Spirit and Kingdom
May 16th, 2007 by Sean
Just before Jesus ascended he had the following conversation with his apostles:
Acts 1:4-6
4 Gathering them together, He commanded them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait for what the Father had promised, “Which,” He said, “you heard of from Me; 5 for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.” 6 So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?”
Why did the disciples ask about the kingdom when Jesus was clearly talking about the holy spirit? I think many of us fail to remove our hind-sight (post-pentecost) perspective from our reading of these verses. What is clear from a fresh reading of this text is that Jesus is talking about the spirit. He is telling them that this baptism of the spirit is coming which is why they must stay in Jerusalem. In order to understand what the disciples were thinking, we need to build an understanding of the spirit based on the prophets.
Isaiah 32:13-18
13 For the land of my people in which thorns and briars shall come up; Yea, for all the joyful houses and for the jubilant city. 14 Because the palace has been abandoned, the populated city forsaken. Hill and watch-tower have become caves forever, A delight for wild donkeys, a pasture for flocks; 15 Until the Spirit is poured out upon us from on high, And the wilderness becomes a fertile field, And the fertile field is considered as a forest. 16 Then justice will dwell in the wilderness And righteousness will abide in the fertile field. 17 And the work of righteousness will be peace, And the service of righteousness, quietness and confidence forever. 18 Then my people will live in a peaceful habitation, And in secure dwellings and in undisturbed resting places;
Joel 2:28-3228 “It will come about after this That I will pour out My Spirit on all mankind; And your sons and daughters will prophesy, Your old men will dream dreams, Your young men will see visions. 29 “Even on the male and female servants I will pour out My Spirit in those days. 30 “I will display wonders in the sky and on the earth, Blood, fire and columns of smoke. 31 “The sun will be turned into darkness And the moon into blood Before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. 32 “And it will come about that whoever calls on the name of the LORD Will be delivered; For on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem There will be those who escape, As the LORD has said, Even among the survivors whom the LORD calls.
Ezekiel 11:17-20
17 “Therefore say, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “I will gather you from the peoples and assemble you out of the countries among which you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel.”‘ 18 “When they come there, they will remove all its detestable things and all its abominations from it. 19 “And I will give them one heart, and put a new spirit within them. And I will take the heart of stone out of their flesh and give them a heart of flesh, 20 that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances and do them. Then they will be My people, and I shall be their God.
Ezekiel 36:24-28
24 “For I will take you from the nations, gather you from all the lands and bring you into your own land. 25 “Then I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your filthiness and from all your idols. 26 “Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances. 28 “You will live in the land that I gave to your forefathers; so you will be My people, and I will be your God.
In each of these texts the spirit and the kingdom (judgment & restoration) are spoken of within close proximity of eachother. The spirit would be poured out (cf Acts 2.33) in the end times when God was punishing the wicked and begining his restoration program for Israel. This sentiment is further established when one considers the prophesy of John the Baptist.
Luke 3:16-17
16 John answered and said to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 17 “His winnowing fork is in His hand to thoroughly clear His threshing floor, and to gather the wheat into His barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
In John’s proclamation, the Messiah is an end-times figure who splits up the wheat from the chaff, baptizes the wheat with spirit and the chaff with fire. In this system there is no interval of time between these two events. So, back to Acts 1, Jesus quotes the prophesy of John the Baptist and tells his apostles that this is happening soon and that they should not leave Jerusalem (the capital of the coming kingdom). What they hear is that the kingdom is about to be inaugurated, which is why they ask, “Is it at this time you are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” Jesus answer is enlightening:
Acts 1:7-8
7 He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or epochs which the Father has fixed by His own authority; 8 but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
Jesus here splits these two associated events apart in time by saying that only the Father knows when the future kingdom age will arive but the holy spirit will come first as an empowerment by which his followers could “witness” throughout the earth. Thus the spirit is the signpost of the end, the pledge that God has not forgotten his promises, the evidence that the kingdom is coming, and the empowerment to enable all to proclaim the gospel of the kingdom.
I think this is the right way to see the close relationship of the Spirit and eschatology. In addition to Acts 1, I think John 3 with Nicodemus can be understood with this idea. He is supposed to understand these ideas set forth in the prophets (specifically Ezekiel).
Agreed. Thanks, for pointing that out. In John 3 we see a clear allusion to Ezekiel 36.25-27 of both the water and the spirit in light of the end-times kingdom.
Am I hearing that the ends time is marked by the giving of the spirit and that God is begining to punish the wicked and restore Isreal at this time right after Spirit was given.? The function of the spirit seems to be tied together then with the preaching of the future kingdom maybe this is the missing key to our understanding of utilizing the manifestations of this spirit.
What I’m saying is that the spirit is the sign post of the end. From the shadowy understanding given in the OT we see spirit and kingdom linked together. Jesus offers clarity in Acts 1 by stating that the spirit comes first (not many days hence) before the kingdom comes (which epochs the Father has set). This was a revelation to the disciples. Furthermore, what Jesus said is that the spirit was going to be poured out so that they would be witnesses from Jerusalem to Judaea to Samarai to the ends of the earth. This is the program of the church–to preach the gospel of the kingdom in the power of the spirit until the kingdom comes.
Wow just read Seans last entry. That certainly throws some light on the water and the spirit from Ezekiel 36 25-27. Why do you suppose it says sprinkling , could it be because this is the future, but currently we get only the token of the spirit and a full emersion of water.
I’m uncomfortable with saying that the present day spirit is not the full dose of the spirit. The idea is not that there is a small portion of the spirit today (a token) and then a full immersion in the future. The immersion occured on Pentecost and continues to this day when someone experience conversion. The spirit is a token/pledge of our inheritance–the kingdom.
I don’t know why it says sprinkling in water, not immersion. Maybe someone else has insight on that?
“I don’t know why it says sprinkling in water, not immersion. Maybe someone else has insight on that?”
Perhaps it has to do with how purification rituals were done in the OT?
Ex 29:21 Then you shall take part of the blood that is on the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it on Aaron and his garments, and on his sons and his sons’ garments with him. He and his garments shall be holy, and his sons and his sons’ garments with him.
Lev 4:5-6 And the anointed priest shall take some of the blood of the bull and bring it into the tent of meeting, and the priest shall dip his finger in the blood and sprinkle part of the blood seven times before the LORD in front of the veil of the sanctuary.
Num 8:5-7 And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, “Take the Levites from among the people of Israel and cleanse them. Thus you shall do to them to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification upon them, and let them go with a razor over all their body, and wash their clothes and cleanse themselves.
Hebrews 9:13-14 For if the sprinkling of defiled persons with the blood of goats and bulls and with the ashes of a heifer sanctifies for the purification of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God.
I think what we have today in the Spirit is a small-dose of what we will have in the future at the coming of the Kingdom. Perhaps I link it with the Spirit when I should be linking it with something else, like a new body? Yet I do find that promises of the Spirit with a fully new heart link very closely with the coming of the Kingdom in these eschatalogical prophesies (Ez 36). I don’t think God writing the law on our heart is our new body - because the passage links it with the Spirit. And at the same time I recognize that Ez 36 hasn’t happened yet, and thus I wait for the fullness of the Spirit to come, that we might walk in perfection.
I am alittle confused by the comments. Is the water part , water baptism which is done for the remission of sins, currently the proto type for the sprinkling in the future? Karens eg. of sprinkling in OT seems to have something to do with it. I am wondering about water Baptism and how it relates to the sprinkling mentioned. Some people have said that the water in must be born of water is the amniotic fluid in the natural birth. This didnt make sense to me but was not sure. Ezekiel 36 was interesting because then there was evidence to believe that water was neccessary. I am not sure however on the explanation and how the analogy works.
Hi Sean,
you wroite above:
Are you referring initially to the outpouring of the spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2)?
If so, how can it be that “the end” of which this outpouring was a sign has already lasted longer than the whole old covenant age (starting approx 1500 years before Christ when the old covenant was made and the Law was given to Israel)? “The end” of something is by definition not longer than the rest of the span from the beginning of something to that starting point of the end of it, is it? Or is the change from Old Covenant to New Covenant not in view here and “the end” is referring to some other “end” (end of something else) ? I would think that since the prophecy about the spirit outpouring was given during the the OC age, the reference to the end times would be to the end of that particular age, not a different age, or?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
Please use the word “age”/aion biblically. No where in the Bible is there the notion of an Old Covenant Age. The present age in the Bible is the evil age in which Satan is ruling. The age to come is when Jesus returns visibly to rule over the earth and remove the influence of Satan.
Just to comment on Patty’s post about being born of water referring to “the amniotic fluid in the natural birth”, I think our Lord’s word to Nicodemus in John 3:5 about being born “[ek] out of” water and “[ek] out of” Spirit describe two births.
Our first birth, the natural one, is “out of” water (i.e. out of amniotic fluid) while our second is out of the Spirit. This is confirmed by what immediately follows in verse 6: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the spirit is spirit”. This is parallelism - being born “of water” is the same as being born “of the flesh” and refers to our natural births. This is Jesus’ response to Nicodemus’ question about returning to the womb to be born again. We don’t return to the womb to be born again, but our birth from the womb (”of water”) is a type of our re-birth “of spirit”.
Hi John O.,
use the word “age” biblically? hmn …
What “time period” / “age?” / “covenant period”? was Joel (as well as other prophets, including Jesus) referring to when he spoke of the “end time”? In other words, what end time of what was in view?
You say “the present age in the Bible is the evil age in which Satan is ruling” … I’ds ay that you apparently not doing what you would like me to do => using the term “age” biblically. Is the Bible referring to “our present day” as the “PRESENT age”? Or is the Bible speaking about the THEN PRESENT age?
Jesus was speaking about the age in which he lived as coming to an end … prophets are speaking about old covenant being replaced by a new covenant, would these things perhaps have something to do with each other? Was Christ living at a time when the old covenant was still valid? Are we today living in a time when the new covenant is in effect or are we still living at the time of the old covenant which has not come to an end yet?
Steve,
I don’t think born of water and Spirit are two births. Ezekiel 36 has in mind one re-birth. Jesus “flesh is flesh” refers to our birth from the womb out of mothers, and back to Nicodemus’ quip about returning there.
Wolfgang,
No where does the bible link covenant with ages. This is an invention of dispensationalism. As far as “present age”:
JohnO,
Thanks for the feedback. However, I’m not convinced that Ezekiel is using “sprinkling with water” to refer to re-birth. From the NT we’ve learned to associate the coming of the Spirit and a new heart with being born again, and we associate this with baptism. Water baptism is a vivid symbol of both cleansing and resurrection to a new life, but I can’t see a connection between Ezekiel’s “sprinkling” and Christian baptism by immersion. The only connection is water, and the prophet almost certainly wasn’t thinking of Christian baptism by immersion when he wrote of sprinkling.
I agree that John 3 is open to a couple possible interprations and that being born “of water” may refer to water baptism. If so, then in the context it would seem to refer to John’s baptism. On the other hand, I think the parallelism is striking:
born of water / that which is of the flesh
born of the spirit / that which is of the spirit
Steve,
I entirely agree. Which is why I find it hard to see water baptism in John 3.
I think we’ve inserted here something which Jesus has not. Jesus did not say “born of water, and born of spirit”, but rather “born of water and spirit”. There are not two births in that statement, but rather one birth.
JohnO,
Just to clarify things for me, if you agree that “born of water” in John 3 isn’t a refer to water baptism, but it’s equally not a reference to natural birth, then what is it?
Born of water and spirit, I think, is a reference to being made whole at the coming of Christ, ala Ez 36.
@John O.,
you wrote above:
I don’t care for dispensationalism …
I do think however that the Bible is rather clear about the old covenant being in existence for a certain time, as it started at some point in time and apparently ended at another point in time and was in effect in between those two points in time … would you agree with that? Are we today still living in the time during which the old vocenant is in effect? Or has the end of that time already come? when Jesus answered the disciples question about “the end of the world” (cp Mt 24) which “world” was he talking about?
Clearly the end of the old covenant is never linked with the end of any age. There is no verse to support your position here. The end of the world/age which Jesus talks about in Matt 24 is clearly his coming which will inaugurate the Kingdom on earth.
John O.,
and which “world/age” will end with the Lord’s coming? is it the one Jesus was living in then, that is the old covenant world? or is it the end of the new covenant world which had not even begun at the time Jesus was talking to his disciples? Or is it some other world/age that is in view which already existed then?
Wolfgang,
I’ve repeated this many times.
These are unbiblical terms that have no use in our discussion. The bible does not speaks in these terms. You have repeated your objections, but with no evidence. If you have evidence produce it. If you don’t, stop objecting.
John O.,
I have asked you some simple questions, and you are dodging the issue by a “are not biblical terms” objection …. I suppose “old covenatn” and “new covenant” are biblical terms, I also suppose “age” is a biblical term ..
So then, I am continuing to wait to read your answers … What “world/age” was Jesus living in and to which world/age was he referring when he was answering the disciple concerning “the end of the age”? Which “world/age” was to end with his coming? Was Jesus living during the time when the old covenant was in effect or was he living at a time when the new covenant was already in effect? (Gal speaks of him being made “under the Law”)
Joel speaks about the spirit being poured out in the last days of what world/age? Which “world/age” was he a part of which would come to an end and for which end the outpouring of the spirit would be a sign?
Wolfgang,
Age is biblical. Old Covenant is biblical. Old Covenant Age is *not* biblical, and this is the term you continue to use.
The same present evil age we live in today. I’ve stated this over and over.
He is the transition.
This age. Jesus in Acts 1 also changes things a bit as Sean has pointed out. The Spirit also comes before the Kingdom comes, as an equipper to enable the saints to preach the message.
Sean
I would even go a step beyond this and say that the outpouring of the spirit was itself an impetus for the mission to the Gentiles.
The expectation of the time, informed by the texts you cite, was not only that the outpouring of the spirit would signal the restoration of Israel, but that it would be then and only then that the Gentiles would come to acknowledge Israel’s God. Until Israel was vindicated, triumphant and exalted they expected there to be no calling of the Gentiles who oppressed her.
Isaiah’s my thing, so I’ll provide texts from him. I’m sure there are others throughout the prophets…
Please forgive the extensive quote, but 60 does a lot to weave these two expectations together in such a way as to make one appear contingent upon the other:
Then there is 61:
And 62:
The glory of Yahweh upon Israel would be the catalyst to Gentile conversion.
So the promised outpouring of the spirit is understood here not only as the sign that Israel was being restored, vindicated and exalted in the person of the resurrected and ascended Messiah -who in Isaiah is Israel- hence the expectation that the kingdom would come next. It was also a sign that the way had been opened for Gentiles to be gathered in. This would appear to be the strong internal logic which links the statement in Acts 1:5 with the question in 6 and the command in 8.
Further on in the book of Acts, notice how it is the outpoured spirit in Acts 10 that is the sign to Peter that the Gentiles are being called. This is made more explicit in Acts 15 at the Jerusalem council, when Simon Peter’s report of this event is cited as proof that the rebuilding of David’s fallen tent had, in some sense, already taken place (or perhaps, begun to take place) THEREFORE the time had come for a remnant to be called in from among the nations.
A quick disclaimer: Of course when we say that the NT presents the restoration of Israel as having taken place already, it does not mean that the kingdom has fully come or that the restoration of the Messianic Jewish remnant of believers in the Messiah rules out a future restoration of wider ethnic Israel.
Excellent points, Alex. As I have been working this “spirit and kingdom” thing out I have realized the need to bring in the resurrection of Jesus into this milieu. Acts 1.5 is talking about holy spirit. Acts 1.6-7 is talking about kingdom. Acts 1.8 is talking about being a witness. How does this all fit together? A brief survey of how the word “witness” is used in the book of Acts shows that the term is not one-to-one equivalent with “preach the gospel.” Instead being a witness means that you saw the risen Jesus (or as Peter said, ‘who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead’) [Acts 1.22; 2.32; 3.15; 5.32; 10.39, 41; 13.31]. Even so, why did Jesus commision them to be witnesses of his resurrection? According to Ro 1.3 the resurrection is proof that Jesus is the son of God (the Davidic king, cf. 2 Sam 7.14; Luke 1.31-33; Mat 26.63). From the OT perspective resurrection is a future (eschatological) event that was part of the “restoration of all things” (acts 3.21) namely, the restoration of the dead back to life. So, what does it mean to testify that God has acted in the middle of history to resurrect Jesus? It means that he is the end-times son of God, the Messiah, the ruler of the coming age. To testify of the resurrection is to testify something about the resurrection age–that Jesus is the judge of the living and the dead (Acts 17.30-31; 10.42). Putting all this together, we have three cords intertwining in Acts 1.4-8: (1) the coming the spirit (2) the delay of the kingdom (3) the empowerment to be witnesses of the resurrection. What results from this theological basis are the Acts of the Apostles–anouncing the kingdom in the power of the spirit using the resurrection of Jesus as the main proof of his claim to be Messiah. We should also note the common usage of Psalm 110.1 in this context because the next question someone would have if they believed the gospel of the apostles would be “where is he that I may believe?”
my sermon on this
Another reason the disciples would expect the Kingdom, the next age to be ushered in - especially in light of the coming of the Spirit - was the resurrection of the King. He first died unexpectedly, and they lost hope. He was risen, and now they figure - since they’ve just witnessed the resurrection of the King, what better time to inaugurate the Kingdom and prove to everyone that Jesus is the rightful King. I don’t imagine that feeling of imminence would leave them, which is why for several decades the church as a whole expected the return of Christ in their lifetime, despite the fact that he said he didn’t know when he was returning.
and despite the enlightening parable of Luke 19
Guys,
I’m really feeling your excitement!
God bless
This also fits with the several parables describing the Kingdom of God as wheat, mustard seed, etc. The Kingdom had been prophesied as being something that would conquer the world, yet Jesus described it in its “hidden” or “seed” form. It is not the full consummation of the Kingdom, but a foretaste, which is how the holy spirit is described. These truths are what Jesus referred to as the “mysteries of the Kingdom” and Paul elaborated on many aspects of them as well.
http://www.godskingdomfirst.net/KingdomCome.htm#mysteries
JohnO wrote: “which is why for several decades the church as a whole expected the return of Christ in their lifetime, despite the fact that he said he didn’t know when he was returning.”
the reason the discples believed that christ was going to return and that the end of the age would occur in their lifetime is because jesus told them so: “there are some here who will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God…” and “this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place.”
Hey Karl,
Welcome to the blog. Just out of curiosity, what is the scenario that you are proposing? Would you assert that the kingdom has already come?
Mt. 16:28 (also Mk. 9:1) “Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.”
I think it is clear that Christ is saying that the kingdom of God came during the lifetime of at least some of those to whom he was speaking.
I think that the coming he is talking about can refer to:
1) When he was seated on the right hand of God in heaven during his ascension.
“A cloud received him out of their sight.” Acts 1:9
“From now on you sill see the son of man seated on the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Mt. 26:64
Christ is quoting Dan. 7:13 “and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like the son of man was coming… 14 and to him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom.”
2) or when he came in judgement on Jerusalem in 70 ad.
When Jesus speaks about the destruction of the temple his disciples ask: Mt. 24:3 “tell us, when will these things be and what will be the sign of your coming and the end of the age?” After describing “these things” in the next thirty verses Jesus says: “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place”
What do you think about this?
I would call myself a preterist when it comes to eschatology. What kind of scenario do you propose?
God bless you
Could you flesh this out a bit more. It is extraordinarily difficult for me to imagine that the kingdom is here now considering the evil state of things in the world. Furthermore, would you say that parousia (Christ’s coming) really means his leaving? Also, what about the resurrection? Has that already happened? And lastly, where does that leave us now…I mean, what do we have to look forward if the kingdom is already here? Sorry to ask so many questions, but I’m just trying to grasp what exactly you are proposing.
Karl, I also have a question, you say Jesus came in judgment in 70AD? Who records this? Surely not the NT. Surely not any historian. No one claims to have seen Jesus return. Would we not then be looking for a third coming?
Karl,
Mt. 16:28 (also Mk. 9:1) “Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the son of man coming in his kingdom.”
thats the last verse in chapter 16, in the very next chapter the transfiguration occurs. Many people believe that thats what Jesus was talking about about when he made that statement. It could make sense. Seeing Moses and Elijah standing with jesus in a new body, to me that sounds like a vision of the kingdom.
Matthew 25.31-34 or at least in vs 34 Jesus says “Then the king will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”
In joel three it talks of the nations being Judged it almost parallels with Rev 20.11. “..In the valley of Jehoshaphat…” I havent heard or seen of that happening yet.
Bless God,
Sal
obviously I don’t have all of the answers to these questions, however I think that the clear statements should help us to interpret difficult ones.
JohnO wrote: “Karl, I also have a question, you say Jesus came in judgment in 70AD? Who records this? Surely not the NT. Surely not any historian. No one claims to have seen Jesus return.”
1) Jesus predicted it.
Mt. 24:3 “tell us, when will these things be and what will be the sign of your coming… Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
This is a clear passage where Jesus says that all these things (that is all the things that the disciples asked about, and all the things that he just described) were going to take place before that generation passed away.
Many liberal liberal scholars use this passage to discredit the NT, because they know what Jesus is actually saying. Yet, many christians try to transplant the prophecies of matthew 24 into our day when Christ clearly says that they were for the generation to whom he was speaking.
“Coming” is a term that refers to judgement without necessarily being a physical manifestation:
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Rev 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
The coming refered to in these passages refers to a coming in judgement for the churches’ unfaithfulness. In like manner Christ came to jerusalem to judge it for its unfaithfulness in 70 ad.
Also read isaiah 19:1 were “the Lord is rriding on a cloud and about to come to Egypt.” This is a prophecy concerning the judgement about to come upon egypt at that time. To you believe that the LORD literally came to Egypt on a cloud? And if he did where is the the historical proof? Or did he come in Judgement?
2) Josephus records that before the fall of Jerusalem, it’s inhabitants saw “chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour running among the clouds and surrounding cities.” Jewish Wars VI:v:3
Though this doesn’t specifically mention Christ I believe that this is a vision of Christ’s heavenly armies, forshadowing the divine judgement that was about to come upon Jerusalem.”
Sal wrote: “in the very next chapter the transfiguration occurs. Many people believe that thats what Jesus was talking about about when he made that statement.”
I’m familar with that interpretation. The problem I have with that is that neither “coming” nor “kingdom” are specifically mentioned in the transfiguration passages. Also Christ said that there were “some that would not taste death until…” It seems like Christ wouldn’t have said this for something that was only going to happen 6 days later. (mt. 17:1) It would seem like he was refering to something that would take place sometime in the future when some who heard him would be alive and others dead. 70 AD fulfills that very well.
Karl, I’m not asking you to defend each of the questions I asked, I just want to get an overall understanding of the big picture of preterism. Could you answer these questions:
1. what is the kingdom?
2. what is the gospel of the kingdom?
3. should we preach the same gospel today that Jesus preached?
4. what is the resurrection?
5. what is the Christian hope?
6. what happens when people die?
7. is Jesus still going to come to earth or was that already fulfilled?
Sean wrote: It is extraordinarily difficult for me to imagine that the kingdom is here now considering the evil state of things in the world.
Luk 17:20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed;
Luk 17:21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here {it is!}’ or, ‘There {it is!}’ For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
Luk 11:20 “But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
Mat 21:43 “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it.
Evil was still present in the world when all of these passages were written.
Sean wrote: “Furthermore, would you say that parousia (Christ’s coming) really means his leaving? Also, what about the resurrection? Has that already happened? And lastly, where does that leave us now…I mean, what do we have to look forward if the kingdom is already here?”
I don’t believe I have full understanding of all the prophetic texts, However clear statements like: “this generation” should give us some frame of reference as to when the events in Matt. 24 were to be fulfilled. I believe that Christ must reign until he has put all enemies under his feet, and that we must disciple the nations. So far I haven’t heard any prophetic system that perfectly ties up all of the prophetic texts. But to try to transplant Matt. 24 into our day is, I believe, being dishonest with the text. And liberal greek scholars know it. Well, many conservative ones too.
sean wrote: Furthermore, would you say that parousia (Christ’s coming) really means his leaving?
I didn’t get what you were asking at first, but I think I do now. I am saying that Christ’s coming (erxomai) could refer to his ascension. read Daniel 7:13. In this passage Christ is coming (LXX erxomai) UP to the ancient of days.
Sean wrote: I just want to get an overall understanding of the big picture of preterism.
I don’t know what the exact views of preterism are concerning the kingdom of God. I believe that the kingdom of god was take away from the jews and given to the christians. The old covenant ended and the new one began. God covenants are conditional and require obedience. I believe the kingdom is realized as individuals are regenerated and walk together in obedience to God and his Law, thereby manifesting the Christ’s body on earth. I believe in the resurrection of the body and a future judgement. I was a firm believer in soul sleep (unconcious existence after death) but some interpretations of preterism throw a monkey wrench into that belief. So I don’t’ have a strong opinion one way or another right now, and I don’t worry about it either.
Now, what do you think?
I guess I’m still really confused on what exactly you are proposing. My belief is that the same kingdom prophesied by all the prophets in the Hebrew Bible is the kingdom that will one day come when Jesus comes in glory to establish it. It is at this coming of Christ that the dead are resurrected to meet him in the air and escort him in royal fashion to his capital city (Jerusalem). I believe that Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom everywhere he went and that we are told to preach this same gospel of the kingdom (i.e. repent, because the kingdom of God is at hand).
With regard to preterism, I have two ways to interpret the timing verses so that the kingdom (and Jesus’ return) are still future. (1) a postponement theory and (2) the idea of prophetic imminence. I’m not completely satisfied with either of them as yet, but I am able to grasp the cohesiveness of the whole apocalyptic worldview better from a futurist position.
My questions to you are not so much regarding what Scriptures lead you to your conclusion, as what conclusion you have arrived at. I’m still curious what you are proposing. Are you saying that Jesus is now ruling in and through the church and that the church should endeavor to “take over” the world (disciple nations)? You still believe in a future judgment (this is what I call the kingdom–both the eschatological judgment and restoration). You say you still believe in a future resurrection. My question to you then, is are you sure you are a preterist?
Karl, regarding Luke 17, see my previous post here
Sean wrote: My questions to you are not so much regarding what Scriptures lead you to your conclusion, as what conclusion you have arrived at. I’m still curious what you are proposing.
maybe you are confused because I am not really proposing anything. lol. I don’t have some kind of grand prophetic system worked out. However, I do believe that it is not good hermeneutics to try to transplant matt 24 into our day when Christ clearly says it was for that generation. I would still like to here what you have to say regarding these verses.
sean wrote: “My belief is that the same kingdom prophesied by all the prophets in the Hebrew Bible is the kingdom that will one day come when Jesus comes in glory to establish it”.
My only concern here is that God’s kingdom, according to Daniel, comes after the Roman empire. So according to my understanding there doesn’t seem to be any warrant for a 2000 year gap in either Daniel 7 or 9. God’s kingdom must have been established during the time of the roman empire or Daniel’s prophecy doesn’t have much value.
What are some specific verses that you believe teach that Christ will reign from Jerusalem? are there any from the NT?
Also, can preaching that the kingdom is “at hand” possible have any meaning when it has been 2000 years and maybe 2000 more years before Christ returns again? Adam then could have preached the kingdom is near.
thanks for the link JohnO. I never looked at it like that before. however it would still fit into a preterist view of the kingdom, especially because you draw a parallel between Luke 17 and Matt. 24 which refers to events in the first century.
God bless you
to Karl and all,
well, there is someone else participating who apparently shares the same concerns as I do concerning the timing statements involved with the prophecies made concerning the kingdom, coming of the Lord, etc. which Jesus made and which NT writers recorded …
Karl wrote:
Exactly … Daniel’s prophecy actually places the establishing of the kingdom and the final end of the old world/aion during the Roman empire, and in particular during the reign of the 11th horn (emperor Vespasian). The old aion did come to its final end with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in the events surrounding and culminating in 70 AD.
I would say that there are no such verses … The only point usually used to support such an idea is the reference to Christ reigning on “the throne of David” …which is understood by those propagating this view to refer to a literal throne in the city from where David reigned in his day. However, the reference to Christ reigning on the throne of David need not necessarily refer to a literal throne at Jerusalem at all …. especially when we keep in mind the overall biblical scope of the OT physical shadows being replaced by NT spiritual realities.
I used to think that it could have meaning … in the sense of it referring to any generation and sort of impressing on everybody at all times “that the thing could happen to them, so they better behave properly …” However, when considering such an idea further it is obvious that is really vioalates the meaning of what Jesus and his apostles taught about the imminent “soon”, “at hand” coming of the Lord.The book of Revelation is rather explicit in timing the events prophesied in it as being “at hand” and speak of the Lord coming “soon”, both at the beginning as well as at the end of the book. However, many folks do not seem to notice … or if they do, they try and find a way of explaining the “soon” as not really meaning “soon” while propagating their interpretations of rather difficult verses involving figurative language as being literal and therefore as not having come to pass …. the key to understanding things is actually rather simple: Understand the time statements literally, and understand the apparently more difficult figurative statements in light of the clear verses.
A couple of thoughts on Daniel. (1) Nowhere is Rome mentioned in the book of Daniel. The last kingdom is unnamed and could be a yet to come Arab confederacy. (2) The demise of the fourth kingdom (Rome in your view) is destroyed/smashed to pieces by the rock cut out without hands. It is then that the following verse will come true.
The kingdom of God will put an end to all of these kingdoms when it comes. It will be just as political as these other kingdoms were. The kingdom will last forever. Another text of note is found in chapter 7.
Again this is something that takes place on earth, “under the whole heaven.” All the dominion and greatness of the nations will be handed over to the saints who will rule over the kingdom of God forever.
So then Karl, you believe the Kingdom of God came in 70AD? And the parousia also? What evidence do you have of this? Any writers? Any texts?
The Roman empire was not destroyed by the Kingdom, but rather themselves. They were spread too thin on their northern borders and the Barbarians reached Rome. Were these Barbarians the Kingdom?
In all these views of preterism that we’ve heard so far (and Karl I know you’ve just gotten here), all I’ve heard is - focus on the timing verses, the Kingdom is not “physical”. But there has not yet been a positive definition of the Kingdom whatsoever according to the NT verses about it.
Futhermore, the NT does specifically talk about ruling over Israel.
Wolfgang, you cannot use a principle that is only used in the NT regarding the tabernacle, temple, and festivities of the OT (furthermore defined mostly in Hebrews) and apply it in broad strokes to any and every subject thus changing the words right out of the mouth of Jesus. In my opinion, it shows a distinct lack of respect for his words. It is complete allegory and we could thus make the NT say anything we ever wanted it to.
Wolfgang wrote: I would say that there are no such verses … The only point usually used to support such an idea is the reference to Christ reigning on “the throne of David” …which is understood by those propagating this view to refer to a literal throne in the city from where David reigned in his day. However, the reference to Christ reigning on the throne of David need not necessarily refer to a literal throne at Jerusalem at all …. especially when we keep in mind the overall biblical scope of the OT physical shadows being replaced by NT spiritual realities.
Gabriel said: “The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob” When Gabriel said this was there even a literal throne (seat) of David still in existence? The literal throne of David was probably destroyed after the Babylonians took Jersualem and destroyed the first temple. Then, if a literal seat is not in view but rather the postion as king of the house Jacob, that already occurred: Jn. 12:13, 19:19.
Also, Christ has already been given “all authority on heaven and on earth” and in revelation he is called “ruler of the kings of the earth.” It would almost seem like a step down for Christ to now sit on a literal throne in jerusalem when he is currently sitting at the right hand of God as ruler of all creation. This argument doesn’t disprove a literal Davidic throne for God can do whatever he wills, but it’s something to think about.
Wolfgang wrote: Understand the time statements literally, and understand the apparently more difficult figurative statements in light of the clear verses.
Good point. Some people want to see stars falling to the earth and 200 million fire breathing horses literally but words like “quickly,” “near,” and “about to take place” somehow take on a more figurative meaning.
What are your thoughts about the millenium? Did you go to the one God conference wolfgang?
JohnO wrote: So then Karl, you believe the Kingdom of God came in 70AD? And the parousia also? What evidence do you have of this? Any writers? Any texts?
1) Jesus predicted it.
Mt. 24:3 “tell us, when will these things be and what will be the sign of your coming… Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
This is a clear passage where Jesus says that all these things (that is all the things that the disciples asked about, and all the things that he just described) were going to take place before that generation passed away.
Many liberal liberal scholars use this passage to discredit the NT, because they know what Jesus is actually saying. Yet, many christians try to transplant the prophecies of matthew 24 into our day when Christ clearly says that they were for the generation to whom he was speaking.
“Coming” is a term that refers to judgement without necessarily being a physical manifestation:
Rev 2:5 Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.
Rev 3:3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
The coming refered to in these passages refers to a coming in judgement for the churches’ unfaithfulness. In like manner Christ came to jerusalem to judge it for its unfaithfulness in 70 ad.
Also read isaiah 19:1 were “the Lord is rriding on a cloud and about to come to Egypt.” This is a prophecy concerning the judgement about to come upon egypt at that time. To you believe that the LORD literally came to Egypt on a cloud? And if he did where is the the historical proof? Or did he come in Judgement?
2) Josephus records that before the fall of Jerusalem, it’s inhabitants saw “chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour running among the clouds and surrounding cities.” Jewish Wars VI:v:3
Though this doesn’t specifically mention Christ I believe that this is a vision of Christ’s heavenly armies, forshadowing the divine judgement that was about to come upon Jerusalem.”
I’m still interested to hear your interpretation of matthew 24, particularly the time indicators.
Sean wrote: (1) Nowhere is Rome mentioned in the book of Daniel. The last kingdom is unnamed and could be a yet to come Arab confederacy.
Nowwhere is a 2000 year gap mentioned in the book of Daniel either. The first three beasts are consecutive, why is there suddenly a 2000 year gap between the 3th and 4th beasts?
Sean wrote: The kingdom of God will put an end to all of these kingdoms when it comes. It will be just as political as these other kingdoms were. The kingdom will last forever.
Christianity has already outlasted all of these kingdoms, and shows no sign of dying anytime soon.
Futhermore, the NT does specifically talk about ruling over Israel.
that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Lk 22.30
And Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of Man will sit on His glorious throne, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Mt 19.28
No one is saying that Christ doesn’t rule over israel. At least I’m not saying that. The discussion is over a literal throne located in Israel. But what Israel are you talking about? The anti-christ Jews who believe that Christ has not come? Or believing Jews and Gentiles who are part of the the true Israel of God?
God bless you
Would you then say, since in your scheme the kingdom has already come, that the role of the church is to take over the governments of the world? It seems that in the past when Christianity had state power (Constantine, Europe, etc.) it has been a complete disaster. Surely the great commission is still valid? It has not been changed from “preach the gospel” to “take over the world and rule it because Christ is invisibly present”. The gospel is that Christ will come for real and then things will be made right. At least that’s my perspective.
Jesus did not preach “Repent, Christianity is coming”, that makes no sense - Christianity is no reason to repent. Furthermore Christianity did not destroy Rome at all! It helped Rome. Christianity since those days has been as much a negative force as much as a positive force. Do you mean to say that the killing done in the name of Christ by the church in both the crusades and persecution is done by Jesus?
There is no indication that Titus is in any way an instrument of God or Christ. He was a rampant persecutor if I remember correctly. You contrasted with Egypt, there is no question that God sent the natural disasters/miracles upon Egypt. Yet there is a completely rational response to the revolt in 66AD, Roman destruction in 70AD.
I believe that all things are subject to christ, the church, the family, the individual and even the state. All authority on heaven and on earth has been given to christ. Not just authority over individuals. The church is not to take over the state, rather the state is to submit itself to God just as the church should. The gospel is all encompassing. When you disciple someone, you teach them how to live in this life, not some future kingdom.
I understand your questions, especially when you look at church history. But look at Israel’s history. How many good kings did they have? Yet they were God’s kingdom also. (Mt. 21:43, Ex. 19:6)
Preterism (maybe I’m only a partial preterist) is the only way to faithfully deal with all the time indicator texts. Maybe we need to reexamine the nature of the kingdom.
Also look at the many positive things that Christianity has done in the world. Pedophilia, homosexuality, infanticide, gladiator games, etc.. were all common place in the pre christian roman empire. Today we are seeing a resurgence of some of these things because America has rejected it’s christian heretige. Yet, those who call themselves christians are still in the majority. They are all just waiting for Christ to come and fix the mess.
God bless you
JohnO wrote: “Christianity has already outlasted all of these kingdoms”
Jesus did not preach “Repent, Christianity is coming”, that makes no sense - Christianity is no reason to repent.
Let me rephrase it: “the kingdom of God has already outlasted all of these kingdoms”
JohnO wrote: “Yet there is a completely rational response to the revolt in 66AD, Roman destruction in 70AD.”
The same thing could be said of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezer. Nebuchadnezer attacked Jerusalem because the Jews had stopped paying tribute and revolted against him.
I’m still interested to hear your interpretation of matthew 24, particularly the time indicators.
Discipleship is how to live now because the Kingdom is coming.
Nebuchadnezer attacked the second and third time because of the tribute. The first time was entirely offensive and imperialistic. The reason why I don’t think Babylon is a safe parallel to Rome is because Isaiah said Babylon is coming because of your sin. Jesus didn’t say Rome is coming because of your sin. Jesus didn’t say Rome is ruling over you because of your sin. Jesus, when asked if those who were sacrificed by Herod were more sinful than the rest, did not respond in a manner to affirm this notion - he said, no their sinfulness is not the reason and you will all die unless you repent as well. Jesus, while sharing a lot of the same character as Isaiah, doesn’t make specific points as Isaiah does regarding their imperial overlords victory because of the sin of the people. Paul doesn’t write this. John in Revelation doesn’t write this.
I think our largest question still stands. If 70AD is Jesus coming in judgment - is that the Kingdom? It seems to be no. Then what is the Kingdom? And what relation is that Kingdom to the parousia of Jesus (since 70AD is not the parousia)? Surely both Jesus and Paul intimately links the coming of the Kingdom with the parousia.
JohnO: I’m still interested to hear your interpretation of matthew 24, particularly the time indicators.
God bless you
Re. 17:16 And the ten horns which you saw, and beast, these will hate the harlot and will make here desolate and naked, and will eat her flesh and will burn her up with fire. For God has put it in their hearts to execute his purpose.
The beast is the Roman empire, the harlot is Israel. (Ezekiel 16) God used the roman empire to judge israel.
Karl, I think you’re taking Rev 17.16 out of context. The harlot is called, in that very chapter Babylon. This is her description:
Dear Karl,
you asked:
(a) I am not sure about what is commonly called “the millenium” in regards to what Rev 20:4ff speak about. It seems to me from Rev 20 that the idea of a literal “millenial reign” (exactly 1000 years of political type of reign, not one day less or more) is NOT what the record in Rev 20 is about … however, at this time, I am not sure to what period of time the record in Rev 20:4ff is referring; I am thinking that this is not a reference to a literal exact 1000 years, but the terminology uses a figurative language to refer to the time of judgment over Israel, which was to be executed by the Lord and his apostles sitting on thrones …
(b) I did not attend the one God conference, was simply not possible for me at this time, seeing that I live in Germany and for personal reasons was unable to attend.
God bless you
Wolfgang
Hi John O.,
you wrote:
Yes, indeed … she is here called “Babylon”, and in another place she is spoken of as “the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt” (cp Rev 11:8). Which city is this then? I’d think that Rev 11:8 does provide a clue to its identiy:
Rev 11.8 (KJV)
And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.
In which city was our Lord crucified? was it Babylon? Sodom? a city in Egypt? Or was it Jerusalem, which is figuratively (to emphasize its religious whoredoms) called in this book “Babylon”, “Sodom”, and “Egypt”?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
you wrote:
The various beasts in Daniel’s vision representing consecutive kingdoms are described as following upon one another and actually overtaking the one previously in power (Medes and Persians overtaking Babylon, the Greeks overtaking Persia, and the 4th kingdom overtaking the Greek empire (which had been split in four after Alexander’s death) … Now then, how could a yet future “Arab confederacy” overtake the Greek empire?
It makes absolutely no sense to read political ideas of present day world scenario into the visions of Daniel, does it?
The 4th beast is described as having 11 horns until it causes the total destruction of Daniel’s people as a nation … the horns corresponding to the 11 absolute rulers of Rome from Pompei onward to Vespasian. (cp Rev 17:16)
In Daniel’s vision, it is made clear that the kingdom which God will establish will be DIFFERENT from all the others … it is NOT a political, earthly kingdom as the others, but rather it is “spiritual” in nature and NOT a political earthly kingdom as the others were.
Yes, God’s reign will last forever … but it has nothing to do with Jesus being a political earthly ruler as the rulers of the other empires had been.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wow, this is an interesting thread. Karl, good to “see you”, figuratively speaking ;>)
I’ve sent my version of it to Sean and John in my Kingdom of God paper, but it is still a work in progress and has many flaws. It does however seem to fall right in line with what you and Wolfgang are saying.
I think the nature of the Kingdom has probably been misunderstood. I think the Kingdom is here and now and that evil has to come to it’s ultimate conclusion (the tares have to grow up with the wheat and be plucked “out of” the Kingdom). You can’t pluck them out of the Kingdom if they were never in the Kingdom.
I’m like Karl. At this point I’m probably somewhere between a Partial Preterist and a Full Preterist. I really don’t like those terms. J.S. Russell was considered a Full Preterist, but he’s nothing like the Full Preterists of today (which I sometimes call neo-Preterists).
To quote J.S. Russell:
“The first Christians undoubtedly believed themselves to be standing on the verge of a great catastrophe, and we know what intensity and enthusiasm the expectation of the almost immediate coming of the Lord inspired; but if it cannot be shown that Christians now are similarly placed, there would be a want of truth and reality in affecting the eager anticipation and hope of the primitive church. The same event cannot be imminent at two different periods separated by nearly two thousand years. There must, therefore, be some grave misconception on the part of those who maintain that the Christian church of today occupies precisely the same relation, and should maintain the same attitude, towards the coming of the Lord as the church in the days of St Paul.”
The 70 weeks (sevens) prophecy also makes no since if you stick a gap of 2000 years and counting in there. It’s not really 70 sevens if we do that.
I don’t have time to post much right now, but I’ll check back later.
God Bless,
Rick
I’ll do Mt 24 as my next post on Monday. Until then, we have two things to discuss, the nature of the Kingdom and timing verses.
The nature of the Kingdom, physical or spiritual, or both. If it is purely spiritual - then we’ve chucked the earths and mankinds restoration prophesies in the OT. If it is purely physical - then we’ve got to solve timing verses. Perhaps if it is “both” that solves the timing verses?
It seems that both Rick and Karl would subscribe to a “both” perspective. But then we are left with not knowing specifically what Jesus is talking about when he talks about the Kingdom. When Jesus says “pray the Kingdom would come” - that doesn’t make sense if it is spiritual - because there is no “coming”, it is always there, you’re just inside of it or outside of it. So the “coming” is in regards to the physical. So unless we are prepared to say the Kingdom has nothing physical attached to it (as Wolfgang does) we are still going to have a timing problem. Unless we can somehow understand how “something spiritual” can “come”, while also being there with Christ.
I don’t see how either side is easy or better than the other. They both have their problems. With a preterist view, insomuch as we have discussed, the Kingdom is incredibly vauge - Karl said that the Kingdom is Christianity (and then changed his sentance. Don’t read that as an attack). It just seems that if the Kingdom is spiritual, then we can - as Christianity has done recently - redefine the Kingdom to mean anything we’d like.
If Karl or Rick (we’ve already extended you the opportunity Wolfgang) would like to make a post about the Preterist view of the Kingdom, we’ll post it. But let it be something with substance and thought that we can have a discussion about.
JohnO wrote: It never says that the Kings of the earth came to Israel. The woman is also described as very rich and of high status. Israel during this time is neither.
Josephus writes: It seems to me to be necessary here to give an account of all the honors that the Romans and their emperors paid to our nation, and of the leagues of mutual assistance they have made with it.” (Antiquities, 14.10.1-2)
Actually, we never did post for Wolfgang. This whole preterist idea, I must confess, is rather unappealing to me. The reason why is that the theory lacks explanatory power, simplicity, and it fails to help me in a world that is filled with violence, child abuse, rape, bullying, injustice, sorcery, and so on.
It lacks explanatory power: the theory of preterism explains one thing–the timing verses. I must give it credit for this. However, in its wake are left several key biblical concepts: (1) the kingdom is no longer the political reign of the messiah over Israel (2) since the resurrection occurs at the parousia now the resurrection is moved from a corporate event to an individualistic go-to-heaven-when-you-die concept (3) the coming of Christ is really the leaving of Christ (i.e. instead of Christ coming in glory to establish the kingdom he leaves and goes to the Ancient of days). (4) The gospel should be updated to reflect this new data. The gospel, for Jesus, is always connected with the kingdom. It was summarized by the phrase, “repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand.” Thus, preterism redefines the gospel to be something else.
It lacks simplicity: one would literally have to reread the entire Old Testament and allegorize all of the kingdom passages. We must always be careful to pass our theory through the “if a person found the Bible in a field and read it for the first time would he see this?” test. The theory is so scattered and confusing that I have not even heard a definate proposal of how to orient myself. (I acknowledge that these could be due to my own short-comings).
It fails to help me deal with the pain and suffering in the real world. My wife just told me about these dozens of children in Iraq that were handicapped and starved and left out in 120 degree weather so that the person in charge could sell their food on the black market. How am I to reckon this in light of preterism. I have to be able to say, yes that is an unspeakable horror BUT God is going to make the world right when Jesus comes to set up his kingdom. If preterism is true and Satan is already chained (or destroyed) and Jesus is now ruling, then I don’t know how to makes sense of the world. There is so much evil. God is just. Judgment will come.
Hi Sean,
just a further thought on something you wrote above:
How about putting yourself into the place of the believer in the fellowship at Corinth or Thessalonica who hears an epistle of the apostle Paul read in which Paul writes: “Behold, I show you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, ….” and “… we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord …”? Did Paul really not mean what he wrote? That is, did he mean someone else with the “we”, not those to whom he was writing and who heard his epistle read?
Actually, it is the futurist perspective of the coming of the lord and the idea of a physical / political kingdom of Israel on earth that is difficult to explain … because it reverts what otherwise is plainly explained in Scripture — cp. Hebrews — about the physical, earthly and temporary of the old testament age being replaced by the spiritual heavenly and eternal of the new covenant age.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
you wrote above:
Who says that “the political reign of the messiah over Israel” is a biblical concept? I’d say that there is no such concept found in the Bible, it is only a particular interpretation of biblical passages which does not take into account a number of other biblical passages concerning the Messiah’s reign
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
you continued above:
The resurrection as “a corporate event” (as you call it) occurred indeed as promised at the coming of the Lord, when all the dead who were held in hades (gravedom) were resurrected, some to eteral life, others to judgement. Those who were alive at the time as well as those who are alive afterwards do not go to hades anymore, since death and hades are destroyed … instead, according to theiur judgment they experience the second death (the unjust) or are changed to live eternally in the presence of God (the just) upon taking their last breath of this earthly life (cp 1Co 15)
The problem with the common “church” teaching of an “individualistic “go-to-heaven-when-you-die” concept is that it claims that there is a going to heaven when you die WITHOUT the coming of the Lord and the resurrection having taken place because they teach that these are still future. I am NOT advocating a going to heaven when you die before the resurrection and the coming of the Lord having occurred.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
continuing on you wrote:
You have apparently misunderstood what Karl wrote and/or what other preterist teaching you may have heard. The coming of Christ is NOT said to be the going away to the Ancient of Days (=> which occurred actually at the ascension!), the coming of the Lord occurred approximately 40 years after Christ ascended and came unto the Ancient of Days (God Himself). The coming of the Lord is linked — cp. Jesus’ very own words in Mt 24, Mk 13 and Lk 21 — with his execution of the judgment upon Israel and the nations, etc.
Thus, even though his coming occurred “in the clouds” and he did not physically set foot on the earth, the effects of his coming (the judgement) concerned people on the earth. Thus it is with the effects of his rule / reign … Jesus’ reign concerns people living on earth … BUT he is not present physically on earth exercising a political type of reign …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Sean,
you concluded above:
The gospel need not be updated … just as Moses’ writings need not be updated just because of the fact that what was future in his day and time by now has come to pass and is a past event already. What needs to be “updated” and adjusted is the understanding of the reader …
When we read the biblical records, we must read them from the perspective of the author and writer … not from the perspective of a reader 2000 years or 3500 years later. Yes, indeed, Jesus’ words were spoken when the kingdom was at hand … in the meantime, almost 2000 years have come and gone and the kingdom has obviously come — unless Jesus was wrong concerning the kingdom (for whatever reason) with his “at hand” prediction …
Our understanding must be updated …we can no loner preach “repent because the kingdom is at hand”! We now can preach “Repent, and enter the kinfdom and live accordingly!” For whatever reason, it seems that some folks think that there must always be a future threat element in our preaching, or else people just won’t believe, thus they think “repent, kingdom is coming soon” is more effective than “repent, and enter the already present kingdom”. Truth is, the need for repentance is the same … because if I do not repent, I won’t enter the kingdom … be it now, or be it after another 10 000 or 100 000 years or whatever unclear time dead in the grave …
The “motivation” for repentance is not that there is a kingdom COMING IN THE FUTURE … the “motivation” for repentance is that THERE IS A KINGDOM to be entered!
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang, I wonder what Rick and Karl think about your interpretation. Do you all think that the kingdom is invisible and apolitical, that the resurrection is passed already and involves ascension to heaven, that the gospel is different than what Jesus preached, and that Christ’s coming is really an invisible event?
Wolfgang, as I’ve said over and over, Hebrews only talks about “shadows” in reference to the priesthood of Aaron, the temple, and the festivals. It does not give permission to allegorize everything one finds.
Sean wrote: We must always be careful to pass our theory through the “if a person found the Bible in a field and read it for the first time would he see this?” test.
I think this is actually the problem with interpreting the book of revelation. Everyone picks up the book of reveleation and tries to understand it from their own perpsective. But it was not written to us in the year 2007. It was written to seven churches that existed in the 1st century. And it was describing events that were “near,” “about to take place,” and “coming quickly.” I don’t think that if I found the book of revelation in a field and I saw these statements I would not translate them to mean 2000 or 3000 years later. Would you?
You mentioned earlier about the arab confederacy. Where is that in the scriptures? Before the arab confederacy was the bad guy it was the Soviet Union. Before that it was Hitler. Before that it was Mussolini. Before that it was the ottoman Turk empire. Before that it was the papacy and the catholic church. Before that it was the mongolian empire. Before that it was the original arab empire. Before that it was the Goths. All of these interpretations have had one thing in common. They have all been wrong. At least they are consistent in this aspect.
Sean wrote: “The theory is so scattered and confusing that I have not even heard a definate proposal of how to orient myself.”
This is probably my fault and I apologize. I have never done an exhaustive study on the nature of the kingdom so I don’t have all the kingdom texts worked out into a cohesive system. But I believe that there are preterists who have a more concrete concept of the kingdom. Maybe Rick’s paper should be posted as a new thread and we can comment on it. Having said that, I have studied all of the timing verses in the Gospels and in revelation, and all futurist positions refuse to take them into account at all, especially in Matthew 24. Now I believe that parts of revelation stretch far into the future from a 1st century perspective. (there is a 1000 year period mentioned after all.) However there is no 1000 period (or any long gap) mentioned in Matt. 24 or in Daniel.
God bless you
Sean wrote: Do you all think that the kingdom is invisible and apolitical,
I don’t think that the kingdom is apolitical. But when I say that it probably means something different than if you were say it. When I say it, I believe that God’s word should exercise authority over all areas of life. In other words every christian should let the word of God guide him in whatever his position in life is, whether he is an apple farmer, a teacher, a pastor, a judge and yes even a politician.
God bless you
JohnO wrote: Wolfgang, as I’ve said over and over, Hebrews only talks about “shadows” in reference to the priesthood of Aaron, the temple, and the festivals. It does not give permission to allegorize everything one finds.
Look at what Paul says in Hebrews 12:22 “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem… v. 28 Therefore since we recieve a kindgom that cannot be shaken…” Notice how Paul says that we “have come” (past tense) to the heavenly Jerusalem and that “we are recieving” (present tense) a kingdom. It seems like Paul has no problem “allegorizing” about Jerusalem and the kingdom.
God bless you
Dear Karl and Sean ,
a short observation concerning the above:
This is probably my fault and I apologize. I have never done an exhaustive study on the nature of the kingdom so I don’t have all the kingdom texts worked out into a cohesive system.
From my own experience, I would say that “the theory” seems so confusing because the currently held futurist belief system flat out contradicts it and just about all the things one thought one understood are “confused”.
For illustration:
If you pilot a plane from NY via Atlanta to San Francisco, and you think and are convinced that you are now starting from NY, you will be rather confused when someone points out that you are NOT in NY but already in Atlanta. All your bearings need an adjustment, because you are already much further into your flight than where you thought you were. There is no getting ready for the stop in Atlanta anymore, because you have already stopped there and departed from there … If you look at things from your perspective of being in NY and try to apply them to your flight, you will be utterly confused because nothing “fits”.
Another illustration: If I read a letter from my Dad which he had written to me in mid 1970ies as if he had written it yesterday, I would be utterly confused as well … I would be reading the text and think I had to get ready to do certain things in the next days and weeks …BUT that would not be true at all and I would be completely wrong with my understanding, because those things already have happened about 30 years ago!
You must first orient yourself to realize the correct place in time where you are now on God’s timetable … and then realize when the scripture passages you are reading were written and to what they are referring within their proper historic context. As long as one is in the wrong place on God’s timetable, one will definitely be confused. (this is a problem for the Jews, who think we are still somewhere prior to the birth of the Messiah on God’s timetable, and subsequently they are confused concerning a whole many scriptures about the Messiah).
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Making a metaphor is much different than allegorizing a passage into an entirely new meaning that the author never intended. In going with your other comment Karl about hermanuetics to Sean. We must accept that any text must be coherent to it’s author. It cannot mean something it’s author knows nothing about. It must be understood in it’s cultural and historical setting first.
Oooops …. sorry about the quotation of Karl’s and Sean’s words not being correct in my last post … I thought one could include a quote in a quote, but apparently the blog doesn’t allow that and therefore made Karl’s quote appear as if it were already regular text of my post …. I hope you can sort it out now.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
This is precisely what has not been done (or satisfactorily done) yet.
PS, for all, to make quotes, just do this:
< blockquote >the quote goes here< / blockquote >Just without the spaces around blockquote. You can put them inside of one another too
Hi John O,
I had tried putting the markings inside each other as follows … but somehow it did not work above (maybe I had a typo mistake?) Here it is again, hopefully it works this time around …
This is probably my fault and I apologize. I have never done an exhaustive study on the nature of the kingdom so I don’t have all the kingdom texts worked out into a cohesive system.
Let’s see ….
John O.,
well, it did not work this time around either
Perhaps one of the administrators can make the needed corrections, so the quotes inside each other display properly?
Gentlemen, I think you are misunderstanding what I am asking for. You all keep talking about the timing verses over and over again. I am willing to grant you the timing verses if what results is a cohesive view of Scripture and the world. I am asking for a paragraph or two explaining what the kingdom, the resurrection, the parousia, the solution with the evil of the world, and the gospel are in light of preterism. Wolfgang has attempted this but in his attempt he refuted more than proposed. I am asking for your “worldview” here not for a text by text refutation of futurist interpretations of timing verses. Can someone give me one or two paragraphs on what you do believe? I have already given you my paragraph in comment #43.
Wolfgang, you said that you needed to “study the nature of the kingdom” Are you talking about the earthly kingdom promised to david? the one Jesus preached about?
Hello all,
In Preterism (both partial and full), just as in futurism, there are many different views, but they all agree on certain basic concepts.
I’ve heard on this blog that maybe imminency is just the language of prophecy and then I’ve heard that the Kingdom was supposed to imminent, but it was postponed. Which is it?
I’ve only met Karl once and I don’t know who Wolfgang is, but I can bet you we don’t agree on everything. I’ll take a stab at explaining what neo-Preterists believe and then what Partial Preterists believe.
Full or neo-Preterists believe that the period from 30 AD to 70 AD was the Messianic reign, because Moses and David who were both types of Christ “reigned” for forty years. Some also link this to the Millennium saying that the “1000 years” is symbolic for completion (I don’t subscribe to that). They would say the resurrection and judgement occurred in 70 AD as well as the destruction of Satan and that all of Revelation has been fulfilled because the book of Revelation is “bookended” on either side (i.e. beginning and end) by timing statements of imminency. They would say the Kingdom is spiritual and that it’s heaven when you die.
Partial Preterists would say that Matthew 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD and that this was a coming in judgement on Old Covenant Israel, but it was not the Coming of Christ in his glory to establish his Kingdom. They would place the Millennium, resurrection, and judgement in the future. They would probably say that some of Revelation was fulfilled, but that there is much left to be fulfilled. They probably have more in common with Historicists, but they are not Historicists.
My own view is somewhere between the two. I believe that Christ ascended in 30 AD (to the Ancient of Days) to receive his Kingdom and he returned in 70 AD (remember the parables of the talents? The people he left with the talents are the same people he returned to, but he was gone for a long time. It’s interesting that this story is prefaced by a statement in Luke 19:11 that they thought the Kingdom of God would come upon them immediately. They didn’t understand that it would be a generation away). He returned to destroy those unfaithful servants who didn’t want him to rule over them and reward the faithful ones. At least one resurrection occurred in or around 70 AD (some neo-Preterists try and say this resurrection occurred in 30 AD when some of the saints came out of their graves according to Matthew). The resurrection in 70 AD was was probably spiritual since we have no record of it, but it is interesting to note that Josephus and many others said they were going to write more histories that we don’t have - I wonder if they were destroyed, because they contained something strange or if they were just prevented from writing them. Anyway, at that time Christ began to rule along with those that were killed during the tribulation (which probably occurred somewhere between 66 and 70 AD). Rev 20 tells us that these people would be raised at the beginning of Christ’s rule (it doesn’t say all Christians). The rest are not raised until after his reign. I personally believe that we are in the reign of Christ which is probably synonymous with the Kingdom of God and we could be in the short time after that when Satan is released (or maybe we’re not; I don’t know). This is where I believe we are. I believe Satan was bound (not destroyed) in either 30 AD or 70 AD. We blame alot of stuff on Satan that is just the evil desires of man. We need someone to blame for our sin.
I hope this helps explain the different positions and where I personally am now. I am still learning and am subject to change when I’m confronted with truth.
Rick
I was just thinking how Preterists get accused of spiritualizing everything or making everything allegory. It seems like James did this very thing in Acts in regards to the tabernacle being rebuilt:
What do you think?
Rick
JohnO: Making a metaphor is much different than allegorizing a passage into an entirely new meaning that the author never intended. In going with your other comment Karl about hermanuetics to Sean. We must accept that any text must be coherent to it’s author. It cannot mean something it