The Preterist Hermeneutic

[tcalbrecht]

The only twisting I was talking about was for full preterism, which is absurd. I know RC Sproul doesn't defend full preterism, I never said he did. All I meant was that either all those things took place, or they did not. (so no preterism or full preterism).

Well then, who exactly are you picking on? Is it only “full preterist” who are guilty (in your mind) of Scripture twisting? Or does Sproul, et al engage in it also?

Have we resolved your issue of authority of Scripture vs the “authority” of Calvin? Do you now see that preterists have no ultimate authority other than the Word of God?

I think you need to clarify your issues rather than making broad statements that could be taken as offensive by many folks.

And, just for the record, your issue seems to be not only with preterists, but also historicists. If you combine the two groups I think you will find they comprise the majority of folks on this board. I don’t think futuristism is widely held around here.

I am sorry if I came off the wrong way! I was just stating that reading Matthew 24, to me, is very straightforward in its context and meaning. It starts of speaking of false prophets and tribulation in verses 1-14, then somehow 15-20 refers to 70 AD, then Jesus speak of false prophets and apostasies again from 21 until His return. The context of the whole chapter is about false prophets and tribulation before His return, and Jesus speaking to His church to endure and to not follow false christs.

For the record, my view is similar to Gentry’s. I take vv. 4-34 of Matthew 24 as referring to near term events in the 1st century. And then I believe vv. 36ff refers to the yet-future Second Coming. My two main reasons are 1) the use of the term “this generation” wrt the former section, and 2) the contrast between specificity and detail in the earlier section vs. uncertainty and suddenness in the second. E.g., in the first section the disciples are told to “flee to the mountains” indicting at least some time for warning and preparation. In the latter section no one knows when the Lord is coming (v. 42).

Here is what RC Sproul's Bible says about the abomination of desolation,

There is no biblical warrant for making this assumption, and is all speculative.

How do you define assumption and speculation? Please give us your interpretation of “abomination of desolation” so we might compare it with Sproul. Also, be sure to compare the phrase in Matthew 24:15,16 with the parallel verse in Luke 21:20,21.

 

[KMK]

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. 22 For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-22)

Where does this passage say anything about the year AD 70?

 

[tcalbrecht]

Where does this passage say anything about the year AD 70?

Everywhere.

Seriously, I'm sure you are familiar with the interpretation which sees the coming of the "days of vengeance" to "this generation" and the significance in the context of 1st century Judaism and the end of the old covenant system.

It is the same way we arrive at all sort of dates in the Bible, generally by interpretation of the text. E.g., Daniel’s “seventy weeks” is interpreted by most scholars to be referring to 490 years rather than days. Many historicists interpret the “one thousand two hundred and sixty days” of Revelation to be referring to years.

There are very few specific dates given in the Bible for counting purposes. Interpretation comes into play at some point. So, if your question really was “where is the literal date AD70 in the Bible,” then I acknowledge that the literal date is not found anywhere in the Bible. But that fact alone does not impact the proper interpretation of the text.

 

[ajrock2000]

I think you need to clarify your issues rather than making broad statements that could be taken as offensive by many folks.

Ok, I will. I am sorry for making such broad statements, especially when I am not completely sure about all the differences between all the views.

For the record, my view is similar to Gentry’s. I take vv. 4-34 of Matthew 24 as referring to near term events in the 1st century. And then I believe vv. 36ff refers to the yet-future Second Coming. My two main reasons are 1) the use of the term “this generation” wrt the former section, and 2) the contrast between specificity and detail in the earlier section vs. uncertainty and suddenness in the second. E.g., in the first section the disciples are told to “flee to the mountains” indicting at least some time for warning and preparation. In the latter section no one knows when the Lord is coming (v. 42).

So you believe the sun darkening, stars from heaven, heavens being shaken, and the sign of the coming of the Son of Man referred to 1st century events?
If this is true, then why would Jesus say in v21, "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." This must refer to the end of time where rampant false prophets will deceive many. So in AD70 there was the greatest tribulation of false christs the world has ever seen to even deceive Christians if possible?

How do you define assumption and speculation? Please give us your interpretation of “abomination of desolation” so we might compare it with Sproul. Also, be sure to compare the phrase in Matthew 24:15,16 with the parallel verse in Luke 21:20,21.

In a very concise nutshell...

We are told in Matt 24 that we when we 'see' the abomination of desolation in the holy place, to flee from it unto the mountains. The passage also says, "let the reader understand", and that tells me that I must take special care when interpreting it. The only place that can be holy after the cross and become an abomination is the external church (Christ cannot, nor can we, His true body). The old temple only represented and was a type of Christ, which through His death, was fulfilled once for all.

The abomination of desolation, I believe, is when the church forsakes the laws of God, and makes his own rules, goes after false gods, which makes that place desolate. (Lev 26, Jer 7:30-34;32:33-35, and many more) Jerusalem is to be understood spiritually (many do not like this) as the church (Israel of God) Judea, Jerusalem, are all types of places of the Lord's people, they represent the beloved city of God (1 Peter 2:9;Gal 4:26;Heb 12:22). I believe both Matt 24:15-16 and Luke 21:20-21 refer to the tribulation before the end of the world where the love of God grows cold, no one cares about God's statutes, and many false christs and prophets will appear and deceive many. This makes sense in light of many passages in Revelation, when Satan will be loosed to deceive the nations, and make war with the saints. In the external church, the Word of God and all who adhere to it will be trampled underfoot and hated of men. When Jerusalem is encompassed with armies, it signifies persecution of the church of God by the gentiles (nations) (we are represented spiritually as Jews - Romans 2:28-29). These are warnings to the church to watch out for, not to unbelieving Jews. When we see this abomination, we are to 'flee Judea unto the mountains', signifying fleeing unto the Lord's holy mountain and His word for protection. "As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the LORD surrounds his people, from this time forth and forevermore." (Psalm 125:2) It makes sense when it tells us to not turn back and get to out of that place because it is under the judgment of God. Rev 11 tells us to measure the temple of God (the external church) and them that worship therein,

Rev 11:1-2
And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.

I used the KJV because it uses the word Gentiles, in newer translations, it is translated 'nations'. Ezekiel 40-44 says much about this...

Ezekiel 43:10-11
As for you, son of man, describe to the house of Israel the temple, that they may be ashamed of their iniquities; and they shall measure the plan.

And if they are ashamed of all that they have done, make known to them the design of the temple, its arrangement, its exits and its entrances, that is, its whole design; and make known to them as well all its statutes and its whole design and all its laws, and write it down in their sight, so that they may observe all its laws and all its statutes and carry them out.

This is all describing the church that has forsaken the statutes of God, and has now become an abomination in the sight of God, which will make it desolate.

Anyways, I believe I have written too much already...

 

[tcalbrecht]

Anyways, I believe I have written too much already...

Whew! And how exactly is this less full of assumption and speculation and what Sproul wrote?

So you see no 1st century historical setting for any of Jesus' warnings in the gospels? Rather, you believe it all needs to be highly spiritualized (e.g., every mention of Jerusalem means spiritual Jerusalem and every mention of Israel mean spiritual Israel) and applied to the apostate church or it makes no sense?

For the records, here's Calvin's comments on Matthew 24:34. You might find them helpful.

This generation shall not pass away. Though Christ employs a general expression, yet he does not extend the discourses to all the miseries which would befall the Church, but merely informs them, that before a single generation shall have been completed, they will learn by experience the truth of what he has said. For within fifty years the city was destroyed and the temple was razed, the whole country was reduced to a hideous desert, and the obstinacy of the world rose up against God. Nay more, their rage was inflamed to exterminate the doctrine of salvation, false teachers arose to corrupt the pure gospel by their impostures, religion sustained amazing shocks, and the whole company of the godly was miserably distressed. Now though the same evils were perpetrated in uninterrupted succession for many ages afterwards, yet what Christ said was true, that, before the close of a single generation, believers would feel in reality, and by undoubted experience, the truth of his prediction; for the apostles endured the same things which we see in the present day. And yet it was not the design of Christ to promise to his followers that their calamities would be terminated within a short time, (for then he would have contradicted himself, having previously warned them that the end was not yet; but, in order to encourage them to perseverance, he expressly foretold that those things related to their own age. The meaning therefore is: “This prophecy does not relate to evils that are distant, and which posterity will see after the lapse of many centuries, but which are now hanging over you, and ready to fall in one mass, so that there is no part of it which the present generation will not experience.” So then, while our Lord heaps upon a, single generation every kind of calamities, he does not by any means exempt future ages from the same kind of sufferings, but only enjoins the disciples to be prepared for enduring them all with firmness.

 

[ajrock2000]

Whew! And how exactly is this less full of assumption and speculation and what Sproul wrote?

Which parts are speculation? What parts am I going outside of the Word of God to interpret?

So you see no 1st century historical setting for any of Jesus' warnings in the gospels? Rather, you believe it all needs to be highly spiritualized (e.g., every mention of Jerusalem means spiritual Jerusalem and every mention of Israel mean spiritual Israel) and applied to the apostate church or it makes no sense?

Not every mention of Jerusalem and Israel should be spirtualized. Why would you say this? You seem to be very biased against spirtualizing things, as many theologians are, and I am not sure why. I only spirtualize where the Bible deems it to be so. The Bible speaks in symbols, figures, and spirtual meanings all the time.

Edit: Interesting quote by Calvin, and it makes lots of sense. But where is the scripture to prove what he is saying? What source of information does he use to say all the things he says?

You still have not answered my question as to how a literal temple building can be a 'holy place' after the death of Christ and the veil being split! What do you think of that?

 

[Iconoclast]

sun/moon /stars darkened

ajrock you asked;So you believe the sun darkening, stars from heaven, heavens being shaken, and the sign of the coming of the Son of Man referred to 1st century events?
If this is true, then why would Jesus say in v21, "For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." This must refer to the end of time where rampant false prophets will deceive many. So in AD70 there was the greatest tribulation of false christs the world has ever seen to even deceive Christians if possible?

Similar language is used to describe the judgements of God upon earthly kingdoms,and the removal of them from being in power. Here it is in Isa.13:
6Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.

7Therefore shall all hands be faint, and every man's heart shall melt:

8And they shall be afraid: pangs and sorrows shall take hold of them; they shall be in pain as a woman that travaileth: they shall be amazed one at another; their faces shall be as flames.

9Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, to lay the land desolate: and he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it.

10For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine.

11And I will punish the world for their evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; and I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the terrible.

and again in Isa.34:Isaiah 34
1Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it.

2For the indignation of the LORD is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.

3Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.

4And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

5For my sword shall be bathed in heaven: behold, it shall come down upon Idumea, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment.

6The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, it is made fat with fatness, and with the blood of lambs and goats, with the fat of the kidneys of rams: for the LORD hath a sacrifice in Bozrah, and a great slaughter in the land of Idumea.

7And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

8For it is the day of the LORD's vengeance, and the year of recompences for the controversy of Zion.

The heavens being rolled up as a scroll,,,is language used in REV:6:12-17 so if you combine the LK:21 passage cited by tcal,,,,you can see how the partial preterist seeks to make a biblical case. The earth did not cease to exist,when the heaven was said to roll up like a scroll,,,

 

[KMK]

Everywhere.

Seriously, I'm sure you are familiar with the interpretation which sees the coming of the "days of vengeance" to "this generation" and the significance in the context of 1st century Judaism and the end of the old covenant system.

It is the same way we arrive at all sort of dates in the Bible, generally by interpretation of the text. E.g., Daniel’s “seventy weeks” is interpreted by most scholars to be referring to 490 years rather than days. Many historicists interpret the “one thousand two hundred and sixty days” of Revelation to be referring to years.

There are very few specific dates given in the Bible for counting purposes. Interpretation comes into play at some point. So, if your question really was “where is the literal date AD70 in the Bible,” then I acknowledge that the literal date is not found anywhere in the Bible. But that fact alone does not impact the proper interpretation of the text.

Yes, of course I was being facetious. But that was the crux of my question. The preterist believes that it does not violate WCF/LBC chapter 1 when we use the works of Josephus et al to interpret Matt 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 etc.

And, as you pointed out, this interpretation (aided by extra-biblical sources) leads to a hermeneutic that is used to interpret other portions of scripture as well, and this still does no injustice to WCF/LBC chapter 1. (I am not arguing, but simply trying to clarify)

 

[ajrock2000]

Similar language is used to describe the judgements of God upon earthly kingdoms,and the removal of them from being in power.

The heavens being rolled up as a scroll,,,is language used in REV:6:12-17 so if you combine the LK:21 passage cited by tcal,,,,you can see how the partial preterist seeks to make a biblical case. The earth did not cease to exist,when the heaven was said to roll up like a scroll,,,

I am not too sure of the point you are trying to make.

So by those passages you believe that the earth can still exist and yet have the constellations, stars, and sun not give their light?

 

[Iconoclast]

sun,moon stars

ajrock,,,, you are thinking of the literal sun,moon, and stars.
But sometimes they are used to speak of human governments,rulers etc,
Starting with Joseph's dream,in Genesis,,,, In Isa, they were speaking about judgment that came upon Edom,and Babylon,,,,,not the physical literal sun,and moon.

 

[historyb]

Hmm, are you sure perterism is the correct spelling? Isn't it preterism?

Yep your right it's preterism, and I'm a proofreader for a magazine. Don't do so good proof reading myself

 

[Answerman]

Asa,

Most people admit that eschatology is one of the most difficult biblical doctrines to come to any solid conclusions on and so I don't think that a brief discussion is going to settle any issues or change any minds. That said, I would like provide a summary outline of why I hold to a preterist view.

1. Malachi prophecies that God will send Elijah before, "great and dreadful day of the LORD". John the Baptist asks the Pharisee’s, "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come" knowing that they did not show the fruits of repentance and that judgment was just around the corner for those that were listening to his preaching. Jesus proclaims that John was the Elijah that was to come. The angel of the LORD quotes from that same prophecy in Malachi to tell John's father, Zacharia, that John is the Elijah that Malachi prophesied. Jesus constantly warns that generation that He was living among that judgment is coming. And which generation would be more deserving of these warnings than the one that was witnessing the very Son of God walking among them?

2. Joel prophecies the God will pour out His Spirit on all flesh before the "great and awesome day of the LORD." Peter quotes from this passage (he says, "This is That which was spoken...") to explain what was happening on the day of Pentecost and he includes the part of the prophecy that uses cosmic catastrophic language as was used in the prophecies against Egypt and Babylon, prophecies which had already come to pass. This was part of the reason that the crowd responded, "they were cut to the heart and said, men and brethren, what shall we do?"

3. Amos predicts a sifting of Israel and a "rebuilding of the tabernacle of David" (Amos 9:9-12). James quotes from this passage "I will set it up, so that the rest of mankind may seek the LORD, Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name." and explains how the fulfillment of this passage was the explanation for a surge of Gentiles coming into the kingdom.

4. God prophecies to David that one day He will raise up the Christ to sit on his throne. Peter declares this prophecy to be fulfilled at the resurrection (and I would add the subsequent ascension) of Christ (Acts 2:30-32). And by the way Christ is now seated on the highest throne there is and would only be humiliating Himself if He came down to earth to sit on an earthly throne. (Yes, this is a shot at premillenialists)

5. Isaiah prophecies a new heaven and earth where death is still occurring and sinners are still present, but it will be more glorious than the old order of things (Isaiah 65:17-25). (This is my shot at Amillenialists)

This is just a sampling of passages that I believe prove that a preterist and/or postmillennial hermeneutic is not without a strong Biblical case. This is why my first comment in this thread was based on, “studying how Jesus and the writers of the New Testament interpreted Old Testament prophetic passages.” This is what led me to my position and what I believe will lead others to this position.

 

[JohnV]

Can one become convinced of the preterist hermeneutic without the use of extra-biblical sources (ie Josephus)? And if not, does that undermine WCF and LBC chapter 1?

Ken:

Are you asking about extra sources outside of the Bible being seen as infallible? E.g., the works of Josephus being used as an infallible confirmation of how Matt. 24 is to be interpreted? Are you asking if the "Scripture interpreting Scripture" principle is being violated in some respect by imposition from other sources?

 

[G.Wetmore]

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.Wetmore
I think you are confusing some categories. There is a difference between using extra-Biblical sources as the basis of your hermeneutic, and using extra-Biblical sources to help you understand when certain historical prophecies were fulfilled.
This is the question I am trying to answer!

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.Wetmore
Forget about preterism for a moment and just think about O.T. prophecy. We see certain prophecies against nations in the OT, but the OT doesn't necessarily tell us when those events took place.

I think I agree. Can you clarify with an example?

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.Wetmore
A person does not have an extra-Biblical hermeneutic because they find other historical sources to find out when the prophecy was fulfilled. The interpretation is done from the Scripture, and then other sources can tell us when those things occured. Sometimes Scripture tells us when prophecy was fulfilled, sometimes it doesn't.

But the issue is not just the timing of the fulfillment, but the fact of the fulfillment as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.Wetmore
Therefore, the preteristic interpretation does not rely on an extra-Biblical hermeneutic. It interprets the Bible, and then that interpretation is confirmed by external evidence. Because one sees external evidence for a position does not at all mean that they have an extra-Biblical hermeneutic.

So you believe that the preterist *interpretation* is compelling based on the time texts of Matt 24 etc, even w/o Josephus et al? I am not trying to bait you, but sincerely want to answer this question. Because there are other factors that affect interpretation, like historical theology for example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G.Wetmore
...preterism is an interpretation, it is not really a hermeneutical system.

However, you would have to admit, if it is indeed an interpretation, it has major implications on hermeneutics.

Thank you for your post, brother! You are helping to clear this matter up in my mind.

I think you may have missed my point on the various OT examples. The point is not just that Scripture often doesn't give us the date of a prophetic fulfillment, but it often doesn't give us any account of the fulfillment. It is not as though someone picks a historical event and then goes back to Scripture to see where he can read that in. The interpretation is done in the Scriptures, and then the historical details of that interpretation are seen in external sources. This is not at all having an extra-Biblical hermeneutic.

You say:

However, you would have to admit, if it is indeed an interpretation, it has major implications on hermeneutics.

I don't really think it does have major implications on hermeneutics, in fact I don't think it affects them at all. A Biblical hermeneutic, in which Scripture is used to interpret Scripture, does not neccesitate the abandoment of all external evidence. The evidence is not the basis for the interpretation, it is the simply an external evidence, or confirmation of it. that is a big difference. What the confession forbids is the importation of an extra-Biblical standard which would then be opposed upon the text and used as the framework for interpretation. Again, I would reference the Klinean use of Hittite Suzerainty treates as an example of that.

Is that making any sense to you? If not, where would you like me to clarify?

Hope this helps.

 

[KMK]

Ken:

Are you asking about extra sources outside of the Bible being seen as infallible? E.g., the works of Josephus being used as an infallible confirmation of how Matt. 24 is to be interpreted? Are you asking if the "Scripture interpreting Scripture" principle is being violated in some respect by imposition from other sources?

Yes! That is the question I am trying to answer as I try to nail down my own views on escatology. If we use Josephus to establish interpretation and therefore hermeneutic and therefore doctrine, how is that different than using the Apocrypha to do so?

 

[ajrock2000]

Asa,

Most people admit that eschatology is one of the most difficult biblical doctrines to come to any solid conclusions on and so I don't think that a brief discussion is going to settle any issues or change any minds. That said, I would like provide a summary outline of why I hold to a preterist view.

Yeah, I realize this. It is not really my intent to convince anyone. Because, although it is in the Bible therefore it is important, eschatology can be dangerous at times to talk about because it can cause disputes and dissensions among God's people, which is a shame!

1. Malachi prophecies that God will send Elijah before, "great and dreadful day of the LORD". John the Baptist asks the Pharisee’s, "Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come" knowing that they did not show the fruits of repentance and that judgment was just around the corner for those that were listening to his preaching. Jesus proclaims that John was the Elijah that was to come. The angel of the LORD quotes from that same prophecy in Malachi to tell John's father, Zacharia, that John is the Elijah that Malachi prophesied. Jesus constantly warns that generation that He was living among that judgment is coming. And which generation would be more deserving of these warnings than the one that was witnessing the very Son of God walking among them?

Without getting into a meaning debate on the word 'generation', I do not believe that any generation is 'more deserving' than any other. We are all just as guilty as the next, and just as much depraved sinners as any other man ever was. Should we have existed then, we would have denied and hated Jesus just as much if it not for God's grace lavished upon our hearts. I do absolutely believe that the Jews who saw Jesus do miracles and still rejected Him will receive much greater condemnation when Jesus Christ returns and judges them. Matt 11:20-24 states clearly that, in the day of Judgment, those cities will receive a greater condemnation than even Sodom.

 

[KMK]

I think you may have missed my point on the various OT examples. The point is not just that Scripture often doesn't give us the date of a prophetic fulfillment, but it often doesn't give us any account of the fulfillment. It is not as though someone picks a historical event and then goes back to Scripture to see where he can read that in. The interpretation is done in the Scriptures, and then the historical details of that interpretation are seen in external sources. This is not at all having an extra-Biblical hermeneutic.

You say:

I don't really think it does have major implications on hermeneutics, in fact I don't think it affects them at all. A Biblical hermeneutic, in which Scripture is used to interpret Scripture, does not neccesitate the abandoment of all external evidence. The evidence is not the basis for the interpretation, it is the simply an external evidence, or confirmation of it. that is a big difference. What the confession forbids is the importation of an extra-Biblical standard which would then be opposed upon the text and used as the framework for interpretation. Again, I would reference the Klinean use of Hittite Suzerainty treates as an example of that.

Is that making any sense to you? If not, where would you like me to clarify?

Hope this helps.

This is very helpful! You believe that the preterist *interpretation* is necessary based on scripture alone, and conveniently *confirmed* by external evidence. Is that correct?

 

[G.Wetmore]

This is very helpful! You believe that the preterist *interpretation* is necessary based on scripture alone, and conveniently *confirmed* by external evidence. Is that correct?

Well it depends on exactly what you mean. I think that you might be using the term "preterist interpretation" differently than me. By it I mean, for example, that in Matt 24 (at least through verse 34, whether or not the rest of the passage is included is irrelevant to this discussion and is really an inner dialogue amongst preterists) Jesus teaches a coming judgment on Jerusalem in the immediate future (the immediate future of his present audience in the first century). In fact it was to take place within that very generation. That interpretation is based upon Scripture alone. I am sold on that interpretation because of Scripture. I would then go to external sources and ask the question, exactly when did that happen. I know the general timeframe of when it must have taken place, within their generation, but I don't know the exact historical date. When I go to these sources, lo and behold, there it is. And detail by detail is confirmed in the histories. I then see that Jerusalem was destroyed in a.d. 70. This is what I mean by having a Scriptural hermeneutic to arrive at an interpretation. And then to find confirmation for that interpretation with external evidence.
Now if by "preterest interpretation" you mean can I prove based on the Scriptures alone the historical date (a.d. 70) of the fulfillment, then the answer is no. But that is not interpretation. The Bible doesn't have the date a.d. 70 written in it, but I don't see that as a specific problem for the preterist school. I don't see any specific dates in those passages. I see time frame references, but not dates. Therefore every prophetic school has to deal with that issue, it is not a problem in general, and if it was it would be a problem for every school of interpretation, not just preterists.

Does this answer your question?

 

[tcalbrecht]

Without getting into a meaning debate on the word 'generation', I do not believe that any generation is 'more deserving' than any other. We are all just as guilty as the next, and just as much depraved sinners as any other man ever was. Should we have existed then, we would have denied and hated Jesus just as much if it not for God's grace lavished upon our hearts. I do absolutely believe that the Jews who saw Jesus do miracles and still rejected Him will receive much greater condemnation when Jesus Christ returns and judges them. Matt 11:20-24 states clearly that, in the day of Judgment, those cities will receive a greater condemnation than even Sodom.

How do these two comments fit together? How is it that no generation is more deserving of judgment than another, and yet the Jews of that generation will receive a greater condemnation?

What am I missing?

You said they will, “will receive much greater condemnation.” Much greater condemnation than whom? Sodom and Gomorrah, the epitome of depravity! But why is that? Because Israel had the very oracles of God, the law and the prophets, and they witnesses in person the coming the Prophet who was to come with great signs and wonders. And yet they rejected Him. So it isn’t just a matter of depravity. There were, no doubt, far more “depraved” nations in the world when Jesus arrived on the scene. They did not receive the condemnation of Jesus. It was Israel, the wife of God, who was under the curse of God for playing the harlot and rejecting the Christ.

Nope, I think there is something more to the interpretation than “we are all just as guilty” as Israel.

 

[ajrock2000]

How do these two comments fit together? How is it that no generation is more deserving of judgment than another, and yet the Jews of that generation will receive a greater condemnation?

What am I missing?

You said they will, “will receive much greater condemnation.” Much greater condemnation than whom? Sodom and Gomorrah, the epitome of depravity! But why is that? Because Israel had the very oracles of God, the law and the prophets, and they witnesses in person the coming the Prophet who was to come with great signs and wonders. And yet they rejected Him. So it isn’t just a matter of depravity. There were, no doubt, far more “depraved” nations in the world when Jesus arrived on the scene. They did not receive the condemnation of Jesus. It was Israel, the wife of God, who was under the curse of God for playing the harlot and rejecting the Christ.

I agree with you that they are guilty of a lot more than others based on their rejection and unbelief upon seeing Christ and witnessing Him. I just do not agree that AD70 had anything to do with it. I disagree that they were 'more depraved' than other people. We are all desperately wicked beyond knowledge without the restraining grace of God. Yes, Jews who rejected Jesus will receive a greater condemnation in the Day of Judgment. Same as any other person who dies unconverted who will be in the same boat as them having every thought and deed taken into account. Any person unconverted (including Jews in Jesus' time all the way back to Cain) are all of the kingdom of Satan, whose father is the devil.

 

[tcalbrecht]

I agree with you that they are guilty of a lot more than others based on their rejection and unbelief upon seeing Christ and witnessing Him. I just do not agree that AD70 had anything to do with it. I disagree that they were 'more depraved' than other people. We are all desperately wicked beyond knowledge without the restraining grace of God. Yes, Jews who rejected Jesus will receive a greater condemnation in the Day of Judgment. Same as any other person who dies unconverted who will be in the same boat as them having every thought and deed taken into account. Any person unconverted (including Jews in Jesus' time all the way back to Cain) are all of the kingdom of Satan, whose father is the devil.

But is it not true that God’s judgment is not limited to the eternal, but also to the temporal? Didn’t God temporally judge Israel and Judah for their unbelief by the hand of the Assyrians and Babylonians? Did not God also judge Babylon and Egypt for their treatment of Israel? And just look at the message of the Judges, constant judgment against Israel.

Did not Jonah preach a warning of temporal judgment, “Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!”?

Speaking of Jonah, is it not entirely possible that when Jesus told the Jews that the only sign they would receive was the sign of the Jonah, that this message of temporal judgment (“Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown”) was behind this word of warning? The only difference is that Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah. But when the greater than Jonah appeared to Israel, they refused His message and killed the son of the landowner.

And what was the result? “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.” (Matt. 21:43)

This was temporal judgment, my friend. If God could do it to all those nations, including Israel, before Christ, why do we think He must suddenly change His program towards national Israel when they were playing the harlot from God’s covenant faithfulness?

God effectively transferred the kingdom from national Israel to the universal Church by one act of destroying all the old covenant cultic elements, temple, priesthood, and sacrifices.

“In that He says, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” (Heb. 8:13)

 

[JohnV]

Yes! That is the question I am trying to answer as I try to nail down my own views on escatology. If we use Josephus to establish interpretation and therefore hermeneutic and therefore doctrine, how is that different than using the Apocrypha to do so?

It may interest you to know that in my Reformed background an individual's own eschatological views were considered to be extra-Biblical. In other words, the word "Biblical" was used in two separate ways. First, it refered to doctrine, to things which God expressly made known to us in the Bible, or which followed necessarily from the Bible. Secondly, it referred to things whose bases were only from the Bible. So in one sense one's eschatological views were "Biblical" in that the basis from which one derived his view was only from the Bible. In this sense, one could read Josephus or even other secular historical writings, not as support, but as worldly witness. But in the first sense it could not be called "Biblical" because it could not be said that the Bible teaches it. One could make an argument either for or against Biblical support, but the support would not be sufficient to say that the Bible affirmed the argument. The Church's witness is that there is not enough Biblical support or any one of the views to say with authority that such a view is the one the Bible declares.

The preachers under which I was taught never dared to go beyond the first. Their mandate did not include preaching as Biblical the second. That was the liberty of all the people alike, status of office making no difference as to the equality of the views, or to the liberties of each. It was, in fact, a breaking of the mandate to preach as Biblical in the first sense what was Biblical in the second sense.

There was a minister who said perhaps one paragraph in his sermon which was disparaging of militant Postmillennialism in a predominantly Amillennial congregation. He was severely raked over the coals for this, for going beyond his mandate as a minister of the gospel.

The gospel is the gospel; personal views, no matter how convinced a person may be about it, are not gospel but only personal views.

So in this sense, whether one includes the writings of Josephus or other writings does not matter, because it is forbidden to include things as gospel or teachable doctrine what is not gospel or teachable doctrine. There is no mandate for that from Christ. Whether one reads Josephus for historical verification for his particular preterist views is not really much of a problem, because it is only a personal view anyways, and it may not impact the teaching of Scripture. Only Scripture may interpret Scripture. Speculating from Scripture and using that to interpret Scripture is not Scripture interpreting Scripture in the strict sense that the Reformers meant it.

Well, that's my two cents' worth (Canadian, which is about 1.8 cents US today.)

 

[KMK]

Well it depends on exactly what you mean. I think that you might be using the term "preterist interpretation" differently than me. By it I mean, for example, that in Matt 24 (at least through verse 34, whether or not the rest of the passage is included is irrelevant to this discussion and is really an inner dialogue amongst preterists) Jesus teaches a coming judgment on Jerusalem in the immediate future (the immediate future of his present audience in the first century). In fact it was to take place within that very generation. That interpretation is based upon Scripture alone. I am sold on that interpretation because of Scripture. I would then go to external sources and ask the question, exactly when did that happen. I know the general timeframe of when it must have taken place, within their generation, but I don't know the exact historical date. When I go to these sources, lo and behold, there it is. And detail by detail is confirmed in the histories. I then see that Jerusalem was destroyed in a.d. 70. This is what I mean by having a Scriptural hermeneutic to arrive at an interpretation. And then to find confirmation for that interpretation with external evidence.
Now if by "preterest interpretation" you mean can I prove based on the Scriptures alone the historical date (a.d. 70) of the fulfillment, then the answer is no. But that is not interpretation. The Bible doesn't have the date a.d. 70 written in it, but I don't see that as a specific problem for the preterist school. I don't see any specific dates in those passages. I see time frame references, but not dates. Therefore every prophetic school has to deal with that issue, it is not a problem in general, and if it was it would be a problem for every school of interpretation, not just preterists.

Does this answer your question?

Yes, it answers one of my questions. BTW, I am using your first definition of *preterist interpretation*.

Now my question is, when you were on your journey to discover the correct interpretation, did it take you on the course that you described above? In other words,, did you see the time texts and say to yourself, "That must mean within 40 years." And then somewhere down the road you ran into Josephus and confirmed the interpretation that you already adopted?

Or did it work like this (which is the norm for most preterists I have talked to)... You are on a journey to understand Matt 24 and you run into Gentry et al who teaches you about how Josephus describes events in 70 AD that can only be fulfillment of Matt 24. You go and study Matt 24 and find no objection with Gentry so you adopt that interpretation also and proceed to make all of your dispensational friends' lives miserable. If that is the case, do you think you would still have arrived at the same interpretation even if those extra-biblical sources did not exist. 'This generation' would be enough for you in spite of the large majority of Historical Theology that would disagree with you.

BTW, I am not a Dispensational.

 

[KMK]

It may interest you to know that in my Reformed background an individual's own eschatological views were considered to be extra-Biblical. In other words, the word "Biblical" was used in two separate ways. First, it refered to doctrine, to things which God expressly made known to us in the Bible, or which followed necessarily from the Bible. Secondly, it referred to things whose bases were only from the Bible. So in one sense one's eschatological views were "Biblical" in that the basis from which one derived his view was only from the Bible. In this sense, one could read Josephus or even other secular historical writings, not as support, but as worldly witness. But in the first sense it could not be called "Biblical" because it could not be said that the Bible teaches it. One could make an argument either for or against Biblical support, but the support would not be sufficient to say that the Bible affirmed the argument. The Church's witness is that there is not enough Biblical support or any one of the views to say with authority that such a view is the one the Bible declares.

The preachers under which I was taught never dared to go beyond the first. Their mandate did not include preaching as Biblical the second. That was the liberty of all the people alike, status of office making no difference as to the equality of the views, or to the liberties of each. It was, in fact, a breaking of the mandate to preach as Biblical in the first sense what was Biblical in the second sense.

There was a minister who said perhaps one paragraph in his sermon which was disparaging of militant Postmillennialism in a predominantly Amillennial congregation. He was severely raked over the coals for this, for going beyond his mandate as a minister of the gospel.

The gospel is the gospel; personal views, no matter how convinced a person may be about it, are not gospel but only personal views.

So in this sense, whether one includes the writings of Josephus or other writings does not matter, because it is forbidden to include things as gospel or teachable doctrine what is not gospel or teachable doctrine. There is no mandate for that from Christ. Whether one reads Josephus for historical verification for his particular preterist views is not really much of a problem, because it is only a personal view anyways, and it may not impact the teaching of Scripture. Only Scripture may interpret Scripture. Speculating from Scripture and using that to interpret Scripture is not Scripture interpreting Scripture in the strict sense that the Reformers meant it.

Well, that's my two cents' worth (Canadian, which is about 1.8 cents US today.)

John, you have lifted a great burden off of my chest with these words. Thank you. This is something I wrestle with as a preacher. I believe I must preach the whole gospel. But maybe something as personal as the preterist, historicist or futurist view should not be expounded from the pulpit. Perhaps preaching on Matt 24, 2 Pet 3, Rev 19,20 should be focused on Christ, the cross, His resurrection, His dominion etc.

But this brings up a new question. If we stick solely to what the NT writers actually believed and taught, wouldn't the futurist hermeneutic be used? Doesn't the futurist hermeneutic follow most closely with what the NT writers teach? After all, were not Jesus and Paul and John and Peter all futurists themselves?

 

[JohnV]

John, you have lifted a great burden off of my chest with these words. Thank you. This is something I wrestle with as a preacher. I believe I must preach the whole gospel. But maybe something as personal as the preterist, historicist or futurist view should not be expounded from the pulpit. Perhaps preaching on Matt 24, 2 Pet 3, Rev 19,20 should be focused on Christ, the cross, His resurrection, His dominion etc.

As a preacher, your mandate is the preach the gospel. But as a preacher your own opinions are no more nor less than someone who is not allowed to preach because he is not ordained. E.g., office does not make the difference as to which millennial view is Biblical: it has nothing to do with the debate on the differences between the views. Adding your position to the debate is an abuse of that position. At least, that's what I believe.

But this brings up a new question. If we stick solely to what the NT writers actually believed and taught, wouldn't the futurist hermeneutic be used? Doesn't the futurist hermeneutic follow most closely with what the NT writers teach? After all, were not Jesus and Paul and John and Peter all futurists themselves?

Don't you know? Doesn't the Bible say? That's your criteria. Who else would you query on this? Josephus?

 

[KMK]

As a preacher, your mandate is the preach the gospel. But as a preacher your own opinions are no more nor less than someone who is not allowed to preach because he is not ordained. E.g., office does not make the difference as to which millennial view is Biblical: it has nothing to do with the debate on the differences between the views. Adding your position to the debate is an abuse of that position. At least, that's what I believe.


Don't you know? Doesn't the Bible say? That's your criteria. Who else would you query on this? Josephus?

Your opinion on this makes a great deal of sense to me. I am slow to learn this lesson, I am afraid, because so many of the preachers that I cut my teeth on (Calvary Chapel) preach dispensationalism at least once a month! I have also heard many 'reformed' preachers do the same. I did hear a reformed preacher recently preach about the number 666 in Revelation and focused the entire sermon on Christ without once going into a particular end times view. It was so refreshing!

Are any of your sermons available online, John?

 

[JohnV]

Are any of your sermons available online, John?

Not likely, Ken. I'm not a preacher. I've never written a sermon. I'm just an ordinary believer.

 

[G.Wetmore]

Yes, it answers one of my questions. BTW, I am using your first definition of *preterist interpretation*.

Now my question is, when you were on your journey to discover the correct interpretation, did it take you on the course that you described above? In other words,, did you see the time texts and say to yourself, "That must mean within 40 years." And then somewhere down the road you ran into Josephus and confirmed the interpretation that you already adopted?

Or did it work like this (which is the norm for most preterists I have talked to)... You are on a journey to understand Matt 24 and you run into Gentry et al who teaches you about how Josephus describes events in 70 AD that can only be fulfillment of Matt 24. You go and study Matt 24 and find no objection with Gentry so you adopt that interpretation also and proceed to make all of your dispensational friends' lives miserable. If that is the case, do you think you would still have arrived at the same interpretation even if those extra-biblical sources did not exist. 'This generation' would be enough for you in spite of the large majority of Historical Theology that would disagree with you.

BTW, I am not a Dispensational.

Yes, I took that course. And it wasn't just that one verse. I was at one time a hard-core dispensational chart reader After I became calvinistic in my soteriology I rejected dispensationalism and began to study eschatology. I saw many time frame references, not just Matt 24. And the first book I read on the subject was Sproul's the last days according to Jesus. I then became acquainted with Dr. Gentry's writings. I then began to attend Dr. Gentry's church. He eventually moved, and ended up in South Carolina, and I moved into the manse at the church he was pastoring, while I'm attending seminary. The only reason I am saying this is that I have known him for quite a while, and he is a good friend. Gentry does not argue for preterism based upon the writings of Josephus. He does interact extensively with Josephus, but this is not the basis of his argument.

I think that some of the whole confusion in this discussion is the use of the word hermeneutic as it relates to these various eschatological schools. A hermeneutic is the science and art of Biblical interpretation. It is the system one employs to arrive at an interpretation. These docrtrine are themselves interpretations, they are not a system that is placed upon Scripture as a framework of interpretation. I know many preterists, and I don't know of any that would hold to that.

 

[G.Wetmore]

John, you have lifted a great burden off of my chest with these words. Thank you. This is something I wrestle with as a preacher. I believe I must preach the whole gospel. But maybe something as personal as the preterist, historicist or futurist view should not be expounded from the pulpit. Perhaps preaching on Matt 24, 2 Pet 3, Rev 19,20 should be focused on Christ, the cross, His resurrection, His dominion etc.

But this brings up a new question. If we stick solely to what the NT writers actually believed and taught, wouldn't the futurist hermeneutic be used? Doesn't the futurist hermeneutic follow most closely with what the NT writers teach? After all, were not Jesus and Paul and John and Peter all futurists themselves?

The job of a pastor, as it relates to his preaching the Scriptures, is at least two fold. You must preach sola scriptura, but you must preach tota scriptura as well. Only scripture, but all of scripture. This doesn't mean that you have to preach through every book of the Bible. But if you were for example preaching through Matthew, I think it would not be true exposition to not deal with some of these issues. Especially because so many people sitting in the pews are being tossed to and fro by every wind of eschatological doctrine.

And by the way, the following statement, again shows the misuse of the term hermeneutic:

But this brings up a new question. If we stick solely to what the NT writers actually believed and taught, wouldn't the futurist hermeneutic be used? Doesn't the futurist hermeneutic follow most closely with what the NT writers teach? After all, were not Jesus and Paul and John and Peter all futurists themselves?

The NT writers would have actually had some futurist interpretations and some preterist (in the past) interpretations. It would all depend upon the specific prophecy which was being dealt with. There is no overall encompasing scheme that can be placed upon Scripture, where all prophecies must be future or in the past. With respect to many NT prophecies, and some OT ones, the writers of the NT would have been futurists, because they hadn't taken place yet. But with respect to many OT prophecies they would have been preterists, because they had already been fulfilled. Just read through Matthew and you will hear the constant refrain "to fulfill...." or "so that it might be fulfilled...". With respect to these prophecies they viewed them as being in the past. Likewise, the orthodox preterist (today) does not believe every prophecy has been fulfilled. So in the sense that they are only partial preterists, they are also partial futurists.

What is simply being said here is that text need to be dealt with on a text by text basis. There is no blanket scheme or hermeneutic that can solve these issues

 

[KMK]

Not likely, Ken. I'm not a preacher. I've never written a sermon. I'm just an ordinary believer.

That doesn't seem likely.

But to the point, then, on what occasions would it be appropriate for a TE to share his views on the timing of Matt 24, Mark 13 and Luke 21?