You are here1 Thessalonians 4 and The Second Coming of Jesus

1 Thessalonians 4 and The Second Coming of Jesus

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By RevelationMan - Posted on 05 May 2007

In this article on 1 Thessalonians 4 and The Second Coming of Jesus, A Personal Revelation author Eric Fugett examines the passages in 1 Thessalonians 4 with regard to the “Second Coming of Jesus”. I recently sat down with a preacher and tried to explain my preterist view of the “End Times” to him. After I had explained all of the usual suspects pretty well, he immediately turned to 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 and asked me what that had to do with the destruction of Jerusalem. After I began my explanation, he then went on to ask me why the Thessalonians needed to know about the destruction of Jerusalem. We had been intensely discussing these issues for almost two hours and it was now for me to go. I told him that I would get back to him with an answer.As I was driving home from the church office, I began thinking about why the Thessalonians needed to know about the destruction of Jerusalem. I will now attempt to explain to you why not only the Thessalonian church, but every 1st Century church needed to know about the destruction of Jerusalem.

In Acts 13:5, after Paul & Barnabas have been sent out by the church, the first place that we are told that they proclaimed the word of God was in the Jewish synagogue at Salamis. In Acts 13:14, when they entered Pisidian Antioch, Paul and his companions also went to the synagogue. In Acts 14:1, we are told that Paul and Barnabas usually went to the Jewish synagogue when they entered a city. We are told in Acts 17:2 that it was Paul’s custom to go to the Jewish synagogue when he entered a city. As a matter of fact, the city that Paul entered in Act 17:1-2 was Thessalonica. I could go on, but I think I have established that when Paul entered a city, the first place that he usually went was to the Jewish synagogue. I believe it is more than reasonable to conclude from this, and the passages in John 7:35 and James 1:1, that there were probably Jews, of the dispersion, (who had been scattered since Assyria & Babylon attacked the 10 Northern and two Southern tribes respectively) in every church in the first century.

We know from the gospel accounts of the crucifixion, as well as from the book of Acts, that Jews from other places came to Jerusalem for certain holidays (Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 15:21, and Acts 2:1-12). So, if the Second Coming of Jesus is referring to the 3 ½ year period that Rome attacked Jerusalem, culminating in its destruction in 70 AD (See my article on the 1st & 2nd Coming of Jesus), then wouldn’t it make sense for Paul and John (the book of Revelation) to warn members of the church not to go back to Jerusalem if the time for its destruction was drawing near? After all, didn’t Jesus himself warn the apostles that Jerusalem would be destroyed (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21)? Didn’t Jesus say that He would return on the clouds (meaning that he would send a nation for judgment purposes as in Isaiah 19:1, Jeremiah 4:13, Ezekiel 1:4, 1:28, and Daniel 7:13) and bring judgment on that generation of his time (Matthew 10:23, 23:36, 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32). So with the above given as an introduction, let us now begin to examine 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11.

Paul begins in 1 Thessalonians 4:13 by talking about those who die, but refers to them as being asleep like he does in 1 Corinthians 15. 1 Corinthians 15 is not the only other place that we find the state of the dead being referred to as a state of “sleeping” (See Matthew 9:24 or Mark 5:39 or Luke 8:52, Acts 7:60, and Acts 13:36). We know that the dead were conscious and in holding places because of passages like 1 Samuel 28, Matthew 17:1-8 or Mark 9:2-13 or Luke 9:28-36, Luke 16:19-31 (find one parable where Jesus uses a real name), Revelation 6:9-11, possibly 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 if it occurred when Paul was stoned and left for dead, and the historical writing entitled, “Josephus’ Discourse to the Greeks On Hades”. So if verse 13 is referring to the dead, then verses 14-17 are referring to “The Resurrection”. I think most, if not all of you, will agree with that statement. So let’s examine how and when this resurrection of the dead is to occur.

According to verse 14, “The Resurrection” will occur at the time of the Second Coming of Jesus. Verse 15 tells us that those who are/were currently dead will/would be resurrected before those who are/were alive at the time Paul was writing. The next thing we are told, in verse 16, is that some trumpet will sound at Jesus’ command and at the time that those who are dead will be resurrected. Then verse 17 tells us that after the dead are resurrected, those who are alive, will from that time forward get to go to be with Jesus and the resurrected forever. Is it possible this means that those who die in Christ, after the resurrection of the dead occurs, will from that time forward never have to go to a holding place but will go straight to heaven to be with God? I guess the only way to answer that question is to keep reading.

Most people usually stop with verse 17 or 18. However, Paul’s thoughts on this subject continue into chapter five. In verses 1-3, Paul tells his contemporaries that he does not have to give them dates or times, because this day of the Lord will come unexpectedly. In verse four, he says that while people are saying, “Peace and safety,” destruction will come on them suddenly. Now where have I heard this “Day of The Lord” phrase with reference to people crying peace, and with some type of destruction involved? I think these phrases were used in reference to Babylon’s destruction of Jerusalem (See my article on the Day of The Lord, Jeremiah 6-11, particularly 6:13-14, 8:10b-11, Ezekiel 13:10). So if the Day of the Lord in the Old Testament referred to the first destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, then maybe the Day of the Lord in the New Testament is referring the destruction of Jerusalem by Rome. Maybe that explains why there hasn’t been a temple for almost 2,000 years. Maybe it also explains why the church is referred to as the New Jerusalem (Galatians 4:26, Hebrews 12:22-23, and Revelation 21:1-10).

Let’s not forget that all of this is to occur, from what we just read in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:3, at The Second Coming of Jesus. Again, I ask, is it possible that what the Second Coming of Jesus is really referring to is the 3 ½ years that Rome laid siege to Jerusalem from the time around Passover of 67 AD to the destruction of the city in 70 AD just before the Jewish Feast of Trumpets (See my article on the 1st & 2nd Coming of Jesus)? Is it possible that the first seven trumpets of the book of Revelation were in reference to the Feast of Trumpets from 63 AD to 69 AD (Read my book, “A Personal Revelation”)? Is it possible to date the book of Revelation as September 11/12 63 AD, based on John being in the spirit on the Lord’s Day and then hearing the first trumpet in Revelation chapter one (See my article on Dating the Book of Revelation)? I guess that’s only true if the Feast of Trumpets occurred on a Sunday evening in 63 AD. IF you check a calendar (http://www.abdicate.net/cal.aspx) you will find this to be true. So is it also possible that The Resurrection occurred on the Feast of Trumpets in 70 AD (See my article on The Resurrection of The Dead)? Eight is the number of resurrection in the Bible (Jesus rose on the 8th day was a popular saying in the church, Noah’s family was the only survivors of the flood, and Vespasian was the true 8th emperor of Revelation 17 that revived Rome after Nero’s death.).

Paul ends his discussion on this topic, with his contemporaries (those who are as verse 17 puts it, “still alive”), about The Coming of the Lord or Second Coming of Jesus (not a coming of the Lord) in verses 4-11. He warns them to stay alert, bringing to mind such parables as “The Ten Virgins, and others at the end of Matthew 24-25. He reminds that God did not appoint them to suffer wrath and that Jesus died so that they/we could receive salvation. Therefore, as Paul says, “He died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.” Let us, who are alive and left today, not forget why we are here either.

Reformer's picture

The Bible does not use "second coming" terminology and for a good reason -- it is inappropriate.

As George Eldon Ladd well expressed: "The words 'return' and 'second coming' are not properly speaking Biblical words in that the two words do not represent any equivalent Greek words" (The Blessed Hope, Eerdmans, 1956, 69.)

I suggest that we'd be well advised to drop this terminology, as well, in our presentations of the preterist view. But old habits are hard to break (:-).

For more on this, go to www.prophecyrefi.org to the second panel down and click on the article "He Never Left: A Theological Breakthrough of Significant Potential?"

mazuur's picture

John,

you crack me up. Do you have some computer program that monitors PlanetPreterist that scans for the words "second coming"? You are like clock work. As soon as those two words appear next to each other in an article, you appear out of nowhere.

Of course, we can all read Heb 9:28, and understand what it's clearly conveying. Because the two words "second coming" don't appear in that word order, they do appear. I can say "second coming" or "appear a second time". Both mean exactly that same thing. So, this "terminology" will not be disappearing from presentations any time this side of eternity.

-Rich

-Rich

Reformer's picture

I must respectfully and fully disagree. Hebrews 9:28 only highlights two special comings of many !!! But this in no way limits the comings (plural) of Jesus to only two times. Please see John 14:18-19, for instance.

Also, please see the web site referenced for more on this.

mazuur's picture

Thanks John, and I know you disagree. I have read your presentations of the idea that you hold to. I do not intent to debate this topic with you *again*. I just thought it was funny the way you disappear from PP, but when those two words appear in an article you pop up like clock work. I just had to chuckle.

-Rich

-Rich

Reformer's picture

Why would you say that I "disappear from PP" ???

Did you not see my latest post on April 19th (of many) title "Kingdom Come: The Final Victory" ???

It seems to me that you have not been able to effectively counter any of the points I have raised. Instead, you simply disparage and/or make fun of my comments ???

mazuur's picture

C'mon John, you know as well as I you never pop up unless the topic is "second coming". Yeah, you might have posted one here or there, but you got the point and you know it is true. And, it was nothing more than a friendly humorous chuckle. But, it seems your defensive attitude once again came shining through as usual. I was merely making a little fun...it's called humor.

But since you feel the need to lash out, let's lash.

"It seems to me that you have not been able to effectively counter any of the points I have raised"

That is not true. You merely refuse to accept any counter because you want your position to be true so bad Christ himself could correct you, and you would probably inform him he is wrong too. So, it is not that I haven't, more telling would be that you just refuse to accept anything unless it agrees with you. So, spear me that whole line of crap. It's clear your mind is already closed and blinded to anything other than what you want to hear on that topic. Everything else, is just words from people too blind to see your truth.

You have debated your distorted idea here several times (and I mean several) to many people, and not a one has ever agreed with you (at least I haven't seen one yet). One would think that would tell you something. But, like I said, Christ could probably tell you himself and you would disagree. Pride is so very powerful, isn't it?

Feel free to respond. I am done with you. It's clear you have no room (and probably not many friends with that attitude) to joke around with other people. I'm sorry I tried...but, don't worry, lesson was learned.

-Rich

-Rich

Reformer's picture

Well, what can be said to these comments of yours expect, unless you can convince me by the testimony of the Scriptures (which you haven't attempted and which I have provided extensively), then here I stand I cannot to otherwise.

And why shouldn't I expect this kind of treatment from a tradition-bound/blinded preterist as well as from premillers, etc.? In the words of the 18th Century, French philosopher, Voltaire:

"Our wretched species is so made that those who walk on the well-trodden path always throw stones at those who are showing a new road."

Blessings,

JN

mazuur's picture

peytonlucy,

I agree with you. The problem in contained in your words here:

"Many people interpret "coming" to be earthly, due to the first coming being earthly."

Yes they (futurist) do, but that is a meaning they are pouring into it. That error though doesn't negate whether or not the phrase is accurate or not. Hebrews is clear Christ would appear a "second time" unto salvation, thus completing all there was to complete (to destroy the *last* enemy to be destroyed, i.e. "the death" (1 Cor 15)). If Christ has destroyed the *last* enemy and completed *all things* that were promised in the law and the prophets, more "comings" are not required nor promised.

John's problem is he is trying to remove the distinction between what I would call an "eschatological coming" and a "coming" used in its technical definition.

For example, obviously God has selectively acted in this world throughout time, and will continue to move in world history and in individual lives well beyond our time. Who knows what God is doing in the world today, but we wouldn't call these acts as "comings" in the same sense the Old and New Testament refer to God and/or Christ "coming". I think it's clear the Bible makes a distinction between God merely acting in the world, which technically could be called a "coming", and Him "coming".

If one removed this distinction, then the writer of Hebrews could not refer to Christ appearing a "second time" (in AD70) as his "second", because Christ actually appear many times between His first (time on earth) and the events in AD70. The NT recorded Him appearing many times to believers, and doing things like giving instructions, prior to AD70, yet, the writer of Hebrews calls His appearing in AD70 as His "second".

John is removing this distinction. And when ones position makes the writer of Hebrews in error, it is clear he has gone off the deep end.

Now, I am all for not using the term when in dialog with a futurist because it carries certain errors in their mind, and would make it easier to break through said mindset, but it's a Biblical accurate term, and the distinction is there.

So, again I would hold they mean exactly the same thing.

-Rich

-Rich

flannery0's picture

Rich,

I like what you are saying here, and I think the point is that what Hebrews refers to as the "second time apart from sin for salvation" was a once and for all coming. It was the coming of Christ's presence with His people. To suggest there are other "comings" beyond that is to deny what that "second coming" FULFILLED. It is also to suggest that we lack something in the way of His presence now, which in effect denies our completed redemption. This denial of redemption is at the heart of all forms of futurism, whether they be packaged preteristically or not. :)

Tami

Reformer's picture

Dear Rich and Tami,

You are totally misconstruing and misusing the import of the Hebrews 9:28 verse. It neither limits nor terminates Christ's many comings in his unending kingdom, here on this unending earth, in our unending age. Rather, it highlights two very special ones, again, of many. Period.

flannery0's picture

Dear Reformer,

Either Christ is present with us now, or He is not. If He is present with us now, then in what possible way would He need to come again?

"In thy presence is FULLNESS of joy, and at thy right hand are pleasures FOREVER more."

Tami

Reformer's picture

Dear Tami,

His presence never left even after He ascended, as He said (Matt. 28:20). And his comings continued on throughout, again, just as He said(John 14:18,19).

Re: what possible way would He need to come again? you ask. For many various reasons, and as He desires and wills, as in both OT and NT times.

Virgil's picture

John, my presentation at TruthVoice 2007 dealt with some of those issues about "coming again" - I suggest you read Eliade's "The Myth of Eternal Return" because it may give you some new avenues to expand your position. Right now I think your approach to the multiple comings is too mechanical and rigid in that it doesn't offer much in the sense of personal relevance and eschatology to believers today, unless of course it is being deduced from a first century context.

Instead, I recommend we look at the Biblical narrative as a whole, in its entirety. This would help us place ourselves appropriately INSIDE the story, rather than outside of it, and interacting with the creator via "comings" rather than being inextricable parts of his plan and narrative.

The differences may be minor, but they are important.

Reformer's picture

Thanks for the reference, Virgil. I'll do that. As we've discussed, this is still a concept that is very much in development and surely far beyond our human grasp.

mazuur's picture

Tami,

Good words! We have truly enter into His "rest" (Hebrews 4) haven't we?

-Rich

-Rich

PastorDave's picture

Hey guys! :)

First of all, where is the link to log out when yer done???

You know, I know a guy who does the same thing. He says that "Jesus has come and will come many times".

I tried to explain to him that he needs to be careful around Futurists, because they take that as him saying that Jesus has and will come *physically* many times. Kind of the opposite of what is going here, I think. :)

These are the facts (and anyone dsputing them is arguing against sanity itself!):

1) Jesus came physically to Earth.

2) Jesus died and then rose and then ascended and was seated on His throne
and began to rule over all nations at that time (Dan 7:13-14).

3) Jesus said He'd return. He was referencing His "second coming", or if
you prefer, His "appearing a second time"". He was *not* referencing
"multiple comings in whatever spiritual form someone says He has and
does and will". The Scriptures are being very specific here about
what they mean, or it wouldn't say, "a second time". It is the purpose
of the "appearing" that we are discussing here.

4) Saying that Jesus has appeared to people, like Paul, or that He comes
and takes us to Heaven now, has absolutely nothing to do with what
the prophetic NT passages about His return are talking about! He did
not appear for all to see until 70AD (or one might argue starting during
the Jewish War in 66AD).

5) To try to place all of these things together and bunch a bunch of "comings"
together, is to negate the second most talked about thing in the NT, which
is THE RETURN OF CHRIST!!! Why would they make such a big deal about this
certain return, if it was not different than the rest?!

6) The writers did not say, "appearing a second time...", if they really meant,
"appearing to do this among many appearings and we shouldn't say "second".
Whether you like it or not, THEY DID SAY "SECOND"!!!

7) The return was stated by Jesus and He didn't say; "Oh, but I'll really be
returning many times". He told them to look for His return. If Christ
"returning" as this person wants to relegate it to is what is was about,
then why did Christ make such a big deal about it in His discourse in
Matt 24/Mark 13/Luke 21 and in His words to John in Revelation?! It is
obvious that this was a special coming/return and that it is singled out
as a special (and therefore very different) event!

So basically, cut the crap John/Reformer, or whatever your name is! You are
NOT "unifying people/prophecy"! You are dividing people! And when you try
to act like the return of Jesus IN JUDGMENT is no different than any other
"coming" as you like to call them, then you are in fact saying that Jesus
just stood there and wasted a lot of breath, making it so important! And
so important, that it is obviously the second most important and second most
talked about thing in the NT (behind initial salvation)!

I'm sorry John, but I prefer to think that you're wasting my time, instead
of thinking that Jesus wasted everybody's time and that is the end of that
and I find YOUR words which try to contradict what Jesus specifically said
was important, to be OFFENSIVE!

Now you go ahead if you want to and try to change the subject (I know your
type and it's the first thing they do when they can't face the facts and
don't want to have to answer to the specific statements made, but prefer
to argue against what they wish I said), claiming that I am saying that
Jesus could only return once, blah, blah, blah. The truth is, I haven't
said a word one way or the other about how I feel about that. What I did
say, is that as far as Him coming for all to see (not Him as a physical
being standing in front of us) to judge and resurrect, this was a special
event, which happened only once.

I know that you will probably now want to stray off and talk about how
we are each immediately resurrected to life and Jesus comes to receive
us and all that, but again, that would be you avoiding the subject!
And it would be intentional on your part, because you know very well
that I am talking about the general resurrection into judgment (and
for saints to pass through it unto eternal life).

Gee, isn't it interesting that I knew up front, without ever having
read anything you wrote before this thread today, exactly what you
would try to say/do, John?!

Yea, interesting, huh?! You're not unique John! There's lots of you
out there, who refuse to even respond on point and twist words and
just don't care what the facts are and who divide, while claiming to
try to unite everyone! If that is so, then how is it that you're the
one guy here arguing against everyone else? (:

Sorry Guys. I had to let that out. :) I hate seeing people trying to play
word games! I debate almost daily and it's always the same type of thing!

--

± Pastor Dave ±

\

Duncan's picture

Could you explain the concept of a 3 1/2 year Second Coming (oops I mean Parousia ;-). I get the picture of something from Star Trek where somebody is transported and it takes a little while for all the molecules to transport. Where do you get this idea of a 3 1/2 year coming?

Duncan

Duncan2's picture

Can anybody explain this idea of a 3 1/2 year coming to me?

Duncan

mazuur's picture

Duncan,

Revelationman stated,

"Let’s not forget that all of this is to occur, from what we just read in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:3, at The Second Coming of Jesus. Again, I ask, is it possible that what the Second Coming of Jesus is really referring to is the 3 ½ years that Rome laid siege to Jerusalem from the time around Passover of 67 AD to the destruction of the city in 70 AD just before the Jewish Feast of Trumpets (See my article on the 1st & 2nd Coming of Jesus)?"

Here's that article.

http://home.comcast.net/~todaystheophilus/1st_2ndComingsr1.htmL

-Rich

-Rich

RevelationMan's picture

I have posted articles on the 1st & 2nd Coming of Jesus. You can look at my website, www.todaystheophilus.com and here on PP.

Just think about how many times we see the numbers 42 months, 3 1/2 years or 1260 days which all mean the same thing. Also Jesus' first coming, so to speak, was the 3 1/2 years of his ministry. Wouldn't it make sense and explain all of the events involved with the "2nd Coming" much better than just 70 AD itself?

Eric Fugett

watton's picture

Eric,

Who are the dead/asleep of v13,14,16? Does this refer to biological dead New Testament believers? Old testament saints? Unbelieving Jews of the past and present. Gentiles and/or Jews in a state of sin-death but not biologically dead?

What is the resurrection? The biological dead believers receiving new bodies (physical or spiritual) and abiding in heaven? Or is it another way of referring to the new birth? That is the union of the believer to the body of Christ that only becomes fully consummated when the old covenant is obliterated in the events of AD 70?

Does this sound off the wall to you? I recently read Max King's big book - The Cross and the Parousia of Christ. And this is how these terms are primarily interpreted, especially in 1 Cor 15 and many at PP I suspect concur. There is much I learned in King's book, and if anything it has cured me of expecting a physical resurrection of believers. In my estimation though King confuses the resurrection with the new birth and unnaturally interprets death to mean sin-death way too often.

So returning to this article: What is your answer for the preacher?

mazuur's picture

Watton,

"I recently read Max King's big book - The Cross and the Parousia of Christ."

Good you hear! Now if we could only get more people to read it.

" if anything it has cured me of expecting a physical resurrection of believers."

Also good to hear!

"unnaturally interprets death to mean sin-death way too often."

Could you give some examples? I would be interested in seeing where you think they differ.

-Rich

-Rich

watton's picture

To be honest, I am totally unconvinced by King's interpretation of 1 Cor 15, and in my humble opinion I see every reference to dead, death, asleep, in 1 Cor 15, and 1 thess 4 as referring to biological death. Paul makes it obvious when he is talking about sin-death by using terms such as "dead in your sins", etc. As does Jesus, "let the dead bury their own dead". Of course there are a few passages that are ambiguous - otherwise what is there to left to argue about!

Starlight's picture

I am tending to agree with your recognition of Max’s work concerning death. I recently purchased the same book at Rich’s recommendation and find it useful as a reference work but am not completely convinced on this subject either. I almost feel like Max may have led us Preterist down a road of confusion and possibly made our work with partial preterist more difficult to reconcile. My perception is that Max’s understanding just makes 1 Cor 15 and Thess 4 more difficult to deal with than it should be. If you read the scriptures concerning bodily resurrection the way Max appears to instruct it would be very difficult for his audience to follow a plain straightforward meaning that appears to be rendered. I think it is dubious to consider that Paul’s audience would have had Max’s steeped insight concerning bodily resurrection. Even if Paul himself understood it as Max does I do not believe his writings indicate that position as strongly as Max infers. We need to continue to put ourselves in the shoes of those who Paul was writing to and discern if they could have readily comprehended Max’s nuanced understanding. I see in Max’s work a complexity that makes his analysis somewhat tedious and not practical at times and I believe he reads his own complexity into the subject at hand to strongly.

This is just some of my thoughts as I have entered into Max’s work and by no means indicates where I will eventually come out. Also his work is difficult to glean from due to an inordinate amount of time and response spent on refuting futurist. If his book had been written as a study guide for preterist you would have a book about one third the size it is. And one would not have to waste so much time reading through the futurist argumentation.

Blessings

Norm

mazuur's picture

Hey Norm (just like cheers),

I find your statements confusing. I might be wrong, but isn't it you that is in complete agreement with Don Preston's work (I may be thinking of somebody else)? Don presents the exact same understanding as Max, as does Sam Frost (as do I, but I'm a nobody, so that doesn't count). :)

"I think it is dubious to consider that Paul’s audience would have had Max’s steeped insight concerning bodily resurrection. Even if Paul himself understood it as Max does I do not believe his writings indicate that position as strongly as Max infers. We need to continue to put ourselves in the shoes of those who Paul was writing to"

That is just it. If you put yourself into their shoes you would be completely confused on the resurrection. How could Paul teach the Corinthians face-to-face for over a year-and-a-half (Acts 18:11), and for them to still completely fail to understand the resurrection? Paul's Epistles to the Corinthians show they didn't understand it. The fact that Paul had to expound in such detail concerning it also shows they failed to grasp it. The fact that Hymenaeus and Philetus completely misunderstood, and the fact that they could so easily mislead people taught by Paul, also shows they completely misunderstood it. The Jews probably didn't have any problem understanding, because they understood Paul's "body" motif and Paul's references to Israel (as the dead), but the Gentiles were completely confused by Paul's presentation. I wonder if it had something to do with that old Greek vs Hebraic mindset.

Could you imagine talking face-to-face with Paul for over a year-and-a-half and still being confused on the resurrection? Doesn't seem possible yet is was so.

"straightforward meaning that appears to be rendered"

What is this "straightforward meaning"? If it was so straightforward why all the confusion by those taught by Paul?

"I see in Max’s work a complexity that makes his analysis somewhat tedious and not practical"

Wow, I don't see that at all. I find it very clear and simple, once you grasp the whole concept he is presenting, and completely in-line with what Paul presents throughout Romans, especially 5-11, as well.

Have you listened to Sam's 7 part series on 1 Cor 15? You can download them from his website (iTunes also). He does an excellent presentation. Not quite as thorough as Max's book, but he definitely hits the highlights. Maybe you have misunderstood Max. I know there were some parts in Max's book I had to read 3 or 4 times (I'm not that bright) before I understood what Max was trying to say. Some I was never able to figure out until I had read something by either Sam or Don.

-Rich

-Rich

Starlight's picture

Rich,

Don’t let it confuse you; I’m the one who is confused ;-)
I attempted to illustrate with words that indicated I’m very much into the early stages of Max’s book and as I stated toward the end I have no firm conclusions as this is a work in progress for me. I am somewhat overwhelmed by Max’s book because to really investigate it properly will require several hours of pouring over his material to gather his complete rationale. It is just a luxury that I do not have at the moment.

I also want to be more careful of Max, Don’s and Sam’s work and independently verify this subject for myself. Then I want to reexamine their work to determine if what I have learned will pass muster with their positions. What I mean by back off is not to accept their premise carte blanch but to test their positions to see if they will hold up completely. I feel comfortable with many of the positions already but it may take months or more for me to work through this question concerning bodily resurrection. What concerns me about this issue is I have a premise that I use in helping me discern whether a theological position is worth entertaining and one of those is the complexity of the position. I do not think Adam’s entering into sin and death is that difficult to fathom and I believe it is the theology that drives the whole Bible including the Jewish questions. Therefore I tend to believe that Paul’s dealing with sin and death in Romans and 1 Corinthians should not be overly difficult to reconcile either. I look at Paul’s usage of Adam in both writings as a strong indication that “sin and death” are the primary subjects involved and not corporate bodily Jewish resurrection. I just have to understand the balance and that is where I find myself at the moment as I believe that issue concerning the Jews is possibly a secondary point.

I just ordered Don Preston’s new book on “Resurrection” and am looking forward to working through it as well. You also have to remember Rich that I have only come to Preterism a little over a year ago and I spend a lot of my time in the Genesis debate and research and therefore I’m splitting time between OT and NT subjects which just inhibits me in some of my NT subject investigations.

I’m not exactly sure how confused they were as it appears that Paul in 1 Cor 15 seems to assume their knowledge and uses it to show how they knew enough to properly understand the points but were simply disregarding and possibly rejecting the resurrection. He called them “fools” for doing so which indicates more of a rebellious nature than confusion. That is why he exhorts them at the end to remain firm in their recognition that “sin and death” is about to be defeated and they will be entering into the new covenant era.

The tedious comment I made refers to Max having to expound against futurist positions as he writes his work. If he was able to assume a convinced preterist crowd reading his book he could leave out a substantial amount of refutation which tends to bog down his work with excessive points that most of us already recognize. I do recognize that his book was written nearly twenty years ago and he might approach a commentary for preterist in a more streamlined approach. I hope he does so with his new forthcoming book on Romans. He and Don tend to both write in a scholarly fashion which satisfies scholars but it requires lay individuals to spend more time reconciling the text than typically needed to garner the points being made. That just so happens to be one of my pet peeves that I will just have to get over though ;-)

I haven’t listened to Sam’s work that you mention but I definitely need to as Sam is a great NT resource as well and it would be good to maybe listen to his work after I read Don’s new book.

Blessings

Norm

mazuur's picture

Norm,

Sorry dude. I misunderstood you. I see now that you did state you basically just started Max's book, so you haven't even got to his presentation on 1 Cor 15 (that is the last half of the book).

I will tell you this. One can basically skip the first 150 or so pages of his book. Like you were pointing out, he starts off dealing with presentations by other scholars and their positions. He is showing how skeptics are able to debunk Christianity by showing that Christ (and the Apostles) expected to return in the 1st century, but since he didn't, he was wrong.

There is other stuff you can skip too. When I get home tonight, I will scan through the book and let you know which parts you can skip. That will save you a bunch of time, and yet still allow you to get all that King is presenting on the resurrection. To tell you the truth, I wish somebody would have done that for me before I started in on that book. Much of it one can go back and read at a later date for additional filler information.

-Rich

-Rich

mazuur's picture

So, in 1 Cor 15:26 when Paul states, "The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.", he is referring to physical death?

Here is one (of many) problems with that.

In the Greek, what the NKJV translates "that will be destroyed" is not correct. The verb there is a present passive. It correctly should read "is being abolished". Death was being abolished in the 1st century, in Paul's day. How was physical death being destroyed in Paul's day? Especially in light of Isa 65-66, which tells us that physical death will be present in the "New Heavens and Earth".

Paul also uses the definite article when referring to the death that will be abolished. Thus, it should read "the last enemy that is being destroyed is the death" (the same as Romans 6). What death is Paul referring to? It is sin-death (the death of Adam). Sin-death is all Paul deals with throughout 1 Cor 15, as well as Romans. That is what Christ came to conquer. Christ didn't need to die on the cross to conquer physical death. This is clear because God raised dead people physically in the OT. Christ raised them in the Gospels, and Paul and Peter raised them in Acts.

Max doesn't really deal with the Greek in his book. Sam Frost does however present a lot of the correct Greek. You should get his book (pretty small book too). It is called "Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead". Excellent book!

This is just one of many passages in 1 Cor 15 that uses the present passive verb. I was amazed after Sam Frost brought these points out. Upon listening to him I proceeded to check the Greek and sure enough, there they were. Today's translation are horrible. But, they merely reflect the futurist bias. I was/am horrified how these men have completely change tenses to get around presenting what the Greek says merely to hold on to their future perspectives.

-Rich

-Rich

watton's picture

Yes. Why can't Paul just mean that physical death is no longer the end? Souls no longer go to Hades (which has been destroyed around AD 70) but continue to be united with Christ after physical death. And that is it. No future physical bodies for the most part. But it is always conceivable that God may choose righteous men or women for a temporary assignment that requires some sort of physical body - such as Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration. Its obvious that sin on the otherhand is still thriving - the best you can argue is that the consequences of sin is no longer separation from God.

mazuur's picture

Because Paul is saying that *death* was the last enemy, and *it* was going to be destroyed. If Paul was referring to physical death, then man should no longer physically die. But, Paul is not dealing with physical death, thus the reason man still dies today.

-Rich

-Rich

Fredrico's picture

For a long time I tried to understand the Max King, Sam Frost view of 1 Cor 15. I wanted to go along with what they were saying but I did not see it in the Scriptures. After a while, I went back to view it the way I used to and it made much more sense. I believe Paul was speaking about the resurrection of those that died physically. It is the plainest sense to be taken from this chapter.

Now Paul states 1 Corinthians 15:26 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

The question I had about this verse is why does that have to be taken universally? Christ defeated death at His resurrection. I think that the death spoken about hear is only for those being discussed. Death was destroyed for those who were resurrected and those who were raptured. Those resurrected came out of death to never die again. I do not think it was referring to people of all ages.

I still have many questions about this chapter so I cannot be too dogmatic about it. There is much in this chapter to take into consideration from a first century view. Is not that what preterism is about? Just my ideas.

Fred

Starlight's picture

Fred,

“why does that have to be taken universally? Christ defeated death at His resurrection”

I think you make a good point. Even though it is universally available, it requires an individual response.

“Death was destroyed for those who were resurrected and those who were raptured.”

What do you mean raptured?
Are you speaking in a literal sense or are you speaking of a spiritual covenantal sense. Adam and Eve were introduced into the world of sin and death after they rebelled and ate, simply by having their eyes opened and revealing their spiritual nakedness as they entered into this world of sin and death.
Paul describes the mystery of the end of sin and death as occurring for those living simply as a twinkling of an eye which is reminiscent of Adam and Eve’s experience. Nothing rapturous about that is seems but simply a covenantal change again. Also Paul recognized that those who experienced it would now be spiritually “clothed” at that point.

Blessings

Norm

Fredrico's picture

Hey Norm,

The covenantal change began to happen at Pentecost and continued after. I think too much is made about the covenantal change in 70 AD. It had been happening since Pentecost. As the OC was obsolete and fading away the NC was continuing to grow as new converts came to Christ. There cannot be just part of a covenant. The NC was inforce fully, not partially.

Hebrews 9:16-18
16 For where there is a will, the death of the one who made it must be proven.
17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it carries no force while the one who made it is alive. 18 So even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.

Christ had already conquered death at His cross and resurrection. When the resurrection of the Saints occurred in 70 AD that last enemy of the OC Saints was destroyed. I do not think it was speaking about death destroyed for all people throughout the ages because that was accomplished before.

I was referring to a literal rapture of the first century Christians. I do not think this is a thread to get into that discussion. If a covenantal change were taking place throughout the 40 years after Christ’s ascension then the only ones affected by it would have been those that rose from the dead but that did not affect the living. As I said, I still have many questions about this.

Blessings,

Fred

Starlight's picture

Fred,

Thanks for your nice response.
Of course I agree that the covenantal change started with Christ coming. And yes, too much emphasis can be implied by some concerning AD70.

The point I want to make is that the covenantal change was finalized with the removal of the Temple worship system thus effectively ending the old covenant just as Hebrews tells us and restores us fully to the presence of God through the dissolution of sin and death which Adam precipitated upon mankind.

Gen 3:6….and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked;
Rom 5:12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world….Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam

1 Cor 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive….So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being" ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

49 Just as we have borne the image of the earthy, we will also bear the image of the heavenly….in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable,…
"Death has been swallowed up in victory."

(1 Cor 15:22 NRSV) for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, THEN AT HIS COMING THOSE WHO BELONG TO CHRIST.
Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power.
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
THE LAST ENEMY TO BE DESTROYED IS DEATH.

It appears to me that the completed covenantal change which inaugurates resurrection (ETERNAL) life as God’s completed process of fulfillment does not occur until Christ “Coming” as stated above.

Just as Hebrews describes the actions of the High Priest that Christ filled, we must then realize that the sacrifice of the High Priest was not confirmed as accepted by God until the High Priest (Christ) made his second appearance before the people confirming to them that the sacrifice for “the people” had been accepted.

That is the typology of the pattern that Hebrews presents for us and of course the Jews would readily understand this even though we today seem to forget some of the Priestly functions that his Coming fulfilled besides the fulfillment of his prophetic destruction of Jerusalem. So indeed there was more to AD70 than just vengeance.
It did indeed affect the living as well.

Blessings

Norm

Fredrico's picture

Norm,

I understand your point and have argued against it several times. As I said, I do not take the covenantal idea for the resurrection. I believe salvation was accomplished at the cross and resurrection of Christ. I believe nothing more was or is needed for our salvation than that. The gospel does not mention the so-called second coming or return of Christ. That is not necessary to believe for salvation. We were all saved thinking Christ was going to come in the future.

Another issue I am surprised that preterist do not seem to get. It is the often-quoted verse in Hebrews.

Hebrews 9:28
28 so also, after Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, to those who eagerly await him he will appear a second time, not to bear sin but to bring salvation.

I think you should go back a few verses to put this in the context.

Hebrews 9:19-26
19 For when Moses had spoken every command to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 and said, "This is the blood of the covenant that the Lord has commanded you to keep." 21 And both the tabernacle and all the utensils of worship he likewise sprinkled with blood. 22 Indeed according to the law almost everything was purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. 23 So it was necessary for the patterns of the things in heaven to be purified with these sacrifices, but the heavenly things themselves required better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ did not enter a sanctuary made with hands--the representation of the true sanctuary--but into heaven itself, and he appears now in God's presence for us. 25 And he did not enter to offer himself again and again, the way the high priest enters the sanctuary year after year with blood that is not his own, 26 for then he would have had to suffer again and again since the foundation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the consummation of the ages to put away sin by his sacrifice.

The first appearing of Christ according to these verses had nothing to do with coming out of any temple. I have argued against the analogy for 9:28 also. Christ’s first appearing was in the flesh being born of a virgin and anointed with the Holy Spirit at the beginning of His 3 ½ years of ministry.

The book of Hebrews contrasts the beginning of the OC with the beginning of the NC. Both covenants required the shedding of blood and by the way, you will never find the temple mentioned in Hebrews because it was speaking of the start of the OC. The analogy makes little sense if you really take time to compare the events. Christ did not have to come out of the heavenly tabernacle before the people new His blood was accepted. They already new He was accepted and seated at the right hand of the Father. Did the High Priest do that during the earthly sacrifice? Salvation was given to all who believed along with the assurance they were saved also.

Romans 8:15-16
15 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery leading again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, "Abba, Father." 16 The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit that we are God's children.

Galatians 4:6-7
6 And because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, calling "Abba! Father!" 7 So you are no longer a slave but a son; and if you are a son, then you are also an heir through God.

They had just as much assurance of their salvation as we do of ours. Their salvation was not in question. The deliverance from their circumstances in a world full of persecutions, trials and hardships was a deliverance they were looking for. It was no covenantal change that did nothing for their well-being nor made one change in the danger they faced daily. They were already saved and ‘in’ or ‘under’ the NC.

Norm, this is what makes sense to me as I have studied these Scriptures. I know my view is in the minority but I must stay true to my convictions. I put down no one for holding different views about this complicated subject.

Blessings,
Fred

Starlight's picture

Fred,

I do respect you although I have come to a different conclusion. Each man must be convinced in his own mind.

One of the ways that I developed a better grasp of Hebrews was to remove the detail scriptures and put the affirmative statements together. Sometimes one can easily loose the flow of Hebrews because of the minutiae inserted in between major points. I have listed below a section of chapter 10 and 11 pointing out the theme more concisely.

This theme recognizes as you do that they are already in possession of the better and more lasting but they were to hold on so that they would also receive what was promised. This timing was to be in just a little while. Then the writer illustrates those who are also waiting for that which was promised who were already asleep. But one must recognize that at the end of this listing of the worthies of old we have this recognition that they would not be made perfect apart from us.
Paul illustrates the timing as well in Thessalonians.
(1 Th 4:15 NIV) …we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep….and the dead in Christ will rise first….After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.

This being caught up in the air refers to our eternal condition that Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 15 detailing there how we will be changed. This goes back to my post earlier where I stated that it occurs just as it did with Adam in only a twinkling of an eye for those alive.

(Heb 10:34 NRSV) ….knowing that you yourselves possessed something better and more lasting. Do not, therefore, abandon that confidence of yours; it brings a great reward. For you need endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.

For yet "in a very little while, the one who is coming will come and will not delay;

but my righteous one will live by faith. My soul takes no pleasure in anyone who shrinks back."
But we are not among those who shrink back and so are lost, but among those who have faith and so are saved.

11:13 All of these died in faith without having received the promises, but from a distance they saw and greeted them. They confessed that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth,

39 Yet all these, though they were commended for their faith, did not receive what was promised, since God had provided something better so that they would not, apart from us, be made perfect.

Paul also recognized this future perfection (salvation completion) process and illustrated the same principal of waiting for its perfection in Philippians.

(Phil 3:10 NIV) I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death,
and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already been made perfect, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me.
Brothers, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead,
14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.

Paul again reinforces the same position in the Romans section that occurs right after the section that you quoted in your first response.

(Rom 8:22 NIV) We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.
For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?
But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.

There you have it as I understand it.
Of course Fred you and I both agree that the most important issue is Christ and Him crucified. What we are discussing here I believe is an important issue but the most important one is Christ.

Blessings

Norm

Fredrico's picture

Norm,

I forgot to address another issue that I feel many are mistaken about.

1 Corinthians 15:20-22
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have died.
21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all die, so also all will be made alive in Christ.

The thing to consider about verse 22 is that it says, “in Adam all die” not all are dead. Paul is still talking about physical (biological) death here. I question the idea of ‘spiritual death’. That is a theological term not a Biblical one. For almost thirty years, I believed in spiritual death and I know all of the theological arguments for it. At least most of them. Just because Adam did not die the day he ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil most assume he had to have spiritually died. The threat of death toward Adam was real but God was not about to fulfill it. First of all, the severity of the threat was to let Adam know the importance of it and secondly had Adam died then there would not have been any redemption for man. Adam did die as a result of his disobedience just as all others after him did, with the exception of Enoch and Elijah.

I will admit all are born with a depraved nature that leans toward sin and are in need of the salvation Christ performed on the cross. Christ’s blood must be applied to them.

1 Corinthians 15:31
31 Every day I am in danger of death! This is as sure as my boasting in you, brothers and sisters, which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord.

How could Paul be in danger of death every day if this was speaking of spiritual death? It would make no sense. It was physical death that he was in danger of.

1 Corinthians 15:48-49
48 Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly. 49 And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven.

I doubt Paul is speaking spiritually here. We have all borne the image of the man of the dust. I see that referring to our whole being, our body and mind. We are fit for this world, to travel and communicate with earthly things. Our spiritual body will be fit for heaven.

These are some of my ideas that work for me.

Blessings,
Fred

Starlight's picture

Fred,

You may have mentioned your position already but I wanted to clarify something. Do you believe that Christ is coming physically back to earth again and if you do could you state what your rationale for his return would be? Are those that have died since AD70 waiting for his return so that they may then join Him and God in Heaven? If there is no need in your estimation for a resurrection call at that time what purpose would Christ return fulfill in the future? Is it to destroy the physical Earth?

I’m sorry if you have already answered some of these issues but if you could clarify them for me it would help me understand your position more completely. Thanks for indulging me again.

Blessings

Norm

Fredrico's picture

Norm,

Thanks for hanging in there if I seem to be unclear. The whole issue of what those first century believers were expecting at the Parousia is a highly debated topic among preterists, as you probably know. I guess whatever you see the expectation verses to mean will depend on how one interprets other things.

1Thess 4:15-17 does, as you say, show both living and dead receiving the same promise together. The covenantal view of this portion of Scripture does make a difference of what these two groups receive. Philippians 3 fits perfect with 1 Thess 4.

Philippians 3:7-21
7 But whatever things were gain to me, those things I have counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8 More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish in order that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him, and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. 12 Not that I have already obtained it, or have already become perfect, but I press on in order that I may lay hold of that for which also I was laid hold of by Christ Jesus. 13 Brethren, I do not regard myself as having laid hold of it yet; but one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and reaching forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15 Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, have this attitude; and if in anything you have a different attitude, God will reveal that also to you; 16 however, let us keep living by that same standard to which we have attained. 17 Brethren, join in following my example, and observe those who walk according to the pattern you have in us. 18 For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, 19 whose end is destruction, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things. 20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; 21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.

Paul’s goal was to attain to the resurrection from the dead. He wanted to receive the same thing they did. That he states in verse 21. We have the words transform, changed, redemption and caught up in 1Cor 15, 1 Thess 4, Romans 8:22 and Phil 3. They all speak of the body being changed but of course, the covenant groups say this body is the OC body and not an individual’s earthly body. These two mindsets look at all of these verses in a different light and will always be in opposition. The question I have is can they get along or will they destroy themselves through bitterness, arrogance, pride and sometimes hate. I do not want to put down others for their different view or act as though I have a full understanding above others because I do not. I will state my ideas and why I have them from a Biblical position and then leave it at that. I will certainly not try to force anyone to believe as I do.

Norm you said, what we are discussing here I believe is an important issue but the most important one is Christ. AMEN to that

Norm, I believe in the Parousia in 70AD or somewhere around there. I am sorry I cannot be more certain of times and dates or what our future holds. I do not look for Christ to come as the futurists do. The only thing perfect I have is my standing before God in the righteousness of Christ.

Blessings,
Fred

Starlight's picture

Fred,

I’m still enjoying our discussion, I’ve only been a Preterist for a little over a year and I looked at the early church rapture that Ed Stevens had written about and found what I thought were too many conflicts. I do think it appears to answer one of the questions that seemed to be burning in most of the NT writings concerning what they were looking forward too with such great expectations. I found the idea that the Apostle John would have been left behind as a real show stopper though and many other issues that kept getting in the way.

I find the section from Phil 3 a very good reference as you have pointed out. Although I would look at verse 21as indicating a transforming of our spiritual state which I have also previously indicated is I believe the nature of 1 Cor 15 and 1 Thes 4.

“will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory”

I realize that you have been at this subject for many years and I honor your patience and dedication and especially your generous spirit of open communication.

Blessings

Norm

Fredrico's picture

Norm,

You will find many different ideas among preterists and that is normal for people in general. You will find confusion and inconsistencies within preterism. Be cautious in what you accept to be true. You need God to prove all things to you as you prove to yourself what is true Biblically.

There are going to be people that disagree with me and I with them. I will not make a big deal about it any more. I do not expect my friends to fully agree with me either.

The resurrection and rapture are two of many topics that need discussion, civil discussion. I have not arrived at a full understanding of what is in the Bible and no one else has either so we need to stop acting as though we have. In my opinion discussions need to be more humble but others may disagree.

Blessings,
Fred

davo's picture

watton: …the best you can argue is that the consequences of sin is no longer separation from God.

Ooo man, but that's it in a nutshell, "the best" – how we have missed it. The death that the sin introduced, and that was subsequently strengthened by the law, WAS that which separated man from his Creator – even beyond death, i.e., hades. Yet this is exactly what the last Adam undid.

Yes we still sin, and yes there can be consequences for such errors in relation to our fellows – hence James' injunction in relation to SIN and sin's CONFESSION to: "confess your trespasses one to another…" Jas 5:16. BUT with regards to man's standing before God, as it was, lost "in Adam", THAT has been reconciled and reestablished through Christ. Now it is the grasping of this wondrous reality that has benefits in this life in the of assurance of the heart, and that is why we have a gospel message to share – because as we are transformed, so is our world transformed; and that is what the revelation of God's forgiveness in Christ brings – "the best".

davo

RevelationMan's picture

Why does it have to be one way or the other? Why can't their be a resurrectio of Israel as well as a resurrection of souls. Why couldn't believers be resurrected in Christ at that time and to go to heaven with Judgment Day? Revelation 20 says that two sets of books were opened. One was for Israel, the other was for The Resurrection Day. Why are we doing away with death & Hades in Revelation 20 if there was no resurrection of souls at that time. Now we as believers go straight to heaven rather than sleep as Paul often refers to it.

I thought I answered the question for the preacher early on. Jewish Christians needed to know what is in these passages to avoid being caught in Jerusalem when Rome came.

Death is not always spiritual death.

Eric Fugett

watton's picture

Actually, I was playing devil's advocate a bit and in general I concur with your article and your answer here. You may be right about the warning not to go to Jerusalem, but I don't think it will satisfy the preacher. Paul doesn't explicitly mention Jerusalem or Judea. The early church was persecuted by Jews and there may also be an element that their joy may be complete to see the enemies of Christ and the old covenant destroyed. Still reading 1 Thess 4 straight through makes me think that expectations demand a rapture!

RevelationMan's picture

May I suggest that this rapture or gathering as in Matthew 24 is in reference to the Christians getting out of Jerusalem after Cestius Gallus brought his troops into Jerusalem and for some unexplained reason left. Could it be that many of the things mentioned in Matthew 24 were a timetable as to when to get out before Rome comes? Trumpets = Feast of Trumpets, figs are harvested in Elul (August-September), gathering possibly Feast of Ingathering or as we know it today, Tabernacles. Remember that whole thing about when you see the armies surrounding Jerusalem with this events occur? Isn't that when he told them to get out? Just a thought as far as the rapture is concerned.

Eric

Eric Fugett

RevelationMan's picture

This my first opportunity to respond. We are currently fostering 4 children with the intent to adopt them & their younger brother. I was playing football with my boys when I tore my patella tendon. I will be having surgery within the next couple of days. Sorry to start something I may not have time to defend rignt now. However, I'll try to answer a few posts right now.

Eric Fugett

davo's picture

OUCH!! Well take care bro and take your time.

davo

RevelationMan's picture

Thanks Davo. I had my MRI today. I will find out the results tomorrow. Hopefully, the patella tendon is the end of my damage. It was a beautiful interception that was partially negated by my run after the catch injury. (:-)

Eric Fugett

RevelationMan's picture

Can someone explain to me the Preterist view on The Resurrection? Are there not three meanings? One in reference to becoming a Christian (John 3 & 5:19-27), on in reference to Israel (Daniel 12:1, Rev. 21), and one in reference to souls/spirits(not bodies) being resurrected on Judgment Day (John 11:17-26, Hebrews 9:27)?

Eric Fugett

Fredrico's picture

If you read 1 Cor 15 carefully, you will see that bodies were resurrected. No, they were not physical bodies as those who came out of the graves at Christ’s resurrection. They were spiritual bodies fit for their heavenly inheritance.

Fred

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
23%
No only registered users should comment
77%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 43