him to look on page 13 (where the remark is) and see if he saw the same arrogance as I did. Later on I did a Google search (gotta love Google) and found out that Fruchtenbaum, when dealing with reviews or rebuttals, resorts to *ad hominem.* Unfortunate.

In Him,

Dustin...

 

[Areopagus]

Paul,

Because that's only page 13 of a 792 page book dealing with this subject. Further, because this man has gained a great deal of respect amongst Dispensationalist. This isn't his only book on this subject. He also has a book out called "Israelology: The Missing Link in Systematic Theology." That book is thicker than "Footsteps of the Messiah."

So, I don't just dismiss someone. But Paul, I never said he was swaying my beliefs, did I? I believe what I said was that I was giving everything a thorough looking through. Part of doing that is reading all the material I can get my hands on. That's what I'm doing. So I posted trying to get help, clarification, resources, etc, on this idea of "soon come to pass," and so forth. So far I've gotten no help. It seems like people get disjointed. Odd.

Maybe this time things will be different.

Dustin...

 

[Areopagus]

Nevermind. I hesitated before coming here. I thought that just maybe someone might be a resource. I was wrong. It's pathetic that someone can come in with a question, and get this. Notice my first post:

Quote:

This seems to me to be a very cavalier dismissal of the weighty evidence given by Gentry concerning the epistemology of the word "shortly" (tachos) and "near" (mello) in Revelation, and in Scripture throughout. Granted, I'm not a Greek scholar, albeit I have a working knowledge of the language, but this concerned me. The seeming immediacy of the content of the book and its grammatical structure would press me to think that John believed these things truly were about to take place; shortly, were near; must soon come to pass. Or, maybe I'm wrong and John was writing to say, "These things must soon come to pass, which means in the far future."

I don't mean to seem sarcastic. Truly, I'm not. But if anyone has any further studies on this word, those phrases, etc, I'd be obliged. I've read much of what Thomas Ice wrote. It is indeed compelling stuff.

To me, if this issue of the immediate expectancy of these things to happen cannot be reconciled, then I cannot get past the beginning of this book. Does that make sense?
___

It seems, to me at least, that I did give a context for my question. Namely, does anyone have any good resources on this word study. I even gave my own thoughts thus far on the topic. I said that I've read Gentry and Ice. So, where did I go wrong in asking for help?

Thanks anyway Paul, but I'll go elsewhere where people seem to have a desire to discuss rather than feel attacked and become defensive.

Dustin...

 

[Areopagus]

Thank you very much. That is very helpful. Praise the Lord.

Dustin...

 

[ConfederateTheocrat]

Paul, is that picture in the background of your avatar a picture of the destruction of Jerusalem?

[Edited on 12-29-2004 by ConfederateTheocrat]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Dustin
In the book I mentioned, Gentry & Bahnsen's main exegetical work comes in section 2, dealing with eschatolgy. The chapter which would address your question most relevantly and directly is actually the 8th and final chapter of that section (chapter 16 overall), begins p257. It comes therefore at the end of over 100 pages of cumulative argumentation, much of which doubtless is useful for supporting what they are saying there at the end. Specifically, p266, 3rd para, begins dealing with the TI's in Matt. 23 & 24 and Revelation. The opinions of Ice and others who offer different interpretations are addressed.

I hope this is helpful...

p.s.
I don't see why either Paul or myself asking for clarity should have provoked you. If you were clear, then we are at fault, but you still need to help us out in order to have a profitable exchange (unless it would be too much trouble--in which case we couldn't help you, and you wouldn't want our help anyway).
If you weren't clear, what shame is it to reword or sharpen your language?

 

[Areopagus]

Contra,

Regarding your "PS." I understand. I have no problem clarifying. If the blur was my fault, so be it. No matter, the manner in which people question conveys much of their intention and attitude (as best that can be discerned over the Internet).

It's fine. Paul's second link was quite helpful. I'm excited to read "The House Divided." Thank you for your help.

Dustin...