Thoughts on Predictive Prophecy
June 28th, 2007 by Jon Burke
by Jon Burke (Fortigurn)
Prophecy is one of the central subjects of the Bible, but unfortunately remains one of the most contentious and hotly disputed among Christians and non-Christians alike. The importance of prophecy to the Bible cannot be overstated. It has been estimated that the up to one third of the Bible actually consists of prophecy, and Bible prophecies are probably the most oft quoted passages by other parts of Scripture.
In our increasingly secular age, Bible prophecy retains its compelling fascination and its importance increases rather than diminishing. The fact is that Bible prophecy is the one indisputable method of proving the supernatural origin of the Scriptures. Archaeology can confirm the Bible is historically accurate, textual criticism can provide evidence that it has been copied accurately, and arguments that the universe has been designed will always be dismissed by those who do not wish to believe.
But prophecy is in a different category altogether. Unlike these other subjects, prophecy constitutes the Bible’s explicit claim to supernatural origin, and is the only true means of proving that claim. Only Bible prophecy can provide indisputable evidence of the supernatural.
The Scripture itself challenges the heathen and the atheist with the evidence of Bible prophecy, explicitly presenting prophecy as the indisputable evidence for the existence of the Biblical God:
Isaiah 45: 19 I have not spoken in secret, in some hidden place. I did not tell Jacob’s descendants, ‘Seek me in vain.’ I am the Lord, the one who speaks honestly, who makes reliable announcements.
20 Gather together and come! Approach together, you refugees from the nations! Those who carry wooden idols know nothing, those who pray to a god that cannot deliver.
21 Tell me! Present the evidence! Let them consult with one another! Who predicted this in the past? Who announced it beforehand? Was it not I, the Lord? I have no peer, there is no God but me, a God who vindicates and delivers; there is none but me.
This Divine challenge was not lost on the early Christians, who repeatedly defended the Bible using prophecy as their ultimate weapon. It was not only the means of providing evidence for the truth of the Scriptures, but also of justifying their belief in the God of the Bible as opposed to the gods of the heathens around them.
In the 2nd century Justin Martyr appealed to the fulfillment of the Olivet prophecy (’And ye are convinced that Jerusalem has been laid waste, as was predicted‘, First Apology), and Clement of Alexandria appealed to the 70 weeks prophecy to vindicate the Old Testament (’And Christ our Lord, “the Holy of Holies,” having come and fulfilled the vision and the prophecy‘, Stromata), and the fulfillment of the Olivet prophecy to vindicate the New (’And in like manner He spoke in plain words the things that were straightway to happen, which we can now see with our eyes‘, Homilies).
In the 3rd century Cyprian affirmed the truth of Paul’s writings to Timothy by appealing to the fulfillment of his words in 2 Timothy 3′Whatever things were predicted are fulfilled’, Treatise I), and Hippolytus appealed not only to the Olivet prophecy (’Are not these things come to pass? Are not the things announced by thee fulfilled? Is not their country, Judea, desolate?’, Fragments of Historical and Dogmatic Works), but also to the fulfillment of Daniel 2 (’Thou hast spoken indeed, and that not falsely. The leopard has arisen; the he-goat is come‘, ‘Rejoice, blessed Daniel! thou hast not been in error: all these things have come to pass‘, and ‘Already the iron rules; already it subdues and breaks all in pieces; already it brings all the unwilling into subjection; already we see these things ourselves‘, Treatise On Christ and AntiChrist’).
In the 4th century Chrysostom used the Olivet prophecy to prove that the New Testament was true (’Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it‘, Commentary On Matthew 24). Lactantius demonstrated that the Old Testament prophecies regarding Messiah had come to pass in the life of Christ (’And the prophets had predicted that all these things would thus come to pass’, Epitome of the Divine Institutes), and proved that Christ was a prophet by presenting the fulfillment of the Olivet prophecy (’Nor were these things spoken in vain. For after a short time the Emperor Vespasian subdued the Jews’, Epitome of the Divine Institutes).
Eusebius struck out against the heathen by comparing the failed prophecies of pagan oracles to the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible (’Hear therefore how Greeks themselves confess that their oracles have failed, and never so failed from the beginning’, Preparatio Evangelica), and argued that the fulfillment of Bible prophecy proved the truth of the gospel (’how can we deny that the prophecies of long ago have at last been fulfilled‘, Demonstratio Evangelica).In the 5th century Severus appealed to the fulfillment of Daniel 2 (’In the brazen belly it is said that the third sovereignty was indicated; and we see that this was fulfilled, for Alexander took the empire from the Persians’, Sacred History), and Theodoretus did the same (’The iron he named the Roman kingdom; and this kingdom succeeded to the Macedonian’, Commentary On the Visions of Daniel’s Prophecy).
Christians throughout the succeeding centuries repeatedly used Bible prophecy as the indisputable evidence of the Bible’s supernatural origin. The 8th century English historian Bede appealed to the Olivet prophecy as evidence that the Bible was true (’Now it is on record that this literally took place at the time of the Jewish rebellion’, and ‘Ecclesiastical historians testify that this was fulfilled‘, Commentary On Mark).
These Christians had sufficient faith in the prophetic word to take up the Divine challenge of prophecy, and present it unashamedly to pagan and skeptic alike. Today the Christian witness to Bible prophecy is weakened by disputes over eschatological interpretations, as well as personal doubts that the Old Testament prophecies have been correctly interpreted in the New, and that key passages such as the Olivet prophecy were written after the event.
But the challenge of Isaiah 45:19-21 remains. It will not go away. The words cannot be unwritten. In a secular age of skepticism and doubt, we as Christians should follow the example of the earlier converts, and present that challenge to the unbelieving world yet again. Perhaps the question we should ask is ‘How’?
You certainly make some interesting points here. Thanks for your thoroughness as well as bringing in the post-biblical witnesses. In light of our other recent conversations about Matthew 24, I’m curious about the historicist position on verses 29-31? Do you agree that the coming of Christ is still future and that it will usher in a literal kingdom on earth?
It is interesting to see the various interpretations of the Olivet Discourse. Both the preterist and futurist take the entire discourse as continuous. The preterist says it all happened in 70ad. The futurist says the temple is yet to be built and then it will all happen at the end of this age. However, the historicist sort of snips the section into two chronologically divergent pieces. I understand that you find justification for this in the Luke 21 parallel, but then that leaves you with a problem in Mat 24.29 where Jesus says “Immediately after the tribulation of those days…” How do you handle this?
Sean,
Thanks for your post. You raise some good questions. Firstly I’d like to point out that the Praeterist, Futurist, and Historicist interpretations all understand the prophecy to be continuous, they just locate it at different times:
* Praeterist: Continuous, fulfilled in the 1st century
* Futurist: Continuous, fulfilled in the unforseeable future
* Historicist Continuous, started being fulfilled in the 1st century, continues to be fulfilled now, will be completed at Christ’s return
The Historicist interpretation is the only one which addresses the passage in Luke’s account. Of course, the Praeterist has a major problem with the fact that in the Olivet prophecy the coming of Christ takes place *after* 70 AD, not before or at the same time.
In Matthew’s account, Matthew 24:21-27 is the counterpart to Luke 21:21-24. Christ appears immediately after the tribulation which started in 70 AD, and continues to his return. The events in Matthew 24:21-27 parallel Luke 21:21-24.
Perhaps I am not understanding you correctly. Did you say that the tribulation has been going on now for nearly 2 millenia?
Regarding my comment about continuous or split up, I was speaking about the Olivet Discourse, not prophecy in general.
Yes Sean, I am. It’s not called ‘great tribulation’ for nothing.
Luke is crystal clear:
Luke 21:
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Those who are inside the city must depart. Those who are out in the country must not enter it,
22 because these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.
23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress on the earth and wrath against this people.
That’s 70 AD. The result? The Jews were scattered into all nations, and Jerusalem trodden down by the Gentiles:
24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away as captives among all nations. Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
Christ returns after this time has been fulfilled.
Hi Sean,
>
Regarding my comment about continuous or split up, I was speaking about the Olivet Discourse, not prophecy in general.
>
Yes, I understood that. The Historicist interpretation does not see the Olivet prophecy as ’split up’, but that it started being fulfilled in the 1st century, continues to be fulfilled now, and will be completed at Christ’s return.
Dear Fortigurn
you wrote:
now, where does the record of the Olivet discourse in Luke 21 state that the coming of the Lord is after “the end of the world [age]” and the events of 70 AD??
Dear Wolfgang,
Please see my post above.
Luke 21:
20 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.
21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains. Those who are inside the city must depart. Those who are out in the country must not enter it,
22 because these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written.
23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress on the earth and wrath against this people.
That’s 70 AD. The result? The Jews were scattered into all nations, and Jerusalem trodden down by the Gentiles:
24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led away as captives among all nations. Jerusalem will be trampled down by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.
So it’s Luke 21:24 already, and we see that 70 AD has come, Jerusalem has been destroyed, the Jews have been scattered into the world, but Christ has not yet come.
Christ doesn’t come until verse 27, *after* 70 AD, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the scattering of the Jews into all nations.
It’s the same in Matthew. Here’s 70 AD:
Matthew 24:
15 “So when you see the abomination of desolation—spoken about by Daniel the prophet—standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
16 then those in Judea must flee to the mountains
17 The one on the roof must not come down to take anything out of his house,
18 and the one in the field must not turn back to get his cloak.
19 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days!
20 Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath.
21 For then there will be great suffering unlike anything that has happened from the beginning of the world until now, or ever will happen.
There you have it, it’s 70 AD and the Roman armies have come, the people have fled the city, there’s destruction and death everywhere, and *no sign* of Christ. In fact Christ even says that if people tell you that he has returned at this time (70 AD), you are *not* to listen to them:
22 And if those days had not been cut short, no one would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.
23 Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There he is!’ do not believe him.
24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
Christ will only return *after* the tribulation:
29 “Immediately AFTER the suffering of those days, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken.
30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man arriving on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
It’s very clear. Christ returns *after* the events of 70 AD.
Fortigurn,
how do you handle the 42 month domination mentioned in Rev 13? Is this future?
Good question Sean. Here’s a brief rundown:
* Daniel 2: Four empires, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome
* Daniel 7: Four empires, Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, Rome
* Revelation 13: Beast of the sea, the Roman empire (4th beast of Daniel 7), subsequent to 476 AD, with power increasingly in the hands of the church
* The 42 months: The papacy ruling over Christians with temporal power, from the time that the Bishop of Rome first made the claim to be ‘Universal Father’ (606-610 AD), to the time that the temporal power was removed (1866-1870)
See here.
Dear Fortigurn,
I understand the empires mentioned in Daniel the same as you mentioned above … then you continued:
where does Rev 13 indicate anything about this being the Roman empire [b]subsequent to 476 AD[/b]? The beast in Rev 13 is indeed the Roman empire, just as already predicted in Daniel. However, we should note that the biblical prophecy concerning the Roman empire only spans the time up to the 11th horn (sole ruler, emperor) who was Vespasian; there is no mention whatever in the Scriptures about Rome and the Roman empire’s activities after that time.
This is pure speculation based on a wrong assumption … see above.
In Daniel, the angel explains to Daniel - among other things - that the utter calamity that would befall Daniel’s people would happen no later than the rule of the 11th horn (Vespasian), and the calamity shown to Daniel relates to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple with the dispersion of the Israelites among the Gentile nations.
Introducing the Papacy into biblical interpretation was a typical matter of the protestant leadership during the time of the reformation in the 16th century, but the papacy is NOT mentioned nor subject of biblical prophecy.
Also, how do 42 months equate to the time from 606-610 AD to 1866-1870 AD … that’s certainly a lot longer than 42 months, is it not?
I would say that the 42 months mentioned in Rev 14 compare to the 3 1/2 years mentioned in Daniel that had been given the beast to utterly destroy Israel (”Daniel’s people”) … cp. also Dan 7:25 the “time, times and a half-times”) This period of 42 months conforms exactly to the time from Feb 67 AD until Sep 70AD during which the beast (Rome) made war against Jerusalem. Thus, the 42 months mentioned in Rev 13 have are already long come and gone, and what was prophesied concering that time has been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple during the 1st century.
Just a note: nowhere does Daniel mention Rome by name. It could be any world wide empire existing just before the advent of the kingdom.
Hi Sean,
why should there be a gap between the third and 4th empire in the vision? Does Daniel mention such a “undetermined several thousands of years” long gap between the Greek empire and the one following? What in the visions in Daniel would indicate that the 4th empire is not Rome, which historically did follow upoin Greece, just as Medo-Persia followed on Babylonia, and as Greece followed on Medo-Persia?
Hi Karl,
>
where does Rev 13 indicate anything about this being the Roman empire [b]subsequent to 476 AD[/b]?
>
The beast has ten horns. A beast with one horn indicates the empire is under one leadership. A beast with multiple horns indicates the empire has become divided (see Daniel 7 and
.
>
However, we should note that the biblical prophecy concerning the Roman empire only spans the time up to the 11th horn (sole ruler, emperor) who was Vespasian…
>
The ten horns are contemporaneous, not sequential.
I’ll skip your next assertion and go straight to this:
>
Introducing the Papacy into biblical interpretation was a typical matter of the protestant leadership during the time of the reformation in the 16th century…
>
It was actually introduced centuries prior to the Reformation. Theodoretus warned in the 5th century that ‘What the Apostle calls the Temple of God are the churches in which this impious wretch will occupy the first rank, the first place’, and in the 7th century Gregory identified this position would be held by any individual who claimed to be the Supreme Pontiff. It was claimed shortly after, by Boniface II.
In 991 Arnulf the Catholic Bishop of Orleans identified the pope as the ‘”Antichrist, sitting in the temple of God, and showing himself as God’, and in 1240 Eberhard II the Catholic Archbishop of Salzburg identified the little horn of Daniel 7 as the pope. Not only did all these men live long before the Reformation of the 16th century, they were all Catholics themselves. In 1496 the Jewish expositor Abravanel also identified the little horn of Daniel 7 as the pope.
So don’t tell me this was invented by the 16th century Reformers just to bash the Catholics.
>
Also, how do 42 months equate to the time from 606-610 AD to 1866-1870 AD … that’s certainly a lot longer than 42 months, is it not?
>
It is indeed. The answer to this is the symbolic use of time representation in prophecy, by which a long duration is represented by a short duration (70 weeks prophecy anyone?).
What are you going to do about the fact that expositors at least as early as Chyrtaeus had been predicting the papacy would lose its temporal power around 1866-70, as early as 1571?
Can you also explain why none of the earliest Christian expositors were Praeterists? Why did it take until the end of the 16th century for Praeterism to be invented?
Hi Fortigurn,
I didn’t actually write those quotes that you are responding to.
I have a problem with the historicist approach because the toes of the Nebuchadnezers statue in Daniel 2 would be longer than the entire length of the rest of the body. I also have a problem with the 42 months being 1260 years. I can see biblical justication for interpreting 1260 days as years, but I don’t see any justification for interpreting 42 or 3 1/2 as 1260 years.
God bless you
Sorry Karl, you’re correct, those were Wolfgang’s comments. I must have overlooked his name.
>
I have a problem with the historicist approach because the toes of the Nebuchadnezers statue in Daniel 2 would be longer than the entire length of the rest of the body.
>
Well that’s like saying the image is totally wrong because the size of the belly and thighs is totally out of proportion to Alexander’s reign, which lasted little more than 10 years - yet in the image the belly and thighs occupy at least as much space as the chest and arms, which represent two whole centuries of Medo-Persian rule.
The image is not in proportion. The image of a man was not used because it’s a good illustration of the proportion of time occupied by each empire. The image of a man was used because it represents the ‘kingdom of men’ in opposition to the ‘kingdom of God’.
>
I also have a problem with the 42 months being 1260 years. I can see biblical justication for interpreting 1260 days as years, but I don’t see any justification for interpreting 42 or 3 1/2 as 1260 years.
>
If you can see the justification for interpreting 1,260 days as years, and if you can see the justification for interpreting 70 weeks as 490 years, I’m not sure what your objection is to interpreting 42 months or 3 and 1/2 times as 1,260 years, since 42 months or 3 and 1/2 times is simply 1,260 days.
Karl and Wolfgang, to return to the original topic of the post, do you think there’s a reason why Praeterists tend to avoid prophecy as evidence that the Bible is true?
Do you suppose there’s a reason why the tend not to use it as an evangelical tool?
Hi Fortigurn
preterists tend to avoid prophecy as evidence that the Bible is true???? I’ve been in touch with a number of preterists via e-mail and in some forums and NEVER encountered this type of attitude … as a matter of fact, the preterists I have communicated with most certainly DO use prophecy as evidence that the Bible is true, and they do have good points in that they can point back to how prophecy was indeed fulfilkled as predicted and thus shown to be true! (whereas those who claim that prophecy is still unfulfilled claim all kinds of interpretations as assumed fulfillment and have nothing to point to that prophecy is in any way evidence that the Bible is true.
Also, those preterists I have talked to certainly do use prophecy as a tool in their endeavours to promote the gospel … again though, they do so with an added emphasis that the prophetic predictions made in the Bible have come to pass as predicted … whereas futurists (and I suppose historicists?) have no eviudence whatever that their assumptions of how those prophecies are supposed to be fulfilled in a yet undetermined future are true.
Sure, preterists don’t use “fire and brimstone preaching of future judgment” as evangelism tool because they see no such thing in the Bible … instead they point to what the Bible has foretold and how it has been fulfilled to emphasize the faithfulness and truth of the Scriptures in all regards … including each individual’s responsibilty before God to live a God fearing life based on faith in Christ in order to be judged righteous and receive eternal life.
Fortigurn wrote: Well that’s like saying the image is totally wrong because the size of the belly and thighs is totally out of proportion to Alexander’s reign, which lasted little more than 10 years - yet in the image the belly and thighs occupy at least as much space as the chest and arms, which represent two whole centuries of Medo-Persian rule.
The belly and the thighs represent Alexander and his succussors, therefore the time period of the chest and belly are comparable.
God bless you
Dear Wolfgang,
* I’m not a Futurist, so your tilting at windmills there
* No, I haven’t noticed Praeterists *evangelizing* with fulfilled prophecy - on the contrary, they usually aim their interpretations and presentations on prophecy directly at *other Christians*
* Look at the largest and most significant Praeterist site on the Internet (http://www.preteristarchive.com), and you show me all the evangelical material - it just isn’t there, still less evangelical material using prophecy
The number one use Praterists make of prophecy is to attempt to evangelize Christians from other prophetic methodologies (Futurism, Historicism).
In fact, in a bizarre case of sort of anti-evangelism, Praeterists are known for using Bible prophecy in an attempt to threaten existing Christians with mockery from atheists.
The message sent time and time again to other Christians is ‘Christ said he would return in the 1st century, atheists can see that if he didn’t this is a false prophecy - the Praeterist interpretation is the only way for you to avoid mockery and scorn at the hands of atheists, and all other interpretations will bring the Bible into disrepute’.
So no, I don’t see Praeterists using Bible prophecy to evangelize, rather to browbeat other Christians.
Karl, even if you add Alexander and his successors, you have a length way out of proportion to the length of the Greek reign. That leaves only the shins for the Romans (not even the feet), and that has to cover over four hundred years of Roman rule. That’s absurd.
Look at your abdomen and thighs. Try to tell me that they’re shorter than your shins. It’s ridiculous. Even your thighs are longer than your shins.
Hi Fortigurn
so you are not a “futurist” … ok. I thought you had mentioned somewhere in these exchanges that Jesus’ coming was still in the future … even though you also call yourself a “historicist”, your view of the coming of the Lord seems to point to even our future, does it not?
As for preterists pointing out to other Christians that they have a different view on certain topics, I would say that is not too different from other Christians (futurists, historicists, or whatever other “…ists” you would like to include) who do the exact same thing in regards to their understanding of certian things in the Bible to other Christians who do not hold the same view. For example, you can see the same with trinitarians non-trinitarians, future earthly kingdom proponents vs present heavenly kingdom folks, water baptizers vs spirit baptizers, etc etc etc …. Rather often, and in all these groups pf folks, evangelizing the “heathen” is more or less “second place” or less …
As for atheists at times recognizing biblical truths while Christians seem sort of blinded by their particular “theological glasses”, this is simply a matter of fact … I have observed it in the past concerning various biblical truths. I’ve talked to self-confessed atheists and they recognized rather quickly that the Bible speaks of only one Being as “true God”, while hundreds of acclaimed Christians have tried to tell me that the Bible God is/consists/manifests himself/ etc etc etc in THREE Beings (”father, son, holy ghost”) rather than one. When I read passages with Jesus’ words about the “soon” coming of the Lord to those same atheists, just about everyone of them then said that it must have either happened or else Jesus’ was definitely a false prophet … many Christians have told me “Yes, Jesus talked about ’soon’, but it has not happened as of yet”. So, who is down-beating on whom?
Isn’t it a rather “sorry state of affairs” when Christians all too often can’t seem to be able to understand certain Bible passages while atheists read them and get the point?
So you don’t get too offended … I’ve been a futurist for 3 decades of my Christian lfie and it has taken me a long time to realize that I was wearing a few theological glasses which hindered me from understanding the Lord’s predictions concerning his coming, from understanding the Lord’s teaching concerning resurrection, from understanding the Lord’s teahcing about God’s reign (kingdom of God), etc … I’ve been where things don’t make sense and where men’s fanciful interpretations reign supreme over some (too?) simple Bible statements …
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Fortigurn: Look at your abdomen and thighs. Try to tell me that they’re shorter than your shins. It’s ridiculous. Even your thighs are longer than your shins.
What’s ridiculous is toes longer than the entire rest of the body. That is truly absurd.
Wolgang wrote: I’ve been a futurist for 3 decades of my Christian lfie and it has taken me a long time to realize that I was wearing a few theological glasses which hindered me from understanding the Lord’s predictions concerning his coming, from understanding the Lord’s teaching concerning resurrection, from understanding the Lord’s teahcing about God’s reign (kingdom of God), etc … I’ve been where things don’t make sense and where men’s fanciful interpretations reign supreme over some (too?) simple Bible statements …
Ich war ein futurist fur zwanzig jahren und ich habe fur funf jahren der Deutsch gestudiert. But I no longer am a futurist nor do I still speak german. I am interested in your background and what type of work you do in Germany if you don’t mind saying a few words about it. Also, what is your perception of christianity and islam in Germany?
God bless you
As you guys have pointed out, it is difficult to evangelize using prophecy as the proof, when so many Christians disagree about prophecy. Perhaps when evangelizing we should stick to the one proof that we can all agree about, and the one proof that the first century Church emphasized - the resurrection. After all, Jesus said there shall no sign be given to the wicked generation except the sign of the prophet Jonah (that is, that like Jonah, Jesus would be in the heart of the earth three days and nights and then be resurrected). The resurrection is the proof that God can and will raise people from the dead, and that Jesus is who he claimed to be.
Excellent point, Mark. I recently listened to a fantastic lecture given by William Lane Craig about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. I’ve also listened to a number of debates between him and others and I have never heard any athiest or liberal Christian overcome his conclusions.
Dear Karl,
my background in regards to Bible and Christianity is raised as Roman Catholic, then a few years after school as “nothing and looking at everything”, afterwards connections to some groups, in particular The Way International for a little more than 10 years (this last step is a common background with the parents of some folks’ here), for the last 20 years independent from any particular “church” or denomination, working together with some small home based fellowships and over the last decade maintaining the BibelCenter website with contacts to hundreds of Christians of all kinds of backgrounds from various parts in the world.
As for my perception of Christianity and Islam in Germany, I’d have to admit that I am not very informed about the various current activities of either. Over recent years, Islam has gained more influence in the society due to the number of Moslem immigrants, etc. “Christianity” is still mainly characterized by the two main denominations, Roman Catholic church and Luther Protestant church, with a number of smaller denominations of Baptist, Adventist background and “free evangelical churches” springing up in many places.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Mark,
>
As you guys have pointed out, it is difficult to evangelize using prophecy as the proof, when so many Christians disagree about prophecy.
>
I agree that the disagreement among Christians as to fulfilled prophecy doesn’t help, but then the Early Christians didn’t all agree with each other either, and it didn’t stop them using prophecy as a powerful evangelistic tool.
Faced realistically, it’s the only tool we have to demonstrate the supernatural origin of the Bible. I agree the resurrection is central to the gospel message, but it is not a useful evangelistic tool in the way that prophecy is. The simple reason for that is that it’s completely unprovable (though I agree WLC’s presentation is excellent).
I believe prophecy is far more useful, and I believe we could surely all agree on the following prophecies:
* Daniel 2 and Daniel 7 (for the most part)
* The Biblical prophecies regarding 70 AD (whether we agree that the Olivet prophecy is one of them is irrelevant - there are others)
* The prophecies concerning the exile of the Jews and their eventual return to their land (difficult to argue against)
* The prophecies fulfilled by Christ
The gospels and epistles used prophecy to preach. So did the Early Christians. I believe we should also.
Dear Fortigutn,
you mention above:
we should not forget that we do not live at the same place in time as the early Christians … and thus we cannot preach the same prophecy in the same way as they did.
Just as the early Christians could not use OT prophecies concerning the Messiah’s birth and ministry in the same way as prophets and believers had done in the time prior to Jesus’ birth and his life and ministry. They could not and did not use prophecies concerning the Messiah like “The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem, with him will come the acceptable year of the Lord, .., etc.” — why? because these prophecies were already fulfilled!! The early Christians lived at a different place in time in the unfolding of God’s plan than the OT believers before. What those had been looking forward to in the future, the early Christians were already looking back on as past.
Now then, what’s the big problem in recognizing that time has gone on and what was in the rather immediate future for the early Christians living in 50-65 AD is now no longer in our future? Why do folks today want to preach and use prophecy that was declared in the 1st century AD and that includes distinct mnention about coming to pass “soon”, “at hand”, etc. as if they today were still living at the same point in time in the 1st century AD??? They usually don’t do so with other OT prophecy, so then why do they do so with such NT prophecy ??
We should use prophecy only correctly rather than giving a false impression by using prophecy that has been fulfilled as if it hadn’t been fulfilled yet … what’s the difference in the Jew preaching that the Messiah hasn’t come yet and all the NT writings being “fantasy” of some misled “Christians”, and the Christians preaching that what was said to come to pass soon not having come to pass, etc ?? Both cases are based on the same cause, that is, they see themselves at a wrong place in time and not the actual place in time they are living in in the unfolding of God’s plan.
Hi Fortigurn,
you write:
where is there even a prophecy concerning the Jews and their yet future return to their land? I’d say that Jesus’ words were rather clear about their house being left desolate .. and I see NO hint at all anywhere about any future rebuilding or re-establishing of another Israel as a nation, and/or a return to the sstem of worship that was part of the OT Israel national existence (with physical temple, etc.)
The biblical nation of Israel with a clear and distinct “people” of the tribes of Israel is over with …. there is nobody living who can even trace their ancestry to a line of one of the tribes. Even the Jews living in the modern day state of Israel affirm that they can’t claim to be Jews by race, due to the intermingling of the biblical Jews after their dispersion among the nations in the late 1st century AD … and they acknowledge that they are “Jews” merely based on “religion” not race, despite the rather loudly heard racially coloured claims in connection with “anti-semitism”, etc ….
If we want to go by biblical prophecy, we should go by biblical prophecy and not by non-existing prophecies, such as prophecies about a future return of things to another earthly nation of Israel, etc …
Hi Wolfgang,
* The Early Christians certainly preached using the prophecies concerning the Messiah’s coming and birth. How? By pointing out that they had been fulfilled.
* You seem to have the idea that I’m advocating evangelism by making wild predictions about the future. I am doing no such thing, and I rather thought my article made that clear. I am talking about using *fulfilled* prophecy to preach, prophecies such as I listed. I even gave 70 AD as an example.
But I find it interesting that Praeterists, despite their ‘fulfilled eschatology’ position, do not use prophecy as a tool for converting the non-believer. They use it as a tool for converting fellow Christians.
* Yes, Jesus was very clear about Jerusalem being left desolate - and also about it being restored
* Yes, various expositors throughout the centuries have been asserting confidently that the Jews would not return, and would never again be a nation (Luther, Ellen White, Mauro, the JWs, etc), but they were all wrong - it came to pass as prophesied
* I could write a lot on the prophecies of the Jews’ return, but I’ll supply a brief presentation first, and you can tell me what you think after that (sorry about the download speed, it won’t be fast)
* I’m afraid that modern DNA studies have in fact validated the continuous existence of the Jewish people as a distinct ethnic group, so you need to update your information (don’t believe everything you read on preteristarchive.com)
* You’ll have to explain the embarrassing fact of the current nation of Israel
This particular view is why I could never be a Praeterist. If God could throw away His own people, the people of whom He said ’surely will I never reject the descendants of Jacob’, and ‘Indeed, I will restore them and show mercy to them’, then He just can’t be trusted. The Praeterist God is not for me.
Hi Wolfgang,
* Yes, I’m a Historicist not a Futurist
* Yes, I believe that Jesus will come again in the future - this does not make me a Futurist (it wouldn’t even necessarily mean I wasn’t a Praeterist)
* I’m not against Praeterists using prophecy to convince other Christians of their view, I’m simply interested in the fact that that’s *all* they seem to do with it - they don’t try and use prophecy to convince non-Christians to become Christians
* I’m also concerned by the *method* that Praeterists use prophecy to convince other Christians of their view, which is overwhelmingly negative, unScriptural, and consists largely of bombarding them with threats of ridicule from atheists - I have *never* seen Futurists or Historicists do this
* Yes, atheists can have insights into the Bible which some Christians do not have - in this case I don’t believe the atheists have any particular insight, other than those who see the Olivet prophecy as relevant to 70 AD (not a failed prophecy of the return of Christ in the 1st century)
Hi Fortigurn,
the info about the lack of Jews today being able to trace their race line to the biblical tribes of Israel was from something I read from a Jewish encylopedia (a modern day Israel state source). Perhaps they will update their info when they get the modern DNA analysis information you mention
Just as the early Christians pointed out fulfilled prophecy concerning the Messiah’s birth and ministry, so do preterists today by pointing out that what the Messiah predicted about “the coming of the Son of man” and “the day of the Lord”, etc … And, just as many Jews then didn’t like it and felt that fellow Jews were trying to convert them, so apparently do many Christians today feel that preterists are trying to convert them to a different view on things they happen to believe …
From your various posts until now, I have really not much of an idea what you are trying to promote in regards to historicist, futurist views … I was simply wondering about you claiming a yet future return of Christ, and yet distancing yourself very fervently from mention that futurists believe exactly that => that the return of the Lord is yet in our future….
As for Jerusalem / Israel being restored and rebuild, I have read about Jesus’ prophecies about its desolate end … I have not read about Jesus speaking about it being rebuilt / restored. Thus I am wondering on what words of Jesus you are basing your above claim …
As for preterists “negative” approach toward other Christians … from my own experience, I can definitely affirm that I at first viewed any preterist ideas and some attempts to help me see what they were saying as very negatiove; not very different from how it had been 3 decades ago when I was a trinitarian and other Christians tried to tell me about the trinity being a false doctrine. Thus, what is viewed by some as negative may not be viewed as negative once they themselves are looking at things from the other perspective
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Hi Wolfgang,
* There’s a profound difference between individual Jews being unable to trace their genealogy back to specific tribes, and the claim that there is no evidence that the Jews exist today as a distinct ethnic group - I doubt very much that the article to which you refer said the latter, though it probably said the former
* Yes, Praeterists make mention of the fulfilled prophecies of Christ, but I don’t see them making mention of them *to non-Christians*, only to other Christians
* For Jesus’ references to the restoration of Israel, try Matthew 19:28, Luke 21:24; 22:30, and Acts 1:6-7
* I’m glad your former experience helps you to understand why people often see the Praeterist view as negative when it is presented to them
Hi Fortigrun
the preterist view was not presented anymore negatively than certain klingdom views, non-trinity views, water-baptism view or other views, such as how you are trying to point out your view … appears to me just as “negative” as did the other views at some other time
The article did speak in rather general terms about the Jews at large not being able to trace their race background to the biblical tribes of Israel. As a matter of fact, it also mentioned something about various racial streams among the Jews in Israel today, such Sephardic, Ashkenazy, Mizrahi, etc. Neither of them can show their descendancy from any of the biblical tribes.
Btw, where did your “DNA analysis” info come from? I’d be interested to learn how those folks can claim that DNA of modern day Jews shows that they are the ancestors of the biblical tribes of Israel …. in particular, what DNA of members of the biblical tribes of Israel was used to compare.
Hi Fortigrun,
in none of the passages you mentioned above does Jesus seem to address a restoration of a nation of Israel after it has been judged and destroyed.
I can see how you and others would perhaps understand and interpret those words in that direction, but such interpretation or understanding is not necessarily the only possible one, and especially not so in light of Jesus’ rather extensive prophecies about the nation Israel’s and Jerusalem’s final judgment and desolation.
Hello all,
Since the topic of the Jews is being discussed, the modern zionist state called “Israel” is actually against Judaism. Many Orthodox Jews reject the modern day state of Israel as heretical. Rabbinic Judaism has always taught that the Jews are to remain in exile until the coming of the Messiah. Check out these websites:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
http://nkusa.org/
God bless you all
Wolfgang,
The prophecies of Israel’s return to their land are not only in Jesus’ words - they are all throughout the Old Testament. David was promised that a descendent of his wold sit on his throne and his kingdom would have no end. All theoughout the Prophets there are references to the Jews being scattered but ultimately returned to their land. It was the primary hope of Israel, and Jesus’ hearers understood what he was referring to when he declared, “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand!”
(BTW, Paul also taught that the same hope of Israel was now offered to all nations, who could now be partakers of the great Abrahamic promises of land, progeny, and material as well as spiritual blessings. That is the hope of the Christian Church.)
Hi Wolfgang,
* Just because other people might present their views negatively, does not justify Praeterists doing the same
* Why is it that sites such as preteristarchive.com make no use of prophecy as a tool for evangelizing non-Christians?
* I’m afraid you need to give me more information about that article, as what you’ve cited from it is too vague, but it does seem that all it was saying is that individual tribes cannot now be distinguished - that, of course, is not the issue under discussion
* The same goes for what you said about the Ashkenazi, etc - that they cannot trace themselves to individual tribes is not the issue under discussion
* There is plenty of 1st century Jewish DNA available for testing (and some of it has indeed been tested), but the process of identifying Jewish ancestry with mitochondrial DNA is different to that which you are referring to, and does not require specific DNA from ancestral members of individual tribes
* There’s a large body of documents on the subject here
* Of course, I expected you to disagree that quotes referring to the apostles ruling over ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ in Christ’s Kingdom, and of Christ ‘restoring the Kingdom again to Israel’ do not actually refer to the restoration of the Kingdom - but I would like to know what you think they do mean, if it isn’t what they patently say
Karl,
* Yes, there’s a tension between Zionism (a political movement), secular Jews, and various Orthodox groups over whether or not Israel should be back in their land (with every group having a different view)
* However, you tell less than the whole story - you’ve linked to various Orthodox groups which reject the state of Israel, whilst ignoring the many Orthodox groups which not only accept the state of Israel but actually live in it to this day
* No, the existence of the modern state of Israel is not ‘against Judaism’, though it disagrees with the conclusions of certain rabbinical groups
* Most importantly, the existence of the modern state of Israel is not against the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as to the Jewish people - it is completely in accordance with those promises
Mark, you make an excellent point. We are grafted into the promises made to Israel. If those promises have been abandoned, then we haven’t been grafted into anything, we’ve been fooled. This is one of many reasons why I cannot accept Praeterism. I do not believe that the promises were abandoned.
Mark, you make an excellent point. We are grafted into the promises made to Israel. If those promises have been abandoned, then we haven’t been grafted into anything, we’ve been fooled. This is one of many reasons why I cannot accept Praeterism. I do not believe that the promises were abandoned.
Mt. 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.
* Yes, there’s a tension between Zionism (a political movement), secular Jews, and various Orthodox groups over whether or not Israel should be back in their land (with every group having a different view)
“The Zionist movement created the Israeli state. The latter is a persuasion less than one hundred years old. Its essential goal was and is to change the nature of the Jewish people from that of a religious entity to a political movement. From Zionism’s inception the spiritual leaders of the Jewish people stood in staunch opposition to it.” (http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfm)
* Most importantly, the existence of the modern state of Israel is not against the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as to the Jewish people - it is completely in accordance with those promises
“The truth is that the Jewish faith and Zionism are two very different philosophies. They are as opposite as day and night. The Jewish people have existed for thousands of years. In their two thousand years of Divinely decreed exile no Jew ever sought to end this exile and establish independent political sovereignty anywhere. The people’s sole purpose was the study and fulfillment of the Divine commandments of the Torah.” (http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/judaism_isnot_zionism.cfm)
Hi Karl,
I’ve not heard or read any preterist article which says that the promises made to Israel have been abandoned … from where do folks get that idea about preterism?
I have heard and read preterist articles that speak about the promises having been fulfilled (I suppose, just not fulfilled in the manner or way in which futurists or historicists or other folks believing in a yet future coming or return of Christ claim that they should be fulfilled) …
@Karl,
ooops … I just noticed, that the paragraph I was commenting on had been a quote from Fortigrun and not what you had originally written …
@Fortigrun,
you mention this about the modern state called “Israel”:
simply put: the existence of the modern state of “Israel” has nothing to do with any biblical promises … it’s neither against nor in accordance with any biblical statement. It is not mentioned in the Bible … just as the US, Australia, Germany or any other modern day country, nation, state are not mentioned in the Scriptures.
@Fortigrun,
I had a look at the www.khazaria.com website to read a bit on the supposed DNA information and documentation about modern day Jews being descendants from the biblical Israelites …
Were you referring to something like this on the site?
If you haven’t noticed, the site is full of such “back and forth” information which at the end of the day doeswn’t prove or show anything at all about the modern day Jews being descendants of the biblical tribes of Israel.
There is indeed interesting information if one carefully evaluates what is actually stated …but it does not provide any proof for a descendancy of any modern Jew from the biblical tribes of Israel, in actuality, the information shows more that the modern day Jews are mostly descendant from Gentile people.
Hi Karl,
* I’ve already pointed out the disagreement between Zionism (a secular movement), and certain orthodox understandings of Judaism - Zionism is a secular political movement, and certainly nothing to do with the Bible, but we’re talking about whether or not the return of the Jews and the restoration of their nation is compatible with Scripture, not whether Zionism is
* As I said, the existence of the modern state of Israel is not against the promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as to the Jewish people - it is completely in accordance with those promises
Wolfgang, the belief that the promises have been abandoned has been expressed right here on this page (Karl quoted ‘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’).
I’ve provided a presentation on the return of the Jews in Bible prophecy. I’d like your views on it please. It’s no good simply denying that the event had anything to do with Bible prophecy. How do you explain the fact that it was predicted accurately over *300 years* before it even took place, by men who could not possibly have known it would happen if they hadn’t read it in the Bible?
There is indeed a lot of ‘two and fro’ information on that site - I gave you a balanced site, not a biased site. But there’s enough there to show you that it is widely acknowledged that there are modern Jews are physical descendants of the earlier Jews (DNA from Jews as far back as 1,000 AD has been used). Your claim that there are no more physical Jews remaining in existence flies in the face of the Abrahamic covenant.
As I said, the Praeterist God (who makes promises and then breaks them without warning), is not the God of the Bible. If He can’t be trusted to keep the people He said He would never forget, then we Christians don’t have much hope.
Wolgang wrote: simply put: the existence of the modern state of “Israel” has nothing to do with any biblical promises … it’s neither against nor in accordance with any biblical statement. It is not mentioned in the Bible … just as the US, Australia, Germany or any other modern day country, nation, state are not mentioned in the Scriptures.
Amen. God may choose to bring the Jews back to Israel someday, but its not going to come about through the work of the Zionism. Also, if God does give them a state it certainly won’t have anything to do with bible prophecy. I wonder how long the current zionist state can even survive. Once the US and it’s christian zionists withdraw their support, the artificial state of Israel will collapse. I just hope they don’t launch nukes when they do fall.
God bless you
Karl quoted Mt. 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.”
This was addressed to those who were of the nation of Israel but had rejected their Messiah. This does not mean, however, that Israel as a whole was finished. Romans 9 - 11 (which we used to skip over because we were told it wasn’t “addressed to us”) explains quite clearly that the unbelieving branch of Israel was cut off, but the whole tree was not uprooted.
We (Gentiles) have been grafted on, and any Jews who come to believe are also grafted on. We are built on the roots of Israel, and partake of the Abrahamic promises, which include restoration of the Kingdom and the Land. Plus, in the future, there will be a remnant of national Israel who comes to believe and is also grafted back on, and will be the final fulfillment of those promises to Israel.
The modern state of Israel may not be the complete fulfillment of prophecy, but it is a first step towards that fulfillment.
Fortigurn wrote: As I said, the Praeterist God (who makes promises and then breaks them without warning), is not the God of the Bible. If He can’t be trusted to keep the people He said He would never forget, then we Christians don’t have much hope.
The covenant made with Israel is conditional. It requires obedience. When Israel is disobedient they are spewed out of the land as Moses said. This has already happened twice in history. The zionist state rejects traditional Judaism, Torah, and the Messiah Jesus. They have nothing going for them except military support from the US. And how long will that last who knows?
Mark wrote: This was addressed to those who were of the nation of Israel but had rejected their Messiah. This does not mean, however, that Israel as a whole was finished.
The modern state of Israel and most Jews to this day still reject the Messiah.
Mark wrote: The modern state of Israel may not be the complete fulfillment of prophecy, but it is a first step towards that fulfillment.
How can you say that when they still reject the Messiah? In addition they also reject traditional Judaism and Torah.
Check out these websites:
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
http://nkusa.org/
Hi Mark,
just a short note about your mention of the promise to Abraham concerning the land …. this promise has already been fulfilled during the OT times … and Israel forfeited the land because of their disobedience and unbelief. There is no further return of Israel to the land promised anywhere in Scripture.
Such an idea is pure fantasy and perhaps wishful thinking on the part of its proponents … the idea has no biblical foundation.
Yes, God has left also a door open for Israel to be saved (cp Rom 9 - 11), and the door is the same that is now open to the Gentiles => faith in the Messiah Jesus and walking accordingly. There is no “nation of Israel” mentioned or promised in Rom 9 - 11 anywhere … anyone of Israel (”all Israel”) can be saved by faith in Christ … and a remnant did actually take that step, whereas the great majority rejected it.
Karl and Wolfgang,
* I agree the covenant was conditional, and Israel was exiled for breaking it - but they were brought back again, even though some were brought back in unbelief, since God had promised He would never totally cast them off
* There’s no point in simply asserting that the current nation of Israel has nothing to do with Bible prophecy, firstly since it’s an assertion you cannot prove, and secondly because it simply underscores the problem Praeterists have in trying to explain it away (it’s even more difficult for Praeterists to explain the fact that their return was predicted from the Bible by Christians living almost 350 years before it happened)
* You speak of ‘the zionist state’, which is a reference to something which doesn’t exist (the state of Israel is not a ‘Zionist state’), and you say that this ‘zionist state rejects traditional Judaism, Torah, and the Messiah Jesus’ - you’re obviously not speaking of the nation of Israel then, many of whose politicians and people accept traditional Judaism, Torah, and even the Messiah Jesus
* You’re contradicting yourself Wolfgang by claiming on the one hand that no Jews exist today, and on the other hand that God left a door open for Israel to be saved (there’s no point in Him leaving a door open for those you claim He then promptly destroyed
* Another problem for you is that since we know thousands of 1st century Jews *did* accept Christ, then how can you claim the Jews were all wiped out in 70 AD, or shortly afterwards? Why would God destroy the Jews who accepted Christ?
* Both of you have a peculiarly jaundiced view of the state of Israel, which is not only in contravention to the United Nations resolution, not only in contravention to reality, but also in contravention to Scripture - it’s the view which is found most commonly in anti-Semitic tracts, and although I know that Praeterists don’t like wearing that shoe the problem is it fits so well (Praeterists are among the few Christians who actually use classic anti-Semitic propaganda, and link to White Supremacist sites)
Hi Fortigrun,
you write:
??
there were certainly some descendants of the biblical Israel living in earlier times shortly after they were expelled from the land … and as time progressed, they mingled with other people more and more and eventually then we come to today’s scenario of which I said that the modern day Jews can’t trace their ancetry to the biblical tribes (as was the case in biblical times, and as was the necessity as well, else how could it be determined whether someone was of the tribe of Levi in order to serve as priest?)
Nobody has claimed “that the Jews were all wiped out in 70 AD” … we wrote about the nation of biblical Israel being finally done away with, the Jews were dispersed among the nations of the then known world. I even mentioned that the Christians in Jerusalem (of whom most or perhaps all were converted Jews) adhered to Jesus’ words when the time for escape from the besieged city came …
You criticize our view of the modern day state of “Israel” … and resort to accuse us of being “anti-semitic” (oh, yes, you did not quite say that we were, but you tried rather fancifully to implicate it … why don’t you at least have the guts to come out and talk straight?!!)
Hi Wolfgang,
* Great, sorry for misunderstanding you, so you believe that the Christian Jews weren’t all wiped out in 70 AD. But there has to be group of Jews who are part of ‘all Israel’ of Paul’s words, and that can’t happen unless there are physical Jews still alive today
* Yes, I criticize your view of the modern state of Israel, because it’s not remotely factual
* I didn’t call you anti-Semitic, and if you want me to be even more clear I’ll do that right now - I don’t believe you’re anti-Semitic
* I do, however, believe that you make use of the propaganda of various anti-Semites, because it suits your theology to do so - you wouldn’t be the first Christian group to use the propaganda even of other groups it doesn’t agree with
Fortigurn wrote: * There’s no point in simply asserting that the current nation of Israel has nothing to do with Bible prophecy, firstly since it’s an assertion you cannot prove,
The burden of proof is on someone who believes that the modern state of Israel does have something to do with prophecy. They are the ones that have to prove that the zionist state has something to do with prophecy. So far, I’ve never seen any convincing evidence that they are fulfilling prophecy. Until someone shows me some good evidence, I will continue to say: The zionist state has nothing to do with prophecy.
Fortigurn wrote: and secondly because it simply underscores the problem Praeterists have in trying to explain it away (it’s even more difficult for Praeterists to explain the fact that their return was predicted from the Bible by Christians living almost 350 years before it happened)
It’s not a problem for me. God may choose to bring the Jews back to Israel someday, but its not going to come about through the work of the Zionism. (Unless God wants to set them up for destruction) Also, if God does give them a state it certainly won’t have anything to do with bible prophecy.
Fortigurn wrote: * You speak of ‘the zionist state’, which is a reference to something which doesn’t exist (the state of Israel is not a ‘Zionist state’), and you say that this ‘zionist state rejects traditional Judaism, Torah, and the Messiah Jesus’ - you’re obviously not speaking of the nation of Israel then, many of whose politicians and people accept traditional Judaism, Torah, and even the Messiah Jesus
The state of Israel is absolutely a zionist state meaning that it was built upon and supported by the secular ideology called zionism. The government and laws of the zionist state are built upon secular socialism, not upon Torah and Judaism. You are going to tell me that a nation that performs abortions and allows gay pride marches is built upon torah and Judaism? What a disgrace to the name Israel! The truth is that the zionist state is not much different than the godless socialist governments of western europe.
Fortigurn wrote:* Both of you have a peculiarly jaundiced view of the state of Israel, which is not only in contravention to the United Nations resolution, not only in contravention to reality, but also in contravention to Scripture - it’s the view which is found most commonly in anti-Semitic tracts,
I can only assume that you are not referring to me here since my “jaundiced” view of the zionist state comes from orthodox Jews themselves.
I wrote: The modern state of Israel may not be the complete fulfillment of prophecy, but it is a first step towards that fulfillment.
Karl replied: How can you say that when they still reject the Messiah? In addition they also reject traditional Judaism and Torah.
True, they have rejected Judaism and the Torah as well as the Messiah, but the fact that they are in the land again is the first step toward the remnant turning to God and accepting the Messiah, spoken of in the Prophets as well as the NT (Rom 9 - 11 especially).
Wolfgang wrote: just a short note about your mention of the promise to Abraham concerning the land …. this promise has already been fulfilled during the OT times … and Israel forfeited the land because of their disobedience and unbelief. There is no further return of Israel to the land promised anywhere in Scripture.
Response: Besides the above mentioned Rom. 9 - 11, and the many references to restoring the Kingdom to Israel in the Gospels and Acts, there are numerous prophecies regarding this in the Prophets, AFTER the kingdom of Israel was defeated by Assyria and Babylon. Isaiah in particular is full of such references.
Here are just two verses from the OT -
Isa 60:21 Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.
Eze 47:13 Thus saith the Lord GOD; This shall be the border, whereby ye shall inherit the land according to the twelve tribes of Israel: Joseph shall have two portions.
And what do you think the prophecies of a descendent of David sitting on his throne in Jerusalem are talking about? And the references to sitting with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom. This is the whole point of everything Jesus taught.
Mark wrote: True, they have rejected Judaism and the Torah as well as the Messiah, but the fact that they are in the land again is the first step toward the remnant turning to God and accepting the Messiah, spoken of in the Prophets as well as the NT (Rom 9 - 11 especially).
Romans 9-11 says nothing about a future return to the land or about a future remant accepting the Messiah. Rather, the remnant spoken about in Romans 9-11 refers to Jews who accepted the messiah in Paul’s day and throughout all the ages up to our day. That fact that they are in the land and have rejected torah, judaism and the messiah more likely means that they are about to be judged.
You quoted Ezekiel 47 in your last post. I would ask you to seriously read Ezekiel 37 to the end of the book. And consider if it is rational to believe that these chapters have a future fulfillment. Swords, clubs, shields, horses, animal sacrifices, burnt offerings, sons of Zadok, 12 tribes… These are not things that can possibly be literally refering to our day.
Mark wrote: And what do you think the prophecies of a descendent of David sitting on his throne in Jerusalem are talking about? And the references to sitting with Abraham Isaac and Jacob in the Kingdom. This is the whole point of everything Jesus taught.
I respectfully disagree. If Jesus main message was about a literal kingdom based in Jerusalem then he would have joined the zealots and revolted against Rome. His message would not have been any different than the message of the zealots. It was this message of a literal kingdom that drove the zealots to rebel, and they were all destroyed.
Hi Mark,
you asked:
(a) I have not read about prophecies of a descendant of David sitting on his THRONE IN JERUSALEM … I do think that the reference to Jesus’ reign on the throne of David has nothing to do with a literal chair,throne in Jerusalem, from where he rules over a modern day state of Israel (or as some contend, rules as a world ruler over all the world). I have no idea why folks don’t realize that Jesus’ rule cannot be over a physical nation, because the nation of Irael or the world (as some contend) includes both believers and unbelievers, does it not? However, the Bible is clear, that not all people — believers and unbelievers — are part of the kingdom, only those who have entered into the kingdom are under Christ’s reign.
(b) The reference to sitting with Abraham at a table in the kingdom are quite obviously also not talking about a literal table — or how big do you think that table is supposed to be for Abraham to sit with everybody and have a meal??? How big do you think that hall would have to be to accomodate such a table and everybody involved? or are there perhaps far less folks involved than we think, believe and hope to be involved?
When reading such passages, it would be a good idea to think about what one reads … in particular if such statements are meant literally or if they employ a figure of speech in those cases where they are not meant literally.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Karl,
That is exactly why many Jews didn’t believe he was the Messiah. They expected him to seize the authority from Rome and set up the reign that was prophesied throughout the OT. But there was another aspect of what Jesus had to accomplish, first. He had to die for the sins of man in order to make it available to be in the Kingdom. But nowhere in the NT does it say that the understanding of the Kingdom was no longer a literal, [hysical Kingdom on earth. All the disciples continued to preach the Kingdom of God, and Paul even said that he held to the same hope of Israel (Acts 28:20). The fact that he had to die first is among what Jesus called the “mysteries of the Kingdom.”
Wolfgang,
It seems like you just interpret as figurative anything that doesn’t fit with your preconceived scenario. Most theologians recognize at least that a literal kingdom was the hope of Israel and the focus of what Jesus preached, even if they then go on to say that it is now set aside during the Church age during which a “greater truth has been revealed.” But even then, they usually admit that the hope of Israel is still a Kingdom on earth while the Church has something better.
You wrote, “Jesus’ rule cannot be over a physical nation, because the nation of Irael or the world (as some contend) includes both believers and unbelievers, does it not?”
But this is why there are so many prophecies about the Messiah coming to rule “with a rod of iron.” This is the whole message of Psalm 2:
1 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
This is also the point of the oft-quoted verse from Psalm 110, “Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” And also, 1Cor 15:25, “For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.”
Hi Mark,
are you saying that believers and unbelievers alike are part of and are in the kingdom? This would surely be the case IF Christ’s kingdom was a political / national earthly kingdom, would it not? BUT we have Jesus’ own words about who will enter the kingdom … and those are not everybody alike, and certainly any the unbelievers and God-rehjectors, are they? So then what do you make of Christ’s supposed earthly kingdom?
Also, have you noticed in the passage you quote above that although the effects of the Lord’s rule are about and are reaching peoples on earth, the record nowhere says anything about the Lord being physically present on earth and seated on a literal chair/throne in an earthly city?
Hi Mark,
you wrote above:
I thought you would have noticed from my earlier remark that you got the wrong impression there …. because I gave you scriptural reasons as to why the record would involve a figure of speech and not be meant literally.
Tell me, why would Christ distinctly teach that only some enter the kingdom of God (kingdom of heaven) when — according to your and others’ interpretation, his kingdom is a political kingdom over an earthly nation or over the whole world with both believers and unbelievers who live in them ? Are we to believe the “earthly kingdom” teachers, or should we re-evaluate what they are teaching in light of the Lord’s own words and search if there is a different understanding of those passages possible which would not cause such contradictions nor would make Jesus to look like he was somewhat ignorant of what he was teaching?
Hi Mark,
You wrote: “But nowhere in the NT does it say that the understanding of the Kingdom was no longer a literal, [hysical Kingdom on earth.”
Heb. 12:22 But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels,
This is how the apostles understood Mt. Zion and Jerusalem in the New Covenant. The following verses indicate that the kingdom was already in existence in the 1st century:
Matt. 23:13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering (present tense) to go in.
Rev. 1:6 and He has made (past tense) us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen.
God bless you
Hi Wolfgang,
Have you ever heard of R.J. Rushdoony and theonomy?
What is your understanding of the law of Moses? Do you think it has any place in the life of the modern christian or of society in general? I do.
God bless you
Hi everyone,
I was wondering what my futurist brothers think about the law of Moses also?
I mean if Christ does come and rule from Jerusalem, his standard will have to be the law of Moses right?
God bless you all
Hi Karl,
no, I have not heard of R.J. Rushdoony and theonomy.. I have no clue what “theonomy” is, nor do I know who the person you mention is.
As far as I can see, the Law of Moses was part of the Old Covenant which God gave to the nation of Israel… Thus, if Christians are part of the Old Covenant and not under the New Covenant, then they are under that law; if Christians are not part of the Old Covenant but of the New Covenant, then they are NOT under that law.
In addition, we shoiuld note that truths which God gave to one people at one time (such as the law given to Moses to give to Israel) may be applicable to other people at another time, even though they were not directly addressed to them. Problems arise when people take what originally was not addressed to them and read and understand it as if they were the direct recepients …
It seems that many who call themselves Christians today have put themselves under the law of Moses … well, they are responsible to do ALL the law and not fail even in one statute of it … and yet, I have not heard of many of them travelling to Jerusalem several times a year to keep the feasts which the law of Moses detailed for them ti keep.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Wolfgang,
I am not saying that believers and unbelievers are part of the Kingdom of God. I am saying that the Kingdom of God is the coming rule of Messiah OVER the nations, as described in Psalm 2 among many other places. Believers have been given the privilege of reigning with him when it comes.
In order to debate a viewpoint it would help if you knew what ideas that viewpoint included. In the various arguments put forth on this and other threads, you seem to completely misunderstand what is being said. I recommend that you read (or re-read, if you’ve read them) some of Anthony Buzzard’s writings on the Kingdom of God, as well as other resources.
http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles.htm
http://www.godskingdomfirst.net
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Olympus/5257/
Karl,
That verse in Hebrews is talking about the differences between the old and new covenants. Like Paul wrote in Galatians, the spiritual, “heart” understanding is superior to the letter of the Law. But that does not mean that all the promises to Abraham and David about the coming Kingdom on earth, as elaborated in the Prophets and by Jesus himself, have all been made “spiritual” and not physical. There is more to it than can be summarized in a short blog comment like this. Please read what I wrote about it here:
http://www.godskingdomfirst.net/KingdomCome.htm
Hi wolfgang,
Should modern governments base any of their laws on biblical law? Or should government be based of Humanistic law?
God bless you
Hi wolfgang,
Theonomy mean God’s law. If you are interested in Theonomy or R.J. Rushdoony you read about him and listen to many of his sermons free at:
http://www.chalcedon.edu/freeaudio.php
I think that he is the most important christian theologian and philosopher of the 20th century. Though I disagree with his trinitarianism, I think that he has a proper understanding of God’s Law and the covenants.
Hebrew 10:16 “THIS IS THE COVENANT THAT I WILL MAKE WITH THEM
AFTER THOSE DAYS, SAYS THE LORD:
I WILL PUT MY LAWS UPON THEIR HEART,
AND ON THEIR MIND I WILL WRITE THEM,”
God bless you
Dear Karl,
you asked:
well, I would consider it to be a good idea if government were basing laws on biblical laws and principles … although, we know from the biblical record about the example of such a situation with the nation of Israel in the age of the old covenant, that man sort failed to live by it.
Humanistic law is bound to propagate unrighteousness seeing that it eminates from the mind of unrighteous man.
Hi Karl,
thank you for the info on theonomy and R.J. Rushdoony … unfortunately, I do not have all that much time currently available for reading such sources, but will try and see if I can take a look at some of the info from the website.
You mentioned:
I deem it important to notice the time elements involved in this statement from Hebrews … this new covenant is to be made “after those days” … it does not say “after our current days” or “2 milleniums or even later”
What is said concerning what God will do with His laws indicates that it involves a personal, spiritual relationship between the person and God, not an earthly, physical or “outward” nor a national situation.
Hi Mark,
you write:
so are you saying that only believers are living in the supposed earthly kingdom with Jesus as king only has believers and there are no more unbelievers living in that nation or in the world as a whole? IF there are unbelievers and believers living in the nation over which Messiah rules in this kingdom, then you are in fact saying that both believers and unbelievers would be part (they are both subjects, are they not?) of this kingdom …
OK … but, please note, obviously this passage in Psalm 2 cannot be talking about an earthly kingdom of Messiah which has both unbelievers and believers as its subjects, since such an understanding would be contradicting the words of the Messiah in which he clearly indicates that only believers, those born from above, born of water and spirit, can enter the kingdom.
Which believers? all believers? “reign” in regards to what? Where does Scripture speak of believers (all believers?) reigning with Christ in his kingdom?
Wolfgang,
All these things are explained at length in the links I provided. Please read t hem.
Hi Mark,
the articles in the links you indeed attempt to explain these things in a certain way … However, those interpretations do not seem to realize the problem the interpretation of the kingdom of God as being a yet future earthly political kingdom really causes for the rest of the biblical texts.
Cheers
Hi wolfgang:
You wrote: well, I would consider it to be a good idea if government were basing laws on biblical laws and principles … although, we know from the biblical record about the example of such a situation with the nation of Israel in the age of the old covenant, that man sort failed to live by it.
You wrote: Humanistic law is bound to propagate unrighteousness seeing that it eminates from the mind of unrighteous man.
It would seem then that both biblical law and humanistic law are failures. Then we only have to choose between the lesser of two evils. If that were true, then I would choose biblical law.
God bless you