Showing posts with label preterism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label preterism. Show all posts
Sunday, April 23, 2023
Sunday, February 26, 2017
Mike Vlach on Luke 21:5-28
Interesting thoughts here. I've always appreciated Dr Vlach's humble approach:
Jesus’ Olivet Discourse discusses future events from the standpoint of Jesus and the apostles shortly before Jesus’ death. The contents of Jesus’ discourse are found in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. Jesus addresses the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, the sign of His coming, and the end of the age (Matt. 24:3; Mark 13:4; Luke 21:5-7).
With this article I focus specifically on the Olivet Discourse as recorded in Luke 21:5-28. I present what I believe is the chronology of events that Jesus lays out ranging from the first century A.D. through the second coming of Jesus.
In doing this I understand that there is much debate on the chronology of the Olivet Discourse and it is rare for any two people to agree on all the details. This includes people who often agree on matters of eschatology, let alone those who disagree. So I suspect that many who read my understanding will differ with me, and that is fine. Below is not so much a full-blown defense of my understanding or a detailed interaction with other views, but a stating of how I view Luke 21 after studying this passage for years. In a nutshell, you can know how I interpret the events of Luke 21...keep reading
Saturday, February 18, 2017
Bible Passages on the A.D. 70 Destruction of Jerusalem
From Michael Vlach's blog:
A.D. 70 witnessed the catastrophic destruction of Jerusalem and the Jewish temple by the Romans. This is a historical fact and one that the Bible predicted. But the issue of which Bible passages predicted the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem is heavily debated. Put simply, there are many differing views and combinations concerning which Bible passages refer to the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem.
Even people who are closely aligned on most eschatological issues can have differing opinions on this. But below are the Bible passages I believe predicted the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem. Note that this is not a full discussion of the Olivet Discourse, nor do I explain why I do not include passages that others would use (such as Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation). Thus, what follows is more of a statement of how I view this matter more than a full blown defense of why I include these passages and do not include others...keep reading
Monday, December 26, 2016
More on Preterism
Eschatos Ministries have a couple of interesting articles up addressing preterism. Alan Kurschner rightly notes that preterism doesn't allow for the fulfillment of Matt 24:5. He also takes Gary DeMar to task for his 'fake news-fake exegesis" article. Worth a read!
I have DeMar's "End Time Fiction." Reading him is frustrating. One issue is his tone and the other his willingness to stretch an isolated text into fitting his assumptions without addressing whole chapters. I provide some links which address preterism HERE.
I've often come across Seventh-day Adventists, Preterists and Amils on pretrib-dispensational prophecy forums. It usually goes like this: they'll make some passing remark against a particular teaching (usually the rapture). When you respond, they simply move to another issue.
Sometimes they'll have a long list of grievances which they've copied from some "mother website." Who has the time to respond to fifty preterist proof texts? I met a posttribulationist and a Hebrew Roots promoter who used this same tactic.
My strategy is to find out what they believe in and get them to justify it. One academic-type preterist recently trolled a group of which I'm a member. When I worked out what he was I asked him who noticed Christ's coming in 70 AD, because no one recorded it at the time. One typical response is that it was a "spiritual" (or secret) coming. So texts such as Matt 24:30 and Mark 13:26 have to be spiritualized. It's difficult to debate someone who resorts to spiritualization in order to defend a theology.
But in this person's case he responded that he supposed it was the Jews who were slaughtered. That's pretty convenient because they wouldn't be able to report it. I pointed out that Matt 23:39 could not have occurred in 70 AD, but didn't receive a response. Soon after, the thread was taken down.
I have DeMar's "End Time Fiction." Reading him is frustrating. One issue is his tone and the other his willingness to stretch an isolated text into fitting his assumptions without addressing whole chapters. I provide some links which address preterism HERE.
I've often come across Seventh-day Adventists, Preterists and Amils on pretrib-dispensational prophecy forums. It usually goes like this: they'll make some passing remark against a particular teaching (usually the rapture). When you respond, they simply move to another issue.
Sometimes they'll have a long list of grievances which they've copied from some "mother website." Who has the time to respond to fifty preterist proof texts? I met a posttribulationist and a Hebrew Roots promoter who used this same tactic.
My strategy is to find out what they believe in and get them to justify it. One academic-type preterist recently trolled a group of which I'm a member. When I worked out what he was I asked him who noticed Christ's coming in 70 AD, because no one recorded it at the time. One typical response is that it was a "spiritual" (or secret) coming. So texts such as Matt 24:30 and Mark 13:26 have to be spiritualized. It's difficult to debate someone who resorts to spiritualization in order to defend a theology.
But in this person's case he responded that he supposed it was the Jews who were slaughtered. That's pretty convenient because they wouldn't be able to report it. I pointed out that Matt 23:39 could not have occurred in 70 AD, but didn't receive a response. Soon after, the thread was taken down.
Saturday, October 15, 2016
Andy Woods on the Millennium
Andy Woods talks to David Reagan about the millennium, and some of those pesky verses which Loraine Boettner attempted to explain away:
And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south. Zec 14:4
Dispensationalism: The verse means what it says.
Postmillennialism: The verse does not mean what it says.
The typical political acrimony and hostility appears to be brimming to the surface on all sides now that we are about three weeks away from a national election. During this election season, it’s easy to lose sight of where our ultimate hope ultimately resides in as believers. Does a Christian’s hope disappear should the Republicans lose control of the Congress and Hillary Clinton becomes our next president? You would think this is the case when listening to the fervency in which many believers talk about this upcoming election. As you all know, I think politics is very important. But I am also very firm in my conviction that our ultimate hope as believers is not determined by the political outcomes of this world. Rather, our hope rests in the soon return of Jesus Christ to rule and reign from David’s throne in Jerusalem with a rod of righteousness...keep readingThere can be no doubt but that Premillennialism lends its self more to an emotional type of preaching and teaching than does Postmillennialism or Amillennialism. It gives something definite to look for in the immediate future and charges the present with portentous possibilities. While many who hold it do not so exploit it, it often has been used in that manner by those who are less restrained.~ Boettner
And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, Which faces Jerusalem on the east. And the Mount of Olives shall be split in two, From east to west, Making a very large valley; Half of the mountain shall move toward the north And half of it toward the south. Zec 14:4
Dispensationalism: The verse means what it says.
Postmillennialism: The verse does not mean what it says.
Saturday, July 16, 2016
Dangers of Premillennialism etc
The dangers of premillennialism and taking the Bible too literally.
Is the so-called Left Behind dispensational theology dangerous? While browsing through a local second-hand book store recently, I came across yet another book attacking dispensationalism. It warned about the subtle dangers associated with premillennialism. Since I’m a sucker for punishment, I bought it. This one is called Left Behind or Left Befuddled, written by Gordon L. Isaac...keep reading
[Israel] God's Unfinished Business:
How do some Christians see Zionism? In fact most don’t see any biblical warrant to recognize a Jewish state. Even where some Christians don’t have any particular animosity against modern secular Israel, they deny any biblical mandate for its existence.For example Isaac Munther writes that Christian Zionism is an unbiblical, imperialist theology rooted in politics...keep reading
Is the so-called Left Behind dispensational theology dangerous? While browsing through a local second-hand book store recently, I came across yet another book attacking dispensationalism. It warned about the subtle dangers associated with premillennialism. Since I’m a sucker for punishment, I bought it. This one is called Left Behind or Left Befuddled, written by Gordon L. Isaac...keep reading
[Israel] God's Unfinished Business:
How do some Christians see Zionism? In fact most don’t see any biblical warrant to recognize a Jewish state. Even where some Christians don’t have any particular animosity against modern secular Israel, they deny any biblical mandate for its existence.For example Isaac Munther writes that Christian Zionism is an unbiblical, imperialist theology rooted in politics...keep reading
Friday, December 26, 2014
Blessing & Cursing Israel
I will bless those who bless you, I will curse those who treat you with contempt, and all the peoples on earth will be blessed through you. Gen 12:3
Many theologians don't see a future for Israel. They believe prophecy is fulfilled in the church which they view as the New Spiritual Israel. So they are forced to re-interpret this verse in light of their presuppositions.
Wheaton College New Testament Professor Gary Burge did this during an interview with partial preterist Hank Hanegraaff. He noted the inclination of some evangelicals to find a biblical mandate in supporting Israel, and sees this as an error. When his host asked about Gen 12, Burge talked about context. He asked - how could that verse possibly be lifted out of Genesis, moved about 3000 years into the future and then applied to secular Israel?
"No", he asserted, "the blessing was intended for Abraham and his children." But the blessings of the covenant are not anchored to a "bloodline" - they are anchored to "faith." Hence no blessings apply to modern, secular Israel which is out of covenant with God.
Dr. Burge took it further. He noted that Old Testament prophets such as Isaiah often had harsh things to say about Israel. He then argues that on that logic one would have to say that Isaiah must be cursed by God as well. Burge corrects this "error" by saying that, on the contrary, to bless Israel is to be a "truth teller." He then claims that this is what he's doing - blessing Israel by telling the truth.
Did you catch the sleight of hand?
If blessings and curses cannot be contextually carried 3000 years into the future to a secular Israel, then Burge's "truth telling" argument becomes redundant. Secondly, prophets like Isaiah were specially ordained and used by God. They weren't cursing Israel on their own initiative, they were delivering God's message.
Unlike Isaiah, Dr. Gary Burge isn't God's appointed prophet to Israel. More problematic, the charges he and his colleagues accuse Israel of are often spurious. We should remember that God used Assyria to punish Israel, but that He still held the former accountable for it (Isaiah 10:5).
Yet if modern scholars miss the obvious bloodline context of Gen 12:3, the patriarch Isaac did not. In Gen 27:29 Isaac applies the same blessing and curse to Abraham's bloodline-descendant Jacob-Israel. The verse is quite clear and even shocking to modern, easily offended sensibilities:
May peoples serve you and nations bow down to you. Be master over your brothers; may your mother's sons bow down to you. Those who curse you will be cursed, and those who bless you will be blessed.
But that's not all. Even "truth-teller" Isaiah was inspired to write of Israel in a future kingdom context:
For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste. Isa 60:12
It's no wonder that sensitive anti-Israel activists Michael Prior and Naim Ateek shunned large chunks of the Old Testament. In contrast, Dr. Burge informs us that we should now think "Christianly" and therefore we should re-interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.
Likewise, in attempting to explain away the future prophetic relevance of Zechariah 14, partial preterist Gary DeMar tortured the texts by allegorizing the events. Motivated by his presuppositions, Philip Mauro employed the same scriptural gymnastics and concluded:
"Enough has been said, however, to make evident that the prophecies of Zechariah referred to above, and hence other prophecies of like character as well, relate to things spiritual and have their fulfillment in this present era of grace." (Emphasis mine)
The New Testament Apostle Peter didn't appear to have re-interpretation in mind when he addressed unbelieving Israel in Acts 3:25.
You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your forefathers, saying to Abraham, and in your seed all the families of the earth will be blessed.
Just in case there's any confusion, the Apostle Paul also comes to our rescue:
And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written: The Liberator will come from Zion; He will turn away godlessness from Jacob. And this will be My covenant with them, when I take away their sins. Regarding the gospel, they are enemies for your advantage, but regarding election, they are loved because of their forefathers, since God's gracious gifts and calling are irrevocable. Rom 11:26-29
The New Testament therefore confirms what the "truth-telling" prophets wrote about Israel in the Old Testament. These prophets affirmed that Israel will ultimately seek God because of its afflictions (Deut 4:30-31; Hos 5:15); that God will act to restore and cleanse Israel for His name's sake (Ezek 36:22-38); that they would possess the land forever (Jer 7:7, 25:5; Amos 9:14-15) and that God would never reject Israel's descendants for what they have done (Jer 31:31-37).
This being the case, the Blessings and Curses are still applicable to national Israel today.
So while it would be fair for someone to point out Israel's errors, as someone might do for any other nation - it would be quite another situation if one were to unfairly and regularly demonize it. That would be tantamount to cursing Israel.
And we all know what that means.
P.S. I mentioned Craig M. Nielsen in an earlier post. He's produced a video in which he states that Israel doesn't own the land - God does. He's correct. And God has decreed that land to Israel forever (see above).
Instead of arguing that the Abrahamic bloodline blessing isn't operative, Nielsen questions Israel's genetic traces to Abraham. Whatever works, I guess. Why would anyone call to question any ethnic origin unless they had an ulterior motive? Chris White has produced an excellent video which debunks Nielsen's canard. Watch it HERE
Further reading:
A Christian Defense Of Israel
A response to Gary DeMar
Fred Butler's thoughts on preterism
Problems with preterism
Many theologians don't see a future for Israel. They believe prophecy is fulfilled in the church which they view as the New Spiritual Israel. So they are forced to re-interpret this verse in light of their presuppositions.
Wheaton College New Testament Professor Gary Burge did this during an interview with partial preterist Hank Hanegraaff. He noted the inclination of some evangelicals to find a biblical mandate in supporting Israel, and sees this as an error. When his host asked about Gen 12, Burge talked about context. He asked - how could that verse possibly be lifted out of Genesis, moved about 3000 years into the future and then applied to secular Israel?
"No", he asserted, "the blessing was intended for Abraham and his children." But the blessings of the covenant are not anchored to a "bloodline" - they are anchored to "faith." Hence no blessings apply to modern, secular Israel which is out of covenant with God.
Dr. Burge took it further. He noted that Old Testament prophets such as Isaiah often had harsh things to say about Israel. He then argues that on that logic one would have to say that Isaiah must be cursed by God as well. Burge corrects this "error" by saying that, on the contrary, to bless Israel is to be a "truth teller." He then claims that this is what he's doing - blessing Israel by telling the truth.
Did you catch the sleight of hand?
If blessings and curses cannot be contextually carried 3000 years into the future to a secular Israel, then Burge's "truth telling" argument becomes redundant. Secondly, prophets like Isaiah were specially ordained and used by God. They weren't cursing Israel on their own initiative, they were delivering God's message.
Unlike Isaiah, Dr. Gary Burge isn't God's appointed prophet to Israel. More problematic, the charges he and his colleagues accuse Israel of are often spurious. We should remember that God used Assyria to punish Israel, but that He still held the former accountable for it (Isaiah 10:5).
Yet if modern scholars miss the obvious bloodline context of Gen 12:3, the patriarch Isaac did not. In Gen 27:29 Isaac applies the same blessing and curse to Abraham's bloodline-descendant Jacob-Israel. The verse is quite clear and even shocking to modern, easily offended sensibilities:
May peoples serve you and nations bow down to you. Be master over your brothers; may your mother's sons bow down to you. Those who curse you will be cursed, and those who bless you will be blessed.
But that's not all. Even "truth-teller" Isaiah was inspired to write of Israel in a future kingdom context:
For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste. Isa 60:12
It's no wonder that sensitive anti-Israel activists Michael Prior and Naim Ateek shunned large chunks of the Old Testament. In contrast, Dr. Burge informs us that we should now think "Christianly" and therefore we should re-interpret the Old Testament in light of the New Testament.
Likewise, in attempting to explain away the future prophetic relevance of Zechariah 14, partial preterist Gary DeMar tortured the texts by allegorizing the events. Motivated by his presuppositions, Philip Mauro employed the same scriptural gymnastics and concluded:
"Enough has been said, however, to make evident that the prophecies of Zechariah referred to above, and hence other prophecies of like character as well, relate to things spiritual and have their fulfillment in this present era of grace." (Emphasis mine)
The New Testament Apostle Peter didn't appear to have re-interpretation in mind when he addressed unbelieving Israel in Acts 3:25.
You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant that God made with your forefathers, saying to Abraham, and in your seed all the families of the earth will be blessed.
Just in case there's any confusion, the Apostle Paul also comes to our rescue:
And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written: The Liberator will come from Zion; He will turn away godlessness from Jacob. And this will be My covenant with them, when I take away their sins. Regarding the gospel, they are enemies for your advantage, but regarding election, they are loved because of their forefathers, since God's gracious gifts and calling are irrevocable. Rom 11:26-29
The New Testament therefore confirms what the "truth-telling" prophets wrote about Israel in the Old Testament. These prophets affirmed that Israel will ultimately seek God because of its afflictions (Deut 4:30-31; Hos 5:15); that God will act to restore and cleanse Israel for His name's sake (Ezek 36:22-38); that they would possess the land forever (Jer 7:7, 25:5; Amos 9:14-15) and that God would never reject Israel's descendants for what they have done (Jer 31:31-37).
This being the case, the Blessings and Curses are still applicable to national Israel today.
So while it would be fair for someone to point out Israel's errors, as someone might do for any other nation - it would be quite another situation if one were to unfairly and regularly demonize it. That would be tantamount to cursing Israel.
And we all know what that means.
P.S. I mentioned Craig M. Nielsen in an earlier post. He's produced a video in which he states that Israel doesn't own the land - God does. He's correct. And God has decreed that land to Israel forever (see above).
Instead of arguing that the Abrahamic bloodline blessing isn't operative, Nielsen questions Israel's genetic traces to Abraham. Whatever works, I guess. Why would anyone call to question any ethnic origin unless they had an ulterior motive? Chris White has produced an excellent video which debunks Nielsen's canard. Watch it HERE
Further reading:
A Christian Defense Of Israel
A response to Gary DeMar
Fred Butler's thoughts on preterism
Problems with preterism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
