Pristine Grace
Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: A question about Revelation and the Olivet discourse.

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Bremerton, Washington
    Posts
    1
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    A question about Revelation and the Olivet discource.

    I have been looking at some of the posts in the forum, and I did learn some things I didn't know, since I do not know much about the history of Jerusalem. I still don't know how the events of Matthew 24 fit in, but I see how the description in Luke would describe the destruction of Jerusalem. The question that I have is in reference to the "this generation will by no meas pass away till all these things take place."

    I do not know what time Revelation was written, but in the Bible I use, it puts it towards the end of the first century, and at the time the apostle John is the only apostle still alive. I have seen some of the things that were in the olivet discourse also being in Revelation. The sixth seal in Revelation deals with cosmic disturbances, much like the ones described in Matthew 24.

    I mainly want to ask if anyone has research or a link on the possible time period that Revelation was written, and if the AD 94-96) is accurate, then how does all of this go together? I am just going by one source I have on hand for the timeframe in which Revelation could have been written. It also brings up the AD 54-68 time frame, but gives what I think could be strong arguments that back up the later time frame. (The MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV, 1997) p. 1999

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Heaven
    Posts
    2,655
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Re: A question about Revelation and the Olivet discource.

    Originally posted by Thygar
    I have been looking at some of the posts in the forum, and I did learn some things I didn't know, since I do not know much about the history of Jerusalem. I still don't know how the events of Matthew 24 fit in, but I see how the description in Luke would describe the destruction of Jerusalem. The question that I have is in reference to the "this generation will by no meas pass away till all these things take place."

    I do not know what time Revelation was written, but in the Bible I use, it puts it towards the end of the first century, and at the time the apostle John is the only apostle still alive. I have seen some of the things that were in the olivet discourse also being in Revelation. The sixth seal in Revelation deals with cosmic disturbances, much like the ones described in Matthew 24.

    I mainly want to ask if anyone has research or a link on the possible time period that Revelation was written, and if the AD 94-96) is accurate, then how does all of this go together? I am just going by one source I have on hand for the timeframe in which Revelation could have been written. It also brings up the AD 54-68 time frame, but gives what I think could be strong arguments that back up the later time frame. (The MacArthur Study Bible, NKJV, 1997) p. 1999
    that would be a question for our resident preterists countrymouse and Odyssey. they are usually very helpful in this sort of thing. hopefully they will chime in.
    When I get a little money, I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes.
    --Erasmus

    A room without books is a body without soul.
    --Cicero

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Several years ago I read "The Last Days According to Jesus" by R.C. Sproul and was convinced for about a month of the partial-preterist position but began to see some problems with it. It even seemed in the book that Sproul wanted to adopt a full-preterist position but saw the heresy in that.

    In my opinion, the historical evidence for the pre-70 AD dating is pretty weak. G.K. Beale gives a rather thorough analysis of the arguments on each side in his commentary on Revelation found in the "New International Greek Testament Commentary" series. I think he also has the best commentary on Revelation, but without a knowledge of Greek passages can be difficult to understand. There are Preterists who do not hold to the pre-70 AD dating, but I think there are many other problems associated with this interpretation as well. The following is for the most part a summary of things discussed in "A Case for Amillenialism" by Kim Riddlebarger which is an excellent and well-researched book although I disagree with his interpretation of Romans 11:26. I have also put my own comments in various places.

    Full preterists are guilty of the heresy of Hymenaeus that we find in 2 Tim. 2:17-18. They try to do exegetical gymnastics to twist what Hymenaeus taught, but it's pretty clear.

    Partial preterists teach that the Lord returned in judgment in 70 and will return again at the end of time. This teaching not only introduces the problem of multiple comings of Jesus but it does not agree with Jesus' teaching about this age and the age to come.

    The New Testament is full of eschatological tension between things which are already fulfilled and things which are not yet fulfilled. Jesus taught both that his coming was immanent and that specific signs will precede his coming and it will happen when we least expect it. Paul stresses the already and the not yet (Rom. 8:23-25). Paul even speaks of those who are in Christ as already being raised with him and says we are already seated in the heavenlies (Eph. 2:6) although the redemption of our bodies has not yet occured and he speaks of this as a future event.

    Both futurists and preterists seek to remove the eschatological tension we find in the NT. The futurist makes Revelation irrelevant to the churches at the time it was written, and the preterist makes it irrelevant to the church today. Our eschatology should mirror that of the Bible and so the tension should remain.

    The NT does not speak of Jesus coming back in judgment in 70 AD. In the Olivet Discourse Jesus spoke of his coming as being visible (Matt. 24:27-29). Israel's desolation is completed by the events of 70 AD, but the Bible does not teach a coming of Christ in judgment which is invisible and localized in Jerusalem. Christ's coming is the day of judgment on the nations, when all great and small cower in fear (Rev. 6:15-17)

    The biggest problem with all preterism is that it fails to acknowledge that the end of this age and the dawn of the age to come are not mere shifts in redemptive history. There is no doubt that the events of 70 AD do, in part, fulfill our Lord's words to his apostles of immanent judgment on Israel. The destruction of Jerusalem does not mark the end of the age; the final consummation does (Luke 20:35). This indicates that although the events of 70 AD are vital to the course of redemptive history, they do not constitute our Lord's Parousia or the judgment. The contrast between this age and the age to come is a contrast between things eternal and things temporal. This contrast presents a major problem for preterist interpreters, who seek to limit this shift to the destruction of Jerusalem. The two ages are not merely two periods in the redemptive-history time but are two distinct eschatological epochs, with the age to come not being fully realized until our Lord's second advent.

    I believe the amillennial interpretation does a much better job of interpreting Biblical prophecy as the Bible itself does. In the OT prophecies were sometimes given and would be fulfilled in part but did not reach their full fulfillment until the time of Christ.

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I would love to answer these questions Thygar and the problems addressed by wildboar. But it will have to be at a later time. I am swamped right now and don't have time to give an adequate answer.

    The whole Hymeaneous this has be addressed but it still won't die. Wildboar, read my response to Bryon and Nixon on this site. It addresses the supposed Hymeaneous heresy.

    Grace to you,

    OD
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Odyssey:

    Where is this article to be found?

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I'm sorry. You can find it here.

    Grace to you,

    OD
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    odyssey:

    The article did a good job in showing how the partial preterist position is inconsistent, however it did not seem to address the major arguments made by amillenialists and take the spiritual/idealist interpretation of Revelation and do so rather consistently(Hendriksen, Beale, etc.). Also I found one statment somewhat troublesome.

    Notice the last sentence, ‘the different biblical writers…are not in exact accord with one another.’ But, according to Bryan and Dixon, the church has ‘always’ held the ‘unanimous testimony’ concerning the resurrection. Terry goes on to observe:
    Are you saying that those who penned the words of Scripture contradicted one another?

    Bryan and Nixon state that the Hymenaeus heresy was ‘a radical reinterpretation of the bodily resurrection’. How do they know this? Where does Paul even hint at such a statement? They proof text the two places Hymenaeus’ name is mentioned but Paul does not even discuss the view of Hymenaeus.
    My guess on this is that since Hymenaeus taught that the resurrection had already been passed, it is implied that it must have a non-physical nature about it. Otherwise people would have just thought he was a looney. I certainly agree that the rebuke of course had to do with him saying the resurrection was already passed though.

    If anyone would like to read an interesting article on the Virture of Name-calling visit: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/rev...p?ID=007a.html

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Are you saying that those who penned the words of Scripture contradicted one another?
    Not at all. What Terry is stating, and with which I agree, is that not one of the biblical writers, save the apostle Paul, stated what the resurrection of the dead was exactly. The idea of a physical resusitation of the bioligical body is imposed on the passages in question. I believe that Terry has done an outstanding job in showing that.

    Grace to you,

    OD
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Odyssey:

    To say they are not in accord is quite different from saying they do not fully describe something. However, Christ is the example and seems to have had a human form, even retaining the marks from His crucifixion. He was certainly changed in some way, the disciples did not recognize Him initially, but He also seemed to have been the same in some way.

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Re-read the quote from Terry. He is in no way suggesting that there is a contradiction between the biblical writers views.

    Do you think that Jesus resurrected body was just a resuscitation of his biological body?

    Grace and Peace,

    OD
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    As a side note, wasn't there a 'contradiction' between the Pharisees and the Sadducees?

    Grace to you,

    OD
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Odyssey:

    Do you think that Jesus resurrected body was just a resuscitation of his biological body?
    Of course not, as I stated there is a change that takes place. However, he still had human features and maintained some resemblance to his human body.

    As a side note, wasn't there a 'contradiction' between the Pharisees and the Sadducees?
    Of course there was, but they were not the authors of Scripture. The Sadducees didn't even believe in angels and denied miracles (and promoted free-willism to boot ). I have a Roman Catholic acquaintance that calls them the Episcopalians of their day.

    It seems rather odd though. In the article it seems that you are saying that because there is no accord among the Biblical writers it follows that there is no accord in the church. And now it seems like you are saying that because there is no accord in the church there is no accord among the Biblical writers.

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Not at all. What I'm stating is that people like Bryon and Nixon may try to push their 'physical nature of the resurrection body' as something the church has always believed, but it is flatly denied by Scripture and is not aggreed upon by the church. I am in no way suggesting that since the church doesn't believe it the Bible doesn't teach it. It doesn't matter if the church believes it or not. If god stated something was to be a certain way, then that is the way it is. And, as Terry explained, 'The heavenly body is given immediately after the dissolution of the earthly house, and is as truly an organism as is the earthly body. The body of the resurrection is not the body that is sown during the earthly existence.' The resurrected body, according to Paul, is spiritual.

    However, all of this aside, my purpose in pointing you to that article was your remarks regarding Hymenaeus. In the first part of that article, I dealt with those types of remarks.

    Lastly, the problem I have with amillenialism is that the have the OC age ending at the cross and the 'end of the age' in the epistles is the supposed end of the Christain age. This simply will not line up with Hebrews 8.13, 'In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.'

    Grace to you,

    OD
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  14. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Middleville, MI
    Posts
    3,577
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Odyssey:

    The body of Jesus certainly did not remain in the tomb while he took on a new spiritual body. He went under bodily transformation, he did not take on a completely different body. Paul says it is sown a natural body and raised a spiritual body referring to the same body.

    I did not even have this all in mind when I was referring to Hymenaeus though. Only that he said that the reserruction had already ocurred which consistent preterists certainly teach.

    I think there are a couple different ways of understanding the passage in Hebrews.

    Hebrews 8:8 - 13 8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: 9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. 13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

    I think it is legitmate to take verse 13 as referring to what was spoken of in verse 8, meaning that at the time verse 8 was initially declared by God the old covenant was already decaying.

    I think there may be a better way of understanding this passage however. From this verse it seems that the New covenant already existed but that the old had not completely passed away in all the ceremonial rites and so forth but was certainly fading away. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD in many ways did put the final nail in the coffin.

    2 Corinthians 3:5-11 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. 7 But if the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, fading as it was, 8 how will the ministry of the Spirit fail to be even more with glory? 9 For if the ministry of condemnation has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory. 10 For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory because of the glory that surpasses it. 11 For if that which fades away was with glory, much more that which remains is in glory.

    I think this interpretation would also harmonize well with this passage. Also in verse 10 of this passage it is said that it had glory and that it has no glory, speaking of it as if it did not exist at that time. This would also fit the already-not yet view of amillennialism.

    Sola Gratia,
    WildBoar
    For whatever strength of arm he may have who swims in the open sea, yet in time he is carried away and sunk, mastered by the greatness of its waves. Need then there is that we be in the ship, that is, that we be carried in the wood, that we may be able to cross this sea. Now this Wood in which our weakness is carried is the Cross of the Lord, by which we are signed, and delivered from the dangerous tempests of this world.--St. Augustine

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    837
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    wildboar,

    I never stated that Jesus' physical body remained in the tomb.

    The problem that Hymenaeus had is different than that of the Preterist in that, they had the resurrection coming before the end of the age. Before the consummation of the ages. Which, taking the amill position, I can see why that charge can be layed against the Preterist. However, the Preterist sees the end of the age as the end of the OC age and not the supposed end of the NC age.

    Concerning Heb. 8: I completely agree. Hebrews 8 clearly states that the OC age was 'becoming obsolete' (present tense) when that letter was written. If that is your position, and it appears to be so, your view is different from most amills with whom I have come in contact.

    Grace to you,

    OD
    'Unless I am convinced by scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. God help me. Here I stand, I can do no other.'~~Martin Luther, 1521

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Phila. Pa.
    Posts
    10
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Hello disciple and all. Jack I see you have been really having some fun


    http://www.newjerusalemministriesboards.com

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Spokane, WA
    Posts
    32
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    Originally posted by wildboar
    Odyssey:

    I did not even have this all in mind when I was referring to Hymenaeus though. Only that he said that the reserruction had already ocurred which consistent preterists certainly teach.


    The question I have is how anyone could have been mislead about the ressurection or the day of the Lord (2 Thess 2:1-3) if they were end of the cosmos events? I would buy it if Paul anywhere intimated that they were tied to an end of the world event, but the other signs he gives have nothing to do with the destruction of creation.

    So then we need to examine our view of these events and make sure that they fit all the data. I guess you could call it 'the special theology of relativity', 'string theology' or 'quantum theology'
    Moderation in all things, especially moderation.

Similar Threads

  1. Repentance and remission
    By buckyteeth in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-06-05, 11:34 AM
  2. Josephus & Tacitus - Hearsay?
    By Lluvia in forum General Discussion Archive
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-12-05, 04:36 PM
  3. Satan Smiles
    By lionovjudah in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-15-04, 09:21 PM
  4. On Helping others or not..
    By Edward429451 in forum Predestinarian Doctrine Archive
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-24-04, 09:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •