Eschatology: Survey says . . . !!!

[Byblos]

Those who deny it are antichrist and will die in their sins.

Ah, if only that's what the Bible says. Unfortunately, it doesn't.

It does when one reads with their heart too, not just their eyes.

But that is for another thread.

No it's not, you're not allowed to debate the trinity here.

[Fortigurn]

(I don't need to "find the unique teaching of Praeterism).

Of course you do, or you haven't found Praetersm.

I just need to prove that it was a common belief in the church throughout history, whether or not the writer himself actually believed it.

In order to prove it was 'a common belief in the church throughout history', you have to find the unique teachings of Praeterism, or you haven't found Praeterism. I believe Daniel 9 was fulfilled in the 1st century, and I'm a Historicist. You believe that Daniel 9 was fulfilled in the 1st century, and you're a Praeterist. A belief that Daniel 9 was fulfilled in the 1st century is not a belief definitive of or unique to Praeterism.

I have already done so with Daniel 2 (Jerome). Despite your objections, he clearly taught it's fulfillment at Christ's First Advent, not his second.

You're wrong. He did not teach that Daniel 2 had been fulfilled at Christ's first advent. He believed that part of it had been fulfilled at Christ's first advent.

He clearly taught that the coming of the stone was fulfilled at Christ's advent. But contrary to Praterists, he did not teach that the entire prophecy was fulfilled at Christ's advent. As I have shown, he believed that the destruction of the feet and toes of the image represented the breaking apart of the Roman empire, which he said was still future, though imminent, and supported this from Daniel 7 as well:

'Let us therefore affirm, agreeably to the concurrent judgment of all ecclesiastical writers, that in the consummation of the world, when the Roman Empire is to be destroyed, there shall arise ten kings, who shall share the Roman world among themselves, and that an eleventh king (the little horn in Dan. vii.) shall arise, who shall subdue three of those ten kings…'

Jerome, 'Commentary on Daniel', chapter 7 section 20, 340 — 420

'My mind is refreshed, and for the present forgets the woeful calamities that this last age labours with, groaning and travailing in pain, till he who hinders, be taken out of the way, and the feet of the iron statue be broken to pieces by reason of the brittleness of the clayey toes.'

Jerome, 'Commentary on Ezekiel', book 8, preface, 340 — 420 AD

It's quite clear. Jerome did not believe that the Roman empire had fallen, nor the ten horns/toes arisen, nor the antiChrist had come.

What's important however is that you've acknowledged the necessity of finding Praeterism prior to the 17th century, since its absence from church history before this time is a considerable problem for Praterists.

From the preteristarchive:

EARLY CHURCH (EC) - A) Views espoused by all Christian sources during the first thousand years of church history, during which the only systematizing was being done in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. B) This class includes all the earliest church fathers, historians and pseudepigraphic writers. C) Sources could be considered "Historicist" or "Futurist" but very rarely "Preterist" in a developed way (Eusebius would be the most likely to be considered Preterist)

[puritan lad]

What's important however is that you've acknowledged the necessity of finding Praeterism prior to the 17th century, since its absence from church history before this time is a considerable problem for Praterists.

As I said, I'm working on it. Of course, even if there was no hint of preterism at all in church history, it still isn't a "problem", since we have Scripture itself telling us clearly when these prophecies would take place. As I pointed out earlier, almost all of the early church fathers thought that Christ would return in their lifetimes. This shows two things:

1.) They were wrong.
2.) They clearly understood the imminent time frame references in Scripture to be literal. Unfortunately, they pulled the age-old Hal Lindsey error of applying those references to themselves as opposed to those to whom the prophecies were actually written.

Jerome did not believe that the Roman empire had fallen, nor the ten horns/toes arisen, nor the antiChrist had come.

Two Problems here.

1.) The inspired Apostle John tells his first century readers that antichrist has already come. Who are we to listen to?
2.) This isn't about what Jerome believed. He said that "many" believed that Nero was the antichrist. Was he wrong? If you acknowledge that "many" believed that Nero was the antichrist, then you have preterism. How does this fit into historicism? It doesn't, unless it is first century historicism (preterism).

Can you show me one historicist who considered Nero to b the antichrist?

Not that I can think of, no. But I don't need to. I only need to demonstrate that such a belief is not incompatible with Historicism, any more than believing that Napoleon was the antiChrist, as some Historicists believed.

That should be interesting. Show me this...

Which is it Fortigurn? Is preterism a 17th Century invention, or were previous "sources...rarely "Preterist" in a developed way"? Rarely means it existed, and the phrase "in a developed way" is quite subjective. You say it didn't exist all all prior to the 17th Century (it was invented then, remember).

While I'm getting my material together, I wish you would oblige me with some Scriptural support of Historicism. I can't seem to find any.

[Jac3510]

Oh, So the Covenant isn't unconditional afterall. Now we are getting somewhere.

But you have a strange definition of “everlasting”. You claim that “it does NOT mean that they get to enjoy the blessings of living in it at all times.” Well, if you take “everlasting” literally, it most certainly does. Did no one every read a prince/princess fairy tale to you?

I didn't say it wasn't unconditional. It will be fulfilled no matter what. That does not mean, however, that their enjoyment within the land was unconditional. Again, Deut. 29 gives the conditions for enjoyments of the covenant. Let's use this simple example:

Suppose you promised to buy your child a car when they turned 16, no strings attached. So, they turn 16, and you do. Their first week out, they get a speeding ticket. You take away their driving privileges. There you have an unconditional promise with conditions as to its enjoyment. Second, the covenant is everlasting. They will own the land forever, which is exactly what everlasting literally means. Now, can you show me one place where I, or any dispensationalist, has ever claimed that once the Jews were brought into the land that they would forever reside in it? Again, Deut 29 says otherwise. But Deut 29 also gives the conditions on which they will be brought back to their land. Make more sense?

Let's see. Joshua says that all of God's promises to Abraham were fulfilled, and not one of them failed. Jac's Maps disagree. Who should I believe?

No, it does not say that all the promises to Abraham were fulfilled. It says that all the promises to their forefathers were fulfilled. Joshua had in mind the promises in Numbers 34. In fact, if you want to hold the view that all the promises to Abraham were fulfilled in Joshua 21, you should explain how it was that Jesus had not yet come. Was He not the ultimate fulfillment the Abrahamic Covenant? I don't see how if all the promises had been fulfilled in 21 that Jesus had anything left to fulfill during His life.

I believe God has already given Abraham's Seed (Christ) everlasting possession of the land, In fact, all nations. I answered your question Jac. Let's quit pretending that I didn't. You may not like my answer, probably because (it's not literal "the way you define it". I love that quote Jac. How can anyone ever argue with that?)

I can't help but think of your critique of Matt. 16 being "fulfilled" in the transfiguration. You say it is a "hollow" prophecy. But look at what you do here. Jesus got that land with those specific boundaries. But that was because He got all the land in the world. That, my friend, is hollow.

But, even with that said, the Bible says that Abraham's descendants (plural!) would receive the land. Notice, "To your descendants I give this land." I only see two ways to take this, if we agree the land is an actual land and not something to be spiritualized. Either Abraham's Jewish children (national Israel) will receive the land and defined in that passage, or Abraham's "descendants" would be the Church. In that case, you and I will receive the land. But in that case, who gets the rest of the world?

Now, with all that said, you keep saying you are answering my question and you keep not. Maybe I am not saying it clearly enough. You said that Joshua 21 was the fulfillment of Gen 15. When you look at what Joshua conquered, though, he did not conquer all the land listed in Gen 15. So, PL - was Joshua's conquest the fulfillment of Genesis 15 or not? If yes, then how do you not believe in an errant Bible? If no, then what promises were fulfilled that Joshua 21 speaks of?

The fact is that ALL Old Testament Covenants pointed to Christ, not to some atheistic country in the Middle East founded by the UN in 1948. (BTW: Christ's owns that land as well.)

Obviously, I see that "atheistic country in the Middle East founded by the UN in 1948" as the beginning of the fulfillment of Ezekiel 37. In fact, one of the most important parts of the Dispensational view of the end-times is that Israel will be unbelieving during the Tribulation.

However, I have answered your questions. The problem is that you don't like my answer. You keep falling back on your "literal hermeneutic", which is really no more literal than mine.

I'll deal with your charges that I don't take the time references literally below. In the meantime, I simply disagree with this statement. You can't show me one place where I spiritualize a prophecy, be that OT or NT. And yet, by your own admission, Dan. 12:2 is a spiritual resurrection. It isn't to be understood literally. I still don't know whether or not you believe the land promises in Gen 15 will be (or were?) fulfilled literally or if they should be taken spiritually.

We take different aspects of prophecy literally. You do not have a monopoly on literalism. As I have pointed out there are things I take literally that you don't. (In fact, if we were to do a count - I won't - I probably take more items "literally" than you do.)

Feel free to take the count if you want to make this charge. We don't make statements without backing them up. Again, I take the OT and the NT literally.

I hold that the New Testament is a valid (in fact, the only valid) was to interpret OT prophecy. That will always lead to either an amill or postmill position.

[/quote]
I know this is true, but on what basis do you make this claim? I can think of a lot of reasons to explain why we have to interpret the NT in light of the OT. Why would we even think of doing it in the reverse? But let me use this quote of yours here to challenge your claim that you take things more literally than do I. If we have to interpret the OT in light of the NT, aren't you saying that the OT cannot be understood in it's straightforward sense? That is why we have to have the NT, to tell us what it really means? If that is the case, then you, not me, have shown that I take the OT more "literally" than you do. I, of course, argue that the OT should be taken in its straightforward sense. I don't see any NT reason for saying otherwise. Anyway, on to your time references . . .

• Matthew 10:23 — “You (my disciples) shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.”

This is a great example, I think, of the differences in our interpretational approaches, and it will help show what dispensationalists mean by the term "literal hermeneutic." (It will also take the longest to explain.) First off, "literal hermeneutic" is shorthand for literal-historical-grammatical. So some background information is essential if we are to understand the historical context in which Jesus was speaking and Matthew was writing. Matthew's Gospel was probably written between 55 and 60 AD. This was between five and ten years before the Neronian Persecutions began, which I suspect you see as being the fulfillment of Jesus' words in these passages, with the "Coming" being a reference to the judgment of AD 70. I'll point out problems with that view--the necessity of taking it as non-literal--as I explain the literalness of my own. Second, Matthew was written to Jewish believers to answer the simple question, "If the Messiah has come, where is the Kingdom we have long been expecting?" It is exactly for this reason that Matthew presents Jesus as the King promised in the OT prophecies. Thus, I see Matthew's literary purpose as showing God's plan for Israel in light of the events of 27-30 AD.

With that in mind, we look at the text itself. In Matt. 10:1, Jesus calls to himself His twelve disciples, including Judas. It is here a comparison with Luke 10, which records the same event, is absolutely essential. In Luke 10, Jesus appoints seventy-two. He gives them virtually the same instructions up until verse Matt 10:15/Luke 10:12. Matthew does not record their journey, but Luke does. He tells us in Luke 10:17, "The seventy-two returned with joy and said, 'Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name.'"

It is of further interest that there is a second commission given by Jesus in Luke 22. He references this earlier commission, which only Luke recorded to conclusion of, and now tells them that this new commission is different. And now, "if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one" (Luke 22:36). Why? Because now people will be hostile, whereas they were not in the previous commission.

Now what is the point of this comparison? First off, we have to remember that Matthew does not tell us about the results of the disciple's mission throughout Israel. In fact, he doesn't even tell us they left! If it were not for Luke, we would be left with the impression that their trip began with their witness of Christ after His resurrection, which is, of course, exactly how preterists want to take this passage. But we know from Luke that not only these, but sixty others, did go, they did complete the mission Jesus had for them, and they came back and reported the events. So why did Matthew not tell us that part? What is he literally trying to say?

Number one, the immediate reference in Matt 10 is the proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom (Matt 10:7) to the Jews. This message was NOT to be given to the Gentiles (10:5). This itself is proof that reference in 10:23, whatever it is, could not be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 simply because these same twelve did preach to Gentiles before that date! No, taken literally, this commission was given and fulfilled during the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.

Number two, the commission through verse 16 is clear and echoed by Luke. Verses 17 and following, however, present serious problems. At no time during the disciple's first trip did the experience the persecution mentioned in these verses. They were never brought before kings, they were not flogged, brothers were not betrayed until death, etc. It is here that we have to ask what is happening at a literary level. Matthew's first readers were Jewish Christians living immediately before the Neronian Persecution, but even they had not seen the level of persecution mentioned here. It is therefore obvious that Jesus' words in Matthew 10:17ff have broader and longer reaching impact than the immediate context in which He spoke. However, it was not necessarily much broader and longer reaching than the immediate context in which Matthew wrote! In other words, these Jewish readers would have been expected to read this and understand that Matthew was talking about someone other than the twelve disciples at this point. Further, we don't know whether or not the original twelve hearing this would have suspected that they were the ones being spoken of. It is commonly thought that a great portion of the sermons in the Gospels, and especially Matthew (i.e., the Sermon on the Mount and the Olivet Discourse), are actually collections of various sermons tied together and presented in one place. Did Luke simply forget the last half of the passage, or did Matthew see a broader connection to this commission and a future commission and connect them here, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

So, regardless of what you believe, we know for sure that the events of Matt 10:17ff were not fulfilled by the original twelve by the first missionary trip. Both Scripture and history confirm this. By whom, then, were they, or will they, be fulfilled? On one hand, the preterist insists this was fulfilled by those who preached until AD 70, but serious problems with this view have already been noted, not the least of which is the fact that Gentiles were given the gospel. Futurists see Matthew's purpose here in the context of his broader purpose, which is to demonstrate God's plan for the Jewish people in light of their rejection of their Christ. As per Matt 24, the reader will know that in the future, God will again work to establish His Kingdom among the Jews. In Matt 21:23, Jesus says that "Therefore I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people who will produce its fruit." Thus, from a literary perspective, these Jewish Christians are thoroughly told to expect a future preaching of the Gospel to their people.

It is in that context--that literal, literary, and historical context--that I take Matt 10:23. The Gospel will be preached again to Israel, but that preaching will not be completed before Jesus returns at His Second Advent. That, in my view, is the plainest way to take the text. It spiritualizes nothing, takes all relevant Scripture into account, and gives the most consideration to the general flow of Matthew's purpose.

• Matthew 16:28 — “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

This was literally fulfilled six days later in the transfiguration. It is important to note that very very next verse opens with, "After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James . . ." Remember there were no chapter/verse breaks in the original text, it is very plain that this is exactly what Matthew had in mind.

• Romans 13:11-12 - "You know what hour it is, how it is full time now for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we first believed; the night is far gone, the day is at hand."
  
  Philippians 4:5 - "The Lord is at hand."
  
  James 5:8-9 - "The coming of the Lord is at hand. ... Behold, the Judge is standing at the door."
  
  1 Peter 4:7 - "The end of all things is at hand."

I grouped these all together because you are focusing, apparently, on "at hand." In Romans, Paul is exhorting the Roman Christians to wake up from their moral laxity (cf 1 Thess 5:6-7). Why? Because Christ's return is immanent. That is, it is "at hand." As for that phrase, "at hand," it refers to the final stage of time (See BDAG, p. 871). From a literalist's perspective, we cannot take "at hand" to be a euphemism for "about to happen as humans count 'soon'", which is how you seem to want me to take it. To take but one example, Isaiah 13:6 says, "Howl ye; for the day of the LORD is at hand." In other words, I don't see any reason that this "literally" has to mean it is going to happen in the next few years or few days. Literally, the reference is to immanence. It will happen. It could happen at any moment. Maybe sooner, maybe later, but it is "at hand."

• 1 Corinthians 10:11 - "On [us] the ends of the ages have come."

This is just a silly translation here. The word translated "ends" here is telos. It means maturity or perfection or goal or completion. The NIV has a good rendering, I think: "These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfillment of the ages has come." Do I take this literally? You bet I do! On us, that is, on believes, has come the fulfillment of the ages. Notice "ages" is plural. I'm sure you are aware that Jews thought in terms of "this age" and "the age to come." The former was characterized by Gentile dominance and by unrighteousness in general, whereas the latter was to be characterized by Jewish dominance via the Messiah, and thus it would be an age of righteousness. This is why we translate the phrase zoen aionion as "eternal life" rather than the more literal "life of the ages." The point is that we get to take part right now in the future age--the age that all of history is moving towards, which is the Messianic Kingdom. We HAVE "the life of the ages" right NOW. So has that fulfillment come on us? Yup. It has.

• 1 Corianthians 7:29-31 - "Brethren, the appointed time has grown very short; from now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none, and those who mourn as though they were not mourning, and those who rejoice as though they were not rejoicing, and those who buy as though they had no goods, and those who deal with the world as though they had no dealings with it. For the form of this world is passing away."

Funny, you didn't quote the very next verse: "I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord."

I think the meaning of this passage has been obscured by our relative freedom in the Western world. In the world in which Paul wrote, and in much of the world today, to claim the name of Christ is as good as a death-sentence. It is better, if possible, not to shackle yourself to the cares of this world in light of that persecution, but to instead focus on the "affairs of the Lord." Further, I don't know what translation you are using here, but it does not say that "the appointed time has grown very short." It simply says that the time is short. Do I take that literally? Yup. Bear in mind that "short" is a comparative adjective. "Short compared to what?" How about . . . compared to eternity, which is what Paul is always thinking about? Or how about compared to the history of man? If men have been around 30,000 years, then 2,000 is pretty short . . . especially when Paul is mostly interested in immanence.

• 1 John 2:18 - "It is the last hour ... we know that it is the last hour."

This doesn't need much comment other than to say "the last X" is a biblical phrase that refers not to the 24th hour of the day or the 365th day of the year, but to the final part of God's program. I can provide a litany of Scripture to prove that if you need them. As the author of Hebrews says, God has spoken to us in these last days through Jesus Christ. Same idea in both passages.

Anyway . . . so is there anything else you'd like to say I don't take literally, or perhaps you'd like to challenge the understandings given above as non-literal?

God bless

[puritan lad]

Jac,

I'm working on an overall response, trying to deal with your arguments as well as Fortigurn's. Give me a little time on this.

However, I will deal with this one.

I'll deal with your charges that I don't take the time references literally below. In the meantime, I simply disagree with this statement. You can't show me one place where I spiritualize a prophecy, be that OT or NT.

Well, we already saw that I take Ezekiel 40-47 more "literally" than you do. It takes a lot of literary (and theological) gymnastics to push this into the future. I believe it happened (weapons and all) exactly as it said, in the second century B.C.

[Jac3510]

Well, we already saw that I take Ezekiel 40-47 more "literally" than you do. It takes a lot of literary (and theological) gymnastics to push this into the future. I believe it happened (weapons and all) exactly as it said, in the second century B.C.

I assume you mean Ez 38-39 and not 40-48? The second of these refers to the Jewish Temple, which I take to be a literal temple that will be rebuilt and all the customs exactly followed as described in the verses. You claim that I don't take Ez 38-39 literally because I allow "bucklers" to refer to defense in general and "swords" to refer to weapons.

Besides the fact that that would hardly be spiritualizing the prophecy (suppose it is future: would you expect Ezekiel to say "tank"?), I suppose it is even possible that there will be a literal war in the future where they DO use swords and bucklers. I mean, if that is near the end of time, considering all the plagues that have just fallen on the world, maybe modern warfare technology will be useless? I don't know. But, again, I hardly think that letting "sword" represent a weapon is the same thing as letting the land in Genesis 15 represent "the eternal inheritance of the believer," or the resurrection in Dan. 12:2 to be a spiritual resurrection. Everyone knows that in amill and post mill that physical promises to Israel are taken to be spiritual promises to the church.

There is a difference, PL, in metaphor and allegory (spiritualizing).

But take your time on the reply. God bless

[puritan lad]

There is a difference, PL, in metaphor and allegory (spiritualizing).

Either way, it's not literal. Ezekiel could have actually meant that all of Gog's soldiers would be on horseback, carrying swords, spears, shields, bows, arrows and bucklers. He could have actually meant that Gog wanted Israel's livestock, and that Israel would burn Gog's wooden war materials for 7 years instead of taking trees from the forest. Afterall, that is what the Bible actually says. I take this literally.

But take your time on the reply. God bless

Working as we speak. God Bless...

[Jac3510]

Either way, it's not literal.

Let me just provide the definition of "literal interpretation" I work by. I'll quote from Paul Tan's Interpretation of Prophecy (Assurance Publishers, 1974). As you can see, the work is hardly new. This has long been the accepted understanding of the term (as an aside, I would have quoted Things to Come, but I've lent my copy out . . .)

Anyway:

• To "interpret" means to explain the original sense of a speaker or writer. To interpret "literally" means to explain the original sense of the speaker or writer according to the normal, customary, and proper usages of words and language. Literal interpretation of the Bible simply means to explain the original sense of the Bible according to the normal and customary usages of its language. (p. 29)

He describes the method this way:

• It is proper for a word to have various meanings and senses. However, when a word is used in a given situation, it should normally possess but one intended sense or meaning. This is the regular law of linguistic exchange among sensible people . . . Literal interpreters believe that Scriptural revelation is given to be understood by man. To "understand" a speaker of writer, one must assume that the speaker or writer is using words normally and without multiple meanings. This is what the literal method of interpretation assumes of God in Scriptural revelation. It believes the Bible to be revelation, not riddle. (30)

He then offers this clarification:

• The word literal is often taken to mean that which is non-figurative. Interpreters often set the literal over against the figurative. This is a serious misapprehension of the method.
  
  Everyone agrees that the great literatures properly use both figurative and nonfigurative languages . . . The presence of figures of speech in Scripture, however, does not militate against literal interpretation. Since literal interpretation properly accepts that which is normal and customary in language--and figurative language is certainly normal and customary--literal interpreters are not hindered by that which is figurative. There is no necessity to change to a different method of interpretation. (30-31)

Thought that would help.

[Jac3510]

Hey, another post - I was looking through Tan's book and he actually agrees with you on the literalness of Ezekiel 38-39. Allow me to quote him again, this time at length:

• There are some prophecies which, in describing eschatological warfares, predict that the weapons to be used then will be bows and arrows, chariots and horses, spears and shields. Are these to be taken literally? If we adhere strictly to the proper view of prophetic form, we must consider these weapons the same as that which will be used in eschatology. They must not be equated with vastly different modern war devices, as the H-bomb or the supersonic jet fighter. Interestingly, these prophesied military instruments though centuries old have not yet been made obsolete. The horse, for instance, is still used in warfare on certain kinds of terrain.
  
  It is significant to note that eschatological warfares will occur under conditions very different from what we now have. The eschatological warfare described in great detail in Ezekiel 38-39 is said to occur under peculiar circumstances (note the elements of stealth and secrecy in Ezekiel 38:11, and the defeat of the invaders by supernatural causes in Ezekiel 38:22). It is therefore not unthinkable that the war implements to be used in eschatological times should be of the unusual kind.
  
  John F. Walvoord mentions one reason for the use of these relatively primitive weapons: "Modern missile warfare will have developed in that day to the point where missiles will seek out any considerable amount of metal. Under these circumstances, it would be necessary to abandon the large use of metal weapons and substitute wood such as is indicated in the primitive weapons."

So that sort of goes back to what I said before - I suppose that it is possible that the war of Ezekiel 38-39 could literally take place with swords, spears, and horses. With that said, I have here two of the strongest defenders of dispensationalism claiming that they hold to that "literal" of an interpretation, so it's safe to say that one is off the list no matter how you cut it!

[B. W.]

Two Problems here.

1.) The inspired Apostle John tells his first century readers that antichrist has already come. Who are we to listen to?
2.) This isn't about what Jerome believed. He said that "many" believed that Nero was the antichrist. Was he wrong? If you acknowledge that "many" believed that Nero was the antichrist, then you have preterism. How does this fit into historicism? It doesn't, unless it is first century historicism (preterism).

I am trying to stay out of this but context of scripture speaks for itself:

1 John 2:18, "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. 19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." KJV

First there are many opponents of the Messiah and they came from where - amongst the local Church community - hence - false brethren. Note: John's usage of the word antichrist.

1 John 2:22, "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." KJV

1 John 4:3, "And every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not from God; and this is the antichrist which you heard is coming, and now is already in the world." LITV

Historically, John is speaking about false brethren betraying believers in Christ. For us today it is important to note that a Spirit of antichrist - opponents of the Messiah — began way back then and continues onward today in growing intensity.

2 John 1:7, “For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.” KJV

Therefore, John is not speaking of a single particular antichrist in these verses. Does this mean the beast and false prophet of prophecy do not have such a spirit? No it does not. If you apply the logic — many varied individuals will come with this antichrist spirit from Nero to present day. The later beast and false prophet may possibly be the culmination and the ultimate epitome and manifestation of being the definitive opponents of the Messiah as will their followers.

Re-edit - Typo----As for Daniels 70 years — I am of the opinion that this was fulfilled as the math shows and proves also you do NOT need this prophecy to support Futurist viewpoint.

Now I'll restrain myself here and just watch and read…
-
-
-

[puritan lad]

Historically, John is speaking about false brethren betraying believers in Christ. For us today it is important to note that a Spirit of antichrist - opponents of the Messiah — began way back then and continues onward today in growing intensity.

I have a slight disagreement, particularly with the last phrase of your statement, but I agree that "John is speaking about false brethren betraying believers in Christ". More specifically, however, he was speaking of Judaizers in the church, as made clear by 1 John 2:22-23. It is ironic that John's antichrist has become the darling of modern prophecy buffs.

[puritan lad]

Hey, another post - I was looking through Tan's book and he actually agrees with you on the literalness of Ezekiel 38-39. Allow me to quote him again, this time at length:

• There are some prophecies which, in describing eschatological warfares, predict that the weapons to be used then will be bows and arrows, chariots and horses, spears and shields. Are these to be taken literally? If we adhere strictly to the proper view of prophetic form, we must consider these weapons the same as that which will be used in eschatology. They must not be equated with vastly different modern war devices, as the H-bomb or the supersonic jet fighter. Interestingly, these prophesied military instruments though centuries old have not yet been made obsolete. The horse, for instance, is still used in warfare on certain kinds of terrain.
  
  It is significant to note that eschatological warfares will occur under conditions very different from what we now have. The eschatological warfare described in great detail in Ezekiel 38-39 is said to occur under peculiar circumstances (note the elements of stealth and secrecy in Ezekiel 38:11, and the defeat of the invaders by supernatural causes in Ezekiel 38:22). It is therefore not unthinkable that the war implements to be used in eschatological times should be of the unusual kind.
  
  John F. Walvoord mentions one reason for the use of these relatively primitive weapons: "Modern missile warfare will have developed in that day to the point where missiles will seek out any considerable amount of metal. Under these circumstances, it would be necessary to abandon the large use of metal weapons and substitute wood such as is indicated in the primitive weapons."

So that sort of goes back to what I said before - I suppose that it is possible that the war of Ezekiel 38-39 could literally take place with swords, spears, and horses. With that said, I have here two of the strongest defenders of dispensationalism claiming that they hold to that "literal" of an interpretation, so it's safe to say that one is off the list no matter how you cut it!

Strange. Now all you have to do is explain the atoning animal sacrifices, circumcision of the flesh, and the return of ancient Jewish currency.

[Jac3510]

Now all you have to do is explain the atoning animal sacrifices, circumcision of the flesh, and the return of ancient Jewish currency.

But that isn't hard to do? I'm trying to decide if I should open a new thread on Hebrews 10/Ez 40-49 or just do it here. As far off as we have gotten from the original topic, I'm tempted to go through it here . . . either way, it won't happen tonight. Ah well, I'll wait and see how your other responses go before I get into that.

[puritan lad]

To "interpret" means to explain the original sense of a speaker or writer. To interpret "literally" means to explain the original sense of the speaker or writer according to the normal, customary, and proper usages of words and language. Literal interpretation of the Bible simply means to explain the original sense of the Bible according to the normal and customary usages of its language. (p. 29)

I do that too. The disagreement is over what determines "normal and customary usages of its language". We see things like "coming on the clouds", "sun darkened, moon turned to blood", etc. throughout the Bible, and it is clear that these things were never to be taken "literally". In order to understand prophecy, we need to find out what these things do mean. Otherwise, you cannot be consistent in your method, ie. Matthew 16:27-28 cf. Matthew 25:31.

Also, you object to taking the Daniel 12:2 allegorically, but have no problem taking the resurrection of Revelation 20:4-5 allegorically. Indeed, you must, because a literal resurrection in Rev. 20:4-5 absolutely destroys the possibility that 1 Thess. 4:16-17 can be a pretrib rapture.

In finality, I object you your method of avoiding the NT to interpret OT prophecy. You wrote that, "we interpret the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, not vice-versa." The problem here is exemplified by your question, "Since you believe the OT passages are not to be taken literally, and since it took Jesus and the apostles to come along hundreds of years later to give their proper meaning, then how were the Jews to whom they were written supposed to know what God actually had in mind?" The answer; "they didn't". That is the point of the New Testament. The Jews got it wrong, yet your method of intepretation agrees with them. The NT is the only way we can understand OT prophecy. (More on thus later. I'm still busy with Fortigurn's "extra-biblical" arguements.)

[Jac3510]

I do that too. The disagreement is over what determines "normal and customary usages of its language". We see things like "coming on the clouds", "sun darkened, moon turned to blood", etc. throughout the Bible, and it is clear that these things were never to be taken "literally". In order to understand prophecy, we need to find out what these things do mean. Otherwise, you cannot be consistent in your method, ie. Matthew 16:27-28 cf. Matthew 25:31.

I've said it a million times, I don't see "coming in His kingdom" as a technical term for the Second Advent. I believe my method is consistent - context is king. I try to do exegesis first, and let that inform my theology.

Also, you object to taking the Daniel 12:2 allegorically, but have no problem taking the resurrection of Revelation 20:4-5 allegorically. Indeed, you must, because a literal resurrection in Rev. 20:4-5 absolutely destroys the possibility that 1 Thess. 4:16-17 can be a pretrib rapture.

No, I take that literally. How does that destroy a pre-trib rapture?

In finality, I object you your method of avoiding the NT to interpret OT prophecy. You wrote that, "we interpret the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, not vice-versa." The problem here is exemplified by your question, "Since you believe the OT passages are not to be taken literally, and since it took Jesus and the apostles to come along hundreds of years later to give their proper meaning, then how were the Jews to whom they were written supposed to know what God actually had in mind?" The answer; "they didn't". That is the point of the New Testament. The Jews got it wrong, yet your method of intepretation agrees with them. The NT is the only way we can understand OT prophecy. (More on thus later. I'm still busy with Fortigurn's "extra-biblical" arguements.)

I'm looking forward to the extra arguments, because, as I've said before, the Jews didn't have their eschatology wrong. Jesus never rebukes them for that. What He rebuked them for was their soteriology. They thought they could be saved by works, and that was why the rejected Jesus. In other words, they rejected Him on soteriological grounds, not on eschatological grounds.

Anyway, that will be a fun discussion. I've got a ton of stuff here beside me on why we should interpret the NT in light of the OT. Maybe the Hebrews 10 debate will jump start us into that. It'll make a good example for both of our positions.

God bless, and have fun with Fortigurn.