You are hereProphecy 2.0
Prophecy 2.0
by Virgil Vaduva
Gary DeMar wrote an excellent article about the prophetic shift seen in Christianity today, but I believe that while Gary is pointing out some valid problems with Dispensationalism, he is also forcing us to ask what kind of hope is postmillennialism bringing to our lives? Postmillennialism still expects a random return of Christ, a physical return of Christ and a destructive return of Christ in which everything we work for will be wiped out and destroyed after which the bad guys will get theirs in an eternal torment in hell. So, how does changing the timing of the Parousia in relation to the millennium give us hope about a bright future for humanity where our actions really can make a difference, where we can improve the environment, work on issues of social justice, learn to make peace, and bring the world closer to Christ? Well, the answer is, it does not change anything! The most reasonable and hopeful solution for a bright future is that of a past fulfillment of the return of Christ. Past you say? Are you crazy? Gary DeMar wrote an excellent article about the prophetic shift seen in Christianity today, but I believe that while Gary is pointing out some valid problems with Dispensationalism, he is also forcing us to ask what kind of hope is postmillennialism bringing to our lives? Postmillennialism still expects a random return of Christ, a physical return of Christ and a destructive return of Christ in which everything we work for will be wiped out and destroyed after which the bad guys will get theirs in an eternal torment in hell. So, how does changing the timing of the Parousia in relation to the millennium give us hope about a bright future for humanity where our actions really can make a difference, where we can improve the environment, work on issues of social justice, learn to make peace, and bring the world closer to Christ? Well, the answer is, it does not change anything! The most reasonable and hopeful solution for a bright future is that of a past fulfillment of the return of Christ. Past you say? Are you crazy? If emerging Christianity is committed to tipping every sacred cow on the pasture and not leaving any stone unturned, it needs to also seriously reconsider its eschatology in light of Scripture. As I have noted before, there is a noticeable shift, just as Gary observed, in both prophecy and the Christian take on important social issues which have been largely ignored for the past hundred years because of the imminent return of Christ. Younger Christians are wholesale rejecting Left Behind doctrine and are instead embracing more positive worldviews which enable them to have a confident view of the future and gives them the motivation to promote issues important to their generations: social equity, war and peace, nonviolence, environmentalism, etc.
This search for meaning on the part of emerging Christians is creating a problem for those who are not eschatologically inclined in that the motivation for the positive outcome is the driving factor in realizing the presence and manifestation of the Kingdom, the Presence (Parousia) of Christ and all the other societal improvements we strive for. At the opposite spectrum we have those of us subscribing to a fulfilled eschatology by seeing the terribly negative and terrifying events described in Revelation as being already fulfilled at the fall of the Jewish temple in A.D. 70. As a result we have the opposite problem in that we struggle to grasp the “what now” question and understand that although we know that the Kingdom is here, Christ’s Presence is real and the world is not burning in a fire any time soon, we still try to figure out what it all means and what it should lead to.
Both emerging Christians lacking a fulfilled eschatology and fulfilled eschatologists lacking the motivation of emerging Christians are finding a new common and exciting ground which helps us all to address the contemporaneous problems experienced today not just by the Church as a result of Left Behind-style eschatology, but also experienced by the world at large, a world looking to us for answers which are more than often lacking. This is why a pre- or post-millennial prophetic paradigm will not work and will continue to fail to provide the necessary confidence in a bright future and the motivation to better that future without the fear of any-moment-destruction coming in the form of Christ’s nuclear Second Coming.
Rarely something dramatic happens without the aid of a dramatic paradigm shift, and in this case our understanding of prophecy requires such a dramatic shift in our understanding of the timing and nature of the Parousia. After all, I have personally met Christians who did not attend College, went into deep financial trouble and debt and became socially and politically inactive as a result of their eschatological expectations: an imminent destruction is at hand, and nothing really matters after all.
A re-imaging of prophecy is necessary in order to offer those solutions we long for both as Preterists and as emerging Christians. Understanding that the return of Christ has already happened and that is not a random event, understanding that it was physically manifested in the destruction of the Jewish temple, and understanding that the destruction was very specific and very localized to Jerusalem in A.D. 70 should prompt us all to rethink how we relate to the world in which we live; it should prompt us to reconsider the solutions we offer to the world, regardless of what kind of problems we face.
So as postmodern Christians are looking for the eschatology to justify their pro-active faith and societal involvement, so are Preterists looking for the societal involvement and pro-active faith in which to manifest their eschatology. There is no better time than now for cow tipping and re-imaging of Prophecy into something that is both scriptural and also does not require long-term Valium prescriptions. I hope that we can all become partners into making God’s dreams for this world become a reality. I believe that eschatology is a big part of that dream, and becoming partners on this journey is one of the most exciting thing we can do as Christians.
You can learn more about Preterism at: http://preterism.com
You can learn more about Emerging Christianity at: http://www.emergentvillage.us/
If David Chilton's perspective is correct about being blessed to a "thousand generations," and a generation is 40 years, then we are looking down a nearly 40,000 year road. We've got trouble in River City today, and you guys are complaining about something that will not take place, given some interpretations of Revelation 20, for another 40 millennia! Revelation 20 is an enigma to me, that's why I have only dealt with what the chapter does not say. Most early postmillennialists built their case for postmillennialism without reference to Revelation 20. I have followed their example. For example, John Owen builds his case for "postmillennialism" (a name given to the idea of the advance of Christ's kingdom) in 7 points without a reference to Rev. 20. A.A. Hodge follows a similar pattern, again, with no reference to Revelation 20. Revelation 20 is not descriptive of a millennium and should not be used to support ANY millennial position. Some of you may think you know how Revelation 20 should be interpreted, but nothing I've read is very convincing.
G. DeMar
Gary, we cannot start counting years now like the Dispensationalists are doing. That will only lead us to the same wrong conclusions they arrive to. "Thousand generations" is not a box humanity was put in - it's rather an unlimited, never-ending age...the age to come which Jesus spoke of. The symbolic language does not stop with Chilton's view of the thousand generations.
Also, I cannot even pretend to be the guy to teach you (especially you) anything, but Revelation 20 doesn't seem to be that hard to understand. The "millennium" (which you are right...it is not being mentioned at all) being the 40 years in the first century (AD 30 to AD 70) seems to be quite a reasonable understanding of the chapter. Most folks you named have ignored Rev. 20 because they refuse to see the Parousia as taking place in AD 70, therefore Rev. 20 cannot make sense - they are just being consistent to their eschatology.
The bottom line still remains though, even with your explanation: tommorow or 40 thousand years from now we are still wiped out when Christ returns. The folks living 39,999 years from now will likely experience the same depression many are experiencing today. As long as the Parousia is a future event motivation lacks in my opinion.
Thanks for the response though; I hope that we can continue to exchange those important ideas and learn from each other.
Gary, we cannot start counting years now like the Dispensationalists are doing. That will only lead us to the same wrong conclusions they arrive to. "Thousand generations" is not a box humanity was put in - it's rather an unlimited, never-ending age...the age to come which Jesus spoke of. The symbolic language does not stop with Chilton's view of the thousand generations.
Well said, Virgil!
Also, I cannot even pretend to be the guy to teach you (especially you) anything, but Revelation 20 doesn't seem to be that hard to understand. The "millennium" (which you are right...it is not being mentioned at all) being the 40 years in the first century (AD 30 to AD 70) seems to be quite a reasonable understanding of the chapter. Most folks you named have ignored Rev. 20 because they refuse to see the Parousia as taking place in AD 70, therefore Rev. 20 cannot make sense - they are just being consistent to their eschatology.
Excellent points, again! I wholeheartedly concur concerning the fulfillment of the "millennial reign" period during the AD 30-70 period. If Gary would like a further Scriptural exposition concerning that Biblical and historical reality, I would be happy to provide him with one.
The bottom line still remains though, even with your explanation: tommorow or 40 thousand years from now we are still wiped out when Christ returns. The folks living 39,999 years from now will likely experience the same depression many are experiencing today. As long as the Parousia is a future event motivation lacks in my opinion.
Again, we are 100% in agreement on this, Virgil! Futurism of any kind remains a direct affront to God and His Person and Character - an actual denial of the credibility, truthfulness and reliability of His Word.
JM
Why is it believed that the "millennium" is referring to AD 30 to AD 70? Does it not fit more with AD 33/34 to AD 63/64 or the time of peace experienced by the church shortly after Paul's conversion to 64 when Nero begins persecuting the church? Wouldn't that also make it pretty easy to date the book of Revelation to The Feast of Trumpets in AD 63 since there are 7 Trumpet soundings in the book & Jerusalem is destroyed just before a Feast of Trumpets? Wouldn't 30 years be a better fit for the code 1000 (10x10x10) years? Wouldn't the release of Satan from the Abyss better fit the time period beginning with Nero's persecution? Doesn't that better fit the whole Daniel 7 scenario where the saints are handed over to Nero for 3 1/2 years until his death in AD 68? Doesn't that explain the shift in Revelation 17 where the beast and the 10 horns go after the Lamb but are unable to defeat Him (the church) so they turn on the prostitute (Jerusalem) and burn her with fire. Doesn't it then make sense that Judgment Day was on The Feast of Trumpets in AD 70 just after the destruction of Jerusalem (you know the whole trumpet sounding & dead in Christ rising thing) since 8 is the number of resurrection in the Bible ?
But I'm the one who says that the 2nd Coming of Jesus was the 3 1/2 years from the Spring of AD 67 when Vespasian arrived in Jerusalem with the Roman armies until the destruction in AD 70. I am the one who tries to point out how all of the signs before his coming were fulfilled in the fall of AD 66. I'm a frustrated nobody. What do I know?
Eric Fugett
Eric,
You might find this information interesting although I suspect you are already aware of it. I posted an article here last October in which I was highlighting how the Hebrews liked to utilize numbers and I'll just let you read that excerpt from my article. It's located here at PP titled "East of Eden Revisited"
http://planetpreterist.com/news-5101.html
"Just to reinforce how this designation of long life entails a singular Godly indicator lets look at the life spans that were given to Abraham and his progeny as an example. These long life spans with numerical meanings may have been lost to us from antiquity but it’s apparent they meant something special to the Hebrews.
Abraham 175 years =7 X 25 5 (squared)
Isaac 180 years = 5 X 36 6 (squared)
Jacob 147 years = 3 X 49 7 (squared)
Joseph 110 years = 1 X 25+36+49
I don’t think we can attribute these life span numbers to coincidence as it appears that Joseph is the culmination of the Abraham line numerically"
This is just another indicator that you may possibly be on the correct path.
Blessings
Norm
Norm,
I read your article & thought it was great. Thanks for your hard work & desire for the truth.
After reading your article, I went back & read the first couple of chapters of Josephus' Antiquites Book One. Is it possible that both Seth's line lost their way & angels came down & had children with women? I say this because of the following explanation of Genesis 6 given by Josephus:
"ANTIQUITIES BOOK 1, CHAPTER 3.
CONCERNING THE FLOOD; AND AFTER WHAT MANNER NOAH WAS SAVED IN AN ARK, WITH HIS KINDRED, AND AFTERWARDS DWELT IN THE PLAIN OF SHINAR,
1. NOW this posterity of Seth continued to esteem God as the Lord of the universe, and to have an entire regard to virtue, for seven generations; but in process of time they were perverted, and forsook the practices of their forefathers; and did neither pay those honors to God which were appointed them, nor had they any concern to do justice towards men. But for what degree of zeal they had formerly shown for virtue, they now showed by their actions a double degree of wickedness, whereby they made God to be their enemy. For many angels (11) of God accompanied with women, and begat sons that proved unjust, and despisers of all that was good, on account of the confidence they had in their own strength; for the tradition is, that these men did what resembled the acts of those whom the Grecians call giants. But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land."
And likewise, is it possible that the flood included all mankind at that time. According to Josephus, the table of nations are descended from Noah's sons as shown below:
"ANTIQUITIES BOOK 1, CHAPTER 6.
HOW EVERY NATION WAS DENOMINATED FROM THEIR FIRST INHABITANTS.
1. Now they were the grandchildren of Noah, in honor of whom names were imposed on the nations by those that first seized upon them. Japhet, the son of Noah, had seven sons: they inhabited so, that, beginning at the mountains Taurus and Amanus, they proceeded along Asia, as far as the river Tansis, and along Europe to Cadiz; and settling themselves on the lands which they light upon, which none had inhabited before, they called the nations by their own names. For Gomer founded those whom the Greeks now call Galatians, [Galls,] but were then called Gomerites. Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians. Now as to Javan and Madai, the sons of Japhet; from Madai came the Madeans, who are called Medes, by the Greeks; but from Javan, Ionia, and all the Grecians, are derived. Thobel founded the Thobelites, who are now called Iberes; and the Mosocheni were founded by Mosoch; now they are Cappadocians. There is also a mark of their ancient denomination still to be shown; for there is even now among them a city called Mazaca, which may inform those that are able to understand, that so was the entire nation once called. Thiras also called those whom he ruled over Thirasians; but the Greeks changed the name into Thracians. And so many were the countries that had the children of Japhet for their inhabitants. Of the three sons of Gomer, Aschanax founded the Aschanaxians, who are now called by the Greeks Rheginians. So did Riphath found the Ripheans, now called Paphlagonians; and Thrugramma the Thrugrammeans, who, as the Greeks resolved, were named Phrygians. Of the three sons of Javan also, the son of Japhet, Elisa gave name to the Eliseans, who were his subjects; they are now the Aeolians. Tharsus to the Tharsians, for so was Cilicia of old called; the sign of which is this, that the noblest city they have, and a metropolis also, is Tarsus, the tau being by change put for the theta. Cethimus possessed the island Cethima: it is now called Cyprus; and from that it is that all islands, and the greatest part of the sea-coasts, are named Cethim by the Hebrews: and one city there is in Cyprus that has been able to preserve its denomination; it has been called Citius by those who use the language of the Greeks, and has not, by the use of that dialect, escaped the name of Cethim. And so many nations have the children and grandchildren of Japhet possessed. Now when I have premised somewhat, which perhaps the Greeks do not know, I will return and explain what I have omitted; for such names are pronounced here after the manner of the Greeks, to please my readers; for our own country language does not so pronounce them: but the names in all cases are of one and the same ending; for the name we here pronounce Noeas, is there Noah, and in every case retains the same termination.
2. The children of Ham possessed the land from Syria and Amanus, and the mountains of Libanus; seizing upon all that was on its sea-coasts, and as far as the ocean, and keeping it as their own. Some indeed of its names are utterly vanished away; others of them being changed, and another sound given them, are hardly to be discovered; yet a few there are which have kept their denominations entire. For of the four sons of Ham, time has not at all hurt the name of Chus; for the Ethiopians, over whom he reigned, are even at this day, both by themselves and by all men in Asia, called Chusites. The memory also of the Mesraites is preserved in their name; for all we who inhabit this country [of Judea] called Egypt Mestre, and the Egyptians Mestreans. Phut also was the founder of Libya, and called the inhabitants Phutites, from himself: there is also a river in the country of Moors which bears that name; whence it is that we may see the greatest part of the Grecian historiographers mention that river and the adjoining country by the apellation of Phut: but the name it has now has been by change given it from one of the sons of Mesraim, who was called Lybyos. We will inform you presently what has been the occasion why it has been called Africa also. Canaan, the fourth son of Ham, inhabited the country now called Judea, and called it from his own name Canaan. The children of these [four] were these: Sabas, who founded the Sabeans; Evilas, who founded the Evileans, who are called Getuli; Sabathes founded the Sabathens, they are now called by the Greeks Astaborans; Sabactas settled the Sabactens; and Ragmus the Ragmeans; and he had two sons, the one of whom, Judadas, settled the Judadeans, a nation of the western Ethiopians, and left them his name; as did Sabas to the Sabeans: but Nimrod, the son of Chus, staid and tyrannized at Babylon, as we have already informed you. Now all the children of Mesraim, being eight in number, possessed the country from Gaza to Egypt, though it retained the name of one only, the Philistim; for the Greeks call part of that country Palestine. As for the rest, Ludieim, and Enemim, and Labim, who alone inhabited in Libya, and called the country from himself, Nedim, and Phethrosim, and Chesloim, and Cephthorim, we know nothing of them besides their names; for the Ethiopic war (17) which we shall describe hereafter, was the cause that those cities were overthrown. The sons of Canaan were these: Sidonius, who also built a city of the same name; it is called by the Greeks Sidon
Amathus inhabited in Amathine, which is even now called Amathe by the inhabitants, although the Macedonians named it Epiphania, from one of his posterity: Arudeus possessed the island Aradus: Arucas possessed Arce, which is in Libanus. But for the seven others, [Eueus,] Chetteus, Jebuseus, Amorreus, Gergesus, Eudeus, Sineus, Samareus, we have nothing in the sacred books but their names, for the Hebrews overthrew their cities; and their calamities came upon them on the occasion following.
3. Noah, when, after the deluge, the earth was resettled in its former condition, set about its cultivation; and when he had planted it with vines, and when the fruit was ripe, and he had gathered the grapes in their season, and the wine was ready for use, he offered sacrifice, and feasted, and, being drunk, he fell asleep, and lay naked in an unseemly manner. When his youngest son saw this, he came laughing, and showed him to his brethren; but they covered their father's nakedness. And when Noah was made sensible of what had been done, he prayed for prosperity to his other sons; but for Ham, he did not curse him, by reason of his nearness in blood, but cursed his prosperity: and when the rest of them escaped that curse, God inflicted it on the children of Canaan. But as to these matters, we shall speak more hereafter.
4. Shem, the third son of Noah, had five sons, who inhabited the land that began at Euphrates, and reached to the Indian Ocean. For Elam left behind him the Elamites, the ancestors of the Persians. Ashur lived at the city Nineve; and named his subjects Assyrians, who became the most fortunate nation, beyond others. Arphaxad named the Arphaxadites, who are now called Chaldeans. Aram had the Aramites, which the Greeks called Syrians; as Laud founded the Laudites, which are now called Lydians. Of the four sons of Aram, Uz founded Trachonitis and Damascus: this country lies between Palestine and Celesyria. Ul founded Armenia; and Gather the Bactrians; and Mesa the Mesaneans; it is now called Charax Spasini. Sala was the son of Arphaxad; and his son was Heber, from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews. (18) Heber begat Joetan and Phaleg: he was called Phaleg, because he was born at the dispersion of the nations to their several countries; for Phaleg among the Hebrews signifies division. Now Joctan, one of the sons of Heber, had these sons, Elmodad, Saleph, Asermoth, Jera, Adoram, Aizel, Decla, Ebal, Abimael, Sabeus, Ophir, Euilat, and Jobab. These inhabited from Cophen, an Indian river, and in part of Asia adjoining to it. And this shall suffice concerning the sons of Shem."
These are just some things that I thought should be brought up concerning these issues. I think that these explanations are in line with passages like Hebrews 11:7, 1 Peter 3:19-20, 2 Peter 2:4-5, and Jude 6.
Eric Fugett
Eric,
I’ll start off by giving my option of Josephus; I believe we have to be very careful in utilizing his work as reference. A strong examination of his work tends to indicate many prejudices and cultural and human problems. Having said that I find his work most helpful in contextual areas but I also find him very human in his analysis and many times this humanness is less than desirable. He purports himself to be a Jew trained in Hebrew but if you compare his general understanding of scriptures and compare him to say Paul he comes up very lacking. You have to also look at his record of betrayal and who funded his writing of the book. He definitely had a Roman sugar daddy that he was indebted to and it is also apparent that some of his work was farmed out to others in research and becomes conflicting. My personal reading of his works leaves me with the impression of a writer some where between the likes of a National Enquirer author and a modern day commentator ala Rush Limbaugh type. I say all of this to emphasize my reservations in taking his word hook line and sinker, as we need to read it as an uninspired contemporary personal view of historical times.
Now concerning your question regarding marring angels, I’ve read a few commentaries on this question and all of them seem to discount the application of angels to the context. This appears to be a carryover of some previous misguided translations and many translations have taken the “angels” out of the wording in which I tend to agree. Now this brings me back to Josephus, I think we can rest assured that he had a faulty understanding of scriptures as he was one who rejected the Christ and therefore most likely would have read the scriptures in an immature physical connotation. This misunderstanding of the scriptures was just as rampant among the learned then as it is today as ones interest and presuppositions greatly influence ones view. If you would like some further references on this subject I’ll be glad to do so.
Now pertaining to Josephus description of the table of nations, as I have mentioned above I consider a lot of his “research” suspect and anecdotal and no better than the musings of many modern writers that pontificate upon their self indulgent pet perceptions. You have to ask yourself how his research would validate his opinions. It’s very questionable as a reliable historical accurate description, now that doesn’t preclude one from finding useful information derived from his works but I’m simply stating “buyers beware”.
If you are relatively new to the Flood debate you should probably start by reading Tim Martins works (he’s listed as a columnist) here at PP. Tim has eleven articles that will help set the setting on how we come to understand Genesis and the flood especially. Now Tim and JL’s forthcoming book will be a comprehensive start to finish work that will flesh out this subject quite extensively by presenting the Genesis to Revelation viewpoint. This is a much needed work in my estimation, as the work will reinforce how the Bible speaks in a similar covenant language from Genesis to Revelation and that is why there is so much agreement with it message.
Returning to the question of 1000 years being 10 cubed, I was interested in your take on the numbers and their significance concerning Abraham through Joseph. I found that very intriguing that they the Jews were using numbers in this manner. It brings into question the numbers in the large life spans in Genesis 5. I have attempted to decipher these numbers some times but keep hitting a brick wall.
I’m going to quote from a Genesis Commentary by Bruce K. Waltke some information that may give you or some one else a clue on some of these numbers.
Quote
“The expansive and incredible ages of the antediluvians have led some to explore the symbolic and poetic functions of numbers in the genealogy. In light of the narrator’s schematized use of ten and seven, it should come as no surprise if the other numbers in this genealogy also have symbolic value.
M. Barnouin has proposed connections between the ages of the antediluvians and the astronomical periods know to the Babylonians. For instance, Enoch’s 365 years (5:23) equal the days of the year, Lamech’s 777 years (5:31) equal the synodic periods of Jupiter + Saturn, and Yared’s 962 years (5:20) equal the synodic periods of Venus +Saturn.
Also, if the sum of the years at the time of fathering and of the total life spans from Adam to Lamech are each divided by sixty—based on the Babylonian sexagesimal system—the sum of the remainders is 365, again perhaps representing the perfect life span.
The cycles of a man’s years may match the cycles of the heavenly spheres to show that their lives follow a meaningful pattern and end with a completed cycle. The symbolism is significant!”
If anyone would like to tackle the math from the above equation here are the appropriate numbers.
Adam 130 800 930
Seth 105 807 912
Enosh 90 815 905
Kenan 70 840 910
Mahalah 65 830 895 (isn’t it interesting how the fathering ages decreased
Jared 162 800 962 by 25, 15, 20, 5 in the first five individuals)
Enosh 65 300 365
Methusalah 187 782 969
Lamech 182 595 777
Noah 500 100bflood/350aflood 950
Noah lived half a millennium before the flood
Thanks for the response.
Norm
Thanks Norm,
I just downloaded your article & look forward to reading it after I get the children to bed.
Eric Fugett
Eric,
Norm's article was what spurred Tim's new thoughts on the millenium.
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
Hi Eric,
It's been awhile. Good to see you back. Tim Martin has an interesting new take on the millennium. It's going to be a chapter in the new book. I'd forgotten about your view. Tim's is surprisingly compatible with it.
The early church documents that they saw the terms "day," "thousand years," and "generation" as synonyms. Generation did not have to mean precisely 40 years 4 months, 30 years also fits fine.
"This generation will not pass away" tends to imply a period of time longer than, but not much longer than a "generation." We will have to take you views into careful consideration.
Blessings,
JL
Blessings,
JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science
Hi JL,
I've been pretty busy. We are in the process of adopting 5 children. I'm working on two articles, one about Zechariah 12 & the Two Jerusalems & the other is 1 Thessalonians 4 & The 2nd Coming of Jesus. My website is www.todaystheophilus.com. My e-mail is todaystheophilus@comcast.net. I would love to talk more but have to go. Thanks.
Eric Fugett
Why is it believed that the "millennium" is referring to AD 30 to AD 70?
Because that's when Christ started his ministry and the fall of the temple signaled an end of a Covenant. They are just years...numbers...and "40" is not just a coincidence; it's a holy and whole number within Judaism, etc etc.
I do not believe the "coming" was progressive in that it took three and a half years for it to happen, but I do believe it should be likened very much with Noah's flood in that in essence it did begin with the baptism of Christ and ended with his return. With that said, I am not necessarily stuck on exactly 40 years, but you would have to explain why it shouldn't be 40.
Virgil,
I appologize if I came across in an attacking way. I was trying to pose questions that might lead to an understanding of what I meant but may have done a better job of just expressing my frustration. I do understand that 40 is a holy number. I do believe in the significance of AD 30 to AD 70 & the 40 years similarity to the Israelites wandering in the desert.
I just don't buy into the timing of 40 years on the millennium since Satan is released after it is over. As for the 3 1/2 year period of the 2nd Coming, the 1st Coming was also 3 1/2 years. One was to offer grace, salvation, & hope, & the other was strictly a judgment of the rejectors and redemption for the acceptors.
Eric Fugett
RevelationMan,
Never mind I clicked on user info and saw your profile that provided your name and website etc.
I will be getting your book very soon.
Thanks,
Rich
-Rich
RevelationMan,
"What do I know?"
I don't know, as I don't know who you are. Do you have a book or something that lays out your perspective? It looks and sounds reasonable and worth investigating.
Rich
-Rich
My point was that postmillennialists see a long history, and the older version did not usually base it on a reading of Revelation 20.
Since I don't have a ready answer to the meaning of Revelation 20, please do not lump me in with those who teach an inevitable future cataclysm.
If I understand you, 40 years is actually 1000 years? I've heard this argued before, and it's not very convincing.
If I understand you, 40 years is actually 1000 years? I've heard this argued before, and it's not very convincing.
Well yes and no - I am not proposing any mathematical equivalence here, but numbers in the Bible do mean things, and in this instance 40 and 1000 seem to be both indicating a wholeness or fullness. Israel was in the wilderness for 40 years, the flood rains lasted 40 days, the Temple fell 40 years after Jesus started his ministry, etc. A reign of 1,000 years is not necessarily indicative of literal years of 365 days, nor does it mean 40,000 literal years. It's a symbolic number which in my opinion symbolizes the roughly 40 year period of time during which the powers of evil and of Satan were restrained through the presence of Christ and the presence of the Holy Spirit in a very real sense here on Earth.
Why is this not convincing?
Virgil,
Because it's not based in Genesis. John is using a lifespan (they LIVED and reigned a 1000). That means it can only be one generation.
Here is Jim Jordan saying things he couldn't have understood at the time:
"God's Day for Adam lasted almost a thousand years (930 years). God's Day for the New Adam lasts a full millenium (Rev. 20:4, 6)."
Jim Jordan, Creation in Six Days, p. 91.
The 1000 years in the apocalyptic literature in Revelation comes ultimately from the apocalyptic ages we find in Genesis. Isaiah uses the same style when he talks about long ages in Isaiah 65:20. All are apocalyptic numerology referring to the redeemed state in Christ.
So long as Christians literalize the apocalyptic genre in Genesis they will consistently literalize Isaiah 65 (futurizing the New Heavens and Earth) and literalize the millenium where "they LIVED and reigned a 1000 years."
The millenium in Rev. 20 is a life-span. It refers to the period of 40 years (1 generation) in the first century. Jesus bound Satan during his ministry. The loosing of Satan was the great apostasy Jesus warned of. The fire from heaven is a reference to A.D. 70.
The solution to eschatology is found in the Genesis debate and the solution to the Genesis debate is found in eschatology.
The new Beyond Creation Science will lay all of this out.
Tim Martin
www.truthinliving.org
If I may step in here with a brief comment or two, Gary - I've seen it argued (and I agree) that the "millennial reign" is only identified as such - a "thousand year period" in the Book of Revelation, which is loaded with figurative numerology. Futurists love to use the 2 Peter 3:8 as a "chronological loophole" for the "gap theory", but if we were to apply that text to this question, the "millennial reign" COULD have occurred in a literal, 24-hour day. We do not, of course, subscribe to this usage of 2 Peter 3:8 (and I'm not suggesting you do either). My point is that there are various ways of viewing the millennial reign, and I find the 40-year absence of Christ from this planet highly satisfactory as that time of fulfillment. Here are just a few of the reasons why.
Christ's reign during that period was to be with a "rod of iron". Note Ananias and Sapphira's deaths over some simple, financial dishonesty; Saul/Paul's violent conversion experience on the Damascus road; Herod's being eaten by worms instantly for accepting worship and glory due only to God, etc. These are just a few of the overwhelmingly apocalyptic, supernatural, personal events that occurred during that period. To me, it is a manifestation of Christ's "iron rod rule" over the "world" of His People.
Furthermore, please note the following, in Rev. 1: 4 John, to the seven churches which are in Asia:Grace to you and peace from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 6 and HAS MADE us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.
Note John's usage of the present tense in v.6. The First Century saints were reigning WITH CHRIST during this period - a further evidence of fulfillment of the "millennial reign".
These are just a few of the Scriptural identifiers indicating fulfillment during that period. Just a few thoughts on this subject anyway, Gary. I have alot more evidence, but a whole article would be required.
JM
Gary,
My view (and I recently read something that makes me suspect that Dr. Scott Hahn shares this view) is that the 1,000 years refers to the literal time from David to Christ, and refers spiritually to Christ's reign from the time of David's death until His own Ascension to the Right Hand of the Power.
The short while that satan was loosed was the time Virgil speaks of, after Paul's conversion, until Christ's coming in AD70. This ushered in the New Age of the Messiah, the Age of the Resurrection. The Age we now live in.
ed
ed
Papa is especially fond of us
Was this David Chiltons belief...before or After he fell into the 'heresy' of Full Preterism...?
Brother Les
Brother Les
***************
With all that can be claimed to have been received in the way of "kingdom", it looks like we have also been bequeathed a mix that includes a host of "sacred white elephant cows".
Tipping just does not seem to be adequate dispensation for such weighty ... pardon my metaphors.
white elephant: Definition and Much More from Answers.com
One thing worth learning from the AD70 destruction of the Temple cultus is that true faith is not about a "high maintenance" religiosity.
Matthew 11:29-30 (ESV)
"29Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
"Acts 15:8-11
8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will."
The feeling of relief and freedom from an onerous "burden" is a common theme of those posting at such sites as:
ExChristian.Net!
What does the pret perspective have to offer those who have "deconverted" and "unburdened" themselves from the "yoke"of their former beliefs such as the former minister Dan Barker, author of: Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist
I can't as yet see/concede where Sam and KNeb can be credited with a sufficiency of solution, but it looks like they have a considerable grasp of the significance of the problems --
From the prior article (A Prophetic Shift on the Horizon):
**The consistent answer (and the atheists never, rightly, tire of telling Christians this) is that you can't pick and choose your miracles.** [Sam]
**This is first and foremost an epistemological issue. Sam understands that. Clark understood it. Bertrand Russell understood it. The “new” atheists understand it.** [KNeb]
Heavy religion? Get real!
Why should one be sold on, even the minimal, bearing an "easy yoke" or "light burden" when none of either would purportedly be "easier" and "lighter".
G1
...........................
G-Juan Wind
Great response to Gary's post-millennial perspective, Virgil! Without being aggressively confrontational or belittling...as you have pointed out above, the simple truth is that all forms of futurism are demoralizing for the modern Christian and sap him/her of what should be the energizing elements of our faith. All forms of futurism are, fundamentally, false and (I don't use this term lightly or inaccurately) blasphemous. To teach and believe that God used language that was so deliberately deceptive that the First Century Christians lived under the firm (and yet supposedly false and misguided/mistaken) conviction that Christ's return would be within their lifetimes, is horrendous. Preachers and teachers who promote the eschatological doctrine of "imminency" are literally blaspheming the God of the Bible. Unintentionally, they are presenting God as incapable of arousing true worship, devotion and commitment apart from the imminent threat of the annihilation of our world at any moment, and the termination of human history on this planet. The "church" has taught for centuries that, on the basis of fear, the devotees and followers of Christ must surrender their lives to Him and His (post-70 AD) "church", lest they perish at any moment. Talk about living a schizophrenic lifestyle, eh, Virgil? On the one hand, a person must resist evil and wickedness and "stand fast" against the darkness, while on the other, that person must expect all such efforts to be vain and fruitless in the very near end, and that to hasten the growth of wickedness in the world is to hasten the return of Christ (not that the latter point is ever taught outright or preached as such).
When God spoke these words in Heb. 9:28, they were focussed on the expectations of First Century saints undergoing unimaginable persecutions, who anticipated the return of Christ more eagerly than any Christians who have ever lived since (including all persecuted Christians in Communist and Muslim countries). Here is what God told the First Century saints in the midst of their suffering, To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation. On the basis of that one text alone - how DARE any preacher or teacher (sincere or otherwise) within Churchianity proclaim, on behalf of God and His Word, that God failed to keep this promise to those First Century saints. THAT is blasphemy and I, for one, will not tolerate it. Even in an atmosphere of openness, acceptance, tolerance and grace - my blood will boil and righteous wrath will be manifested if anyone dares to promote the doctrine of "imminency" as an accurate expression of God's agenda and timeframe of prophetic fulfillment in my presence.
JM
This is a great post, truly inspirational and worth downloading.
JSE
Thanks, JSE! There are some issues I do take very seriously and this is one of them. I had an excellent conversation with my cousin at Christmas and this was one of the points I brought up with him. He and his wife are Wycliffe translators in Mexico, and we got into a deep discussion of Preterism and its implications. I was very tactful for the most part, but I was unequivocal where the blasphemous nature of "imminency" is concerned. I believe we all, as Preterists, need to be very firm on this point. This has been a false fear tool wielded by futurist churchmen for centuries, and it must be exposed for what it is and its effectiveness terminated.
JM
It is long past time that we take the expressions "return" and "second coming" of Christ off the table of end-time debates. Why?
Because as the late great theologian George Eldon Ladd rightly observed, "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, p-69).
Simply put, these words not used in the Bible because they are not appropriate--i.e., they do not accurately describe or characterize his many different types of comings (plural).
First, "return" is inappropriate because Jesus never left, as He said (Matt. 28:20). Likewise, the expression "second coming" is inappropriate because the comings (plural) of Jesus are multifold in both the OT, NT, today, and in the future (see for instance John 14:18-19).
Now that places a different relevancy on "imminency" doesn't it?
Hi, Reformer! Good thoughts, and I understand your viewpoint...but I must disagree. The words "return" and "second coming" are both adequate, rough equivalent forms for the Greek "parousia" in the English. The fact that Christ's physical Person and glorified, resurrected Being were withdrawn from this planet and His spiritual Presence in the Person of the Holy Spirit took its place does not negate the fact that His representative, the Holy Spirit, was present among His followers for a period of history until He, Himself, returned to welcome all of them into His eternal, immediate Presence in the heavenly land of Promise and City of Zion, for eternity. There is no need, as far as I'm concerned, to take either of those terms off of the eschatological end-times debate table.
Simply put, these words not used in the Bible because they are not appropriate--i.e., they do not accurately describe or characterize his many different types of comings (plural).
I, personally, do not subscribe to the view that Christ's First Century Parousia was on par with various other "comings" identified in the Scriptures. I believe the terms in question DO, in fact, accurately identify and describe the highly unique nature of that First Century Parousia, and must be retained and used accordingly.
First, "return" is inappropriate because Jesus never left, as He said (Matt. 28:20).
19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
Balancing this text with John 16:4-16, "4 But these things I have told you, that when the time comes, you may remember that I told you of them. And these things I did not say to you at the beginning, because I was with you. 5 "But NOW I GO AWAY TO HIM WHO SENT ME, and none of you asks Me, 'Where are You going?' 6 But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart.
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. 12 I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14 He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15 All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.
16 "A little while, and you will not see Me; and again a little while, and you will see Me, because I go to the Father." and Acts 1:9-11, "9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And while they looked steadfastly toward heaven as He went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel, 11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven." we see that Christ's words to His followers in Matt. 28 involved a REPRESENTATIVE presence with them - not His ACTUAL, IMMEDIATE, PERSONAL presence. He did, indeed, LEAVE them and then He also RETURNED. The Scriptures are unequivocally clear on this point. See also the Parable of the Master and His Servants in Luke 19:11-27.
Likewise, the expression "second coming" is inappropriate because the comings (plural) of Jesus are multifold in both the OT, NT, today, and in the future (see for instance John 14:18-19).
Again, I must disagree. There were two, highly unique "comings" of Jesus identified in the New Testament. The first was in His phyiscal birth and the second was in His glorified return to the First Century saints.
Now that places a different relevancy on "imminency" doesn't it?
Not at all. We are considering the "imminency" doctrine as it specifically pertains to apocalyptic, eschatological prophetic fulfillment. The "comings" you refer to are not at all in the same category. I hope that helps clarify my position, Reformer! Thanks for your response!
JM
I agree with you that Jesus' many other comings are not, as you say, "on par with" these "two, highly unique 'comings' of Jesus," which are highlighted in Hebrews 9:28. I cannot, however, agree with your assertion that the Holy Spirit was Jesus' "representative presence with them."
Of course, Jesus did say He was to "go away." And yet He also said He would remained "with you." Fact is, He did both! And, yes, I know the traditional explanation for how He did this has been, what Jesus was really saying was He would be "with" them in the Person of the Holy Spirit, Whom He was to send at Pentecost. The verse "the Lord is the Spirit" (2 Cor. 3:17) and "the Spirit of Jesus" (Acts 16:7) are cited in support. But let's think about that a bit further.
The outpouring of the Holy Spirit was a separately and distinctly prophesied event in the Old Testament (see Ezek. 36:26-27; 37:9-14; 39:29; Joel 2:28-32) and a singular happening in the New Testament (see Acts 2). Furthermore, did Jesus really mean He had to “depart” to send Himself back? No New Testament text written twenty or more years later ever acknowledges this outpouring of the Spirit as a coming again of Jesus. To the contrary, many, subsequent, New Testament texts, were still anticipating this coming of Christ as yet-future.
Besides, if what Jesus really meant here was “the Holy Spirit would be with them always,” why be so cryptic or obscure? He wasn’t cryptic or obscure anywhere else when He spoke about the Holy Spirit. In John 14, for instance, Jesus spoke, distinctively and by name, about the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit’s coming (see John 14:15-29). He clearly differentiated between Himself and the Holy Spirit by using the pronouns “I” and “him.” Moreover, He spoke, clearly and plainly, in the rest of his Great Commission. So why not in verse 20 as well?
I believe there is a much better explanation. That is, Jesus did speak, clearly, plainly, and distinctively. He meant exactly what He said. He, Jesus, the second Person of the Godhead, would always be with them, and with us today as well.
Notably, when we compare different Bible translations with the original Greek language, we find something quite interesting regarding return-type language. For instance, in the New International Version (NIV), the phases “I will come back,” “I am coming back,” “until I return,” and “Jesus . . . will come back” are found in only four places in the New Testament—John 14:3, 28; 21:22-23; and Acts 1:11, respectively. Problem is, the words “back” and “return” are not in the original language. Unfortunately, the word “back” conveys a nuance of being away and necessitating a return. But Jesus never said He would “come back” or “return.” Correctly translated, his actual and emphatic words are “come again,” “come again,” “till I come,” and just “come,” respectively (see King James Version for a good translation). Big difference!
Therefore, I stand by what I posted previously. The two expressions "return" and "second coming" are non-scriptural terminology and not used for a good reason -- They are inappropriate because they convey inaccurate and inadequate concepts of past, present, and future biblical reality regarding the abiding presence and many comings of Jesus.
In conclusion, and in our ongoing quest for truth and proper understanding, I suggest we discard this non-scriptural terminology and divisive concepts. And yet, old habits are hard to break!
Interesting thoughts, Reformer! And yet...if we are to logically follow through with your ideas and understanding here, then Jesus' Person must be considered, in some sense, "omnipresent" and the "comings" you allude to would be no more than various manifestations of that Presence. Am I following your thinking correctly here?
I'll continue my response upon further clarification of your position.
I believe you are.
That's what I thought. Thanks for that confirmation of the direction we are heading on this, Reformer. One of the primary difficulties I have with that line of reasoning is that I don't see the God of the Bible revealed in the Scriptures as "omnipresent" at all. God's Presence is defined in terms of space/time limitations and parameters throughout the Scriptures. I could deal with specific passages for you if you like, but those that seem to indicate otherwise are readily reconciled to the texts specifying the finitude of His Presence and Being.
A truly "omnipresent" God is so utterly transcendent that no true, personal relationship with Him is possible on any level. Interaction with Him would take the form of pantheistic worship of trees, rocks and animals - nothing more. If we pursue "omnipresence" to its logical conclusion, all of creation IS God, and should be worshipped and served as such. He would exist in every atom and molecule of the material universe. His/Its Presence would be within all things and would transcend all things. That's not the intelligent, personable God of the Bible - certainly not the one revealed therein. NONE of the "omni" attributes can accurately be applied to the God of Israel, Reformer. Within OUR realm and sphere of existence, God has revealed Himself as LIMITED. Whether that sits well with your understanding of Him or not - that is how He has revealed Himself in the Scriptures. Again, texts that seem to indicate otherwise can readily be reconciled to those that clearly confirm what I've just stated.
That's my position anyway. Clearly, we part ways on this subject at that level. Jesus Christ was never "omnipresent" in His pre-incarnate state, nor has He ever been "omnipresent". If you'd like to pursue this line of reasoning further, I'd be happy to continue this exchange via the consideration of actual Scriptural texts.
JM
I suggest this is a "both/and" situation, and to pit one against the other by citing scriptures to either effect (many exist on both sides as you mentioned) serves no good purpose other than to lead further into confusion and error.
Perhaps a good course in systematic theology would be helpful? I would suggest this text -- Wayne Grudem, "Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine" (Grand Rapids, MI.: Zondervan, 1994), 173-177; 190-193; 217-218, which I used in my doctoral program.
But it sounds like your mind is already made up on this issue? Blessings.
I've studied various systematic theologies myself, sir! I've found, historically, that Zondervan tends to publish Creedalists and those who promote a perspective on God in accordance with that doctrinal framework. And yes...to a significant degree my mind is made up on this issue.
I am open to objective dialogue at a scholarly level, however. If the rhetoric can be kept to a minimum and the actual textual evidence remains front and center - perhaps there could be some value in pursuing further discussion between you and I. I'm impressed that you've been involved in studying these things at the graduate/doctoral level! I've found that the main drawback in developing that particular level of expertise is that one's specialty is highly limiting in terms of scope. It's easy to miss the forest for the trees, in other words. You are, however, fully acquainted with the mechanics of a disciplined, exhaustive approach to research so your perspective has been, presumably (and commendably), developed on that basis. I assume (and hope) you weren't reliant exclusively on Mr. Grudem's Systematic Theology.
Blessings to you also!
No, I was not. In fact, I was quite critical of parts of it. But I thought his systematic theology textbook (among many others) was the best overall.
Also, I don't think Grudem could be classified as a "Creedalist" as you say (perhaps I'm wrong) . . . at least not in the same manner as Kenneth Gentry and Keith Mattison are. I presume you know what I am saying by that?
And once again, I'd direct you to the pages I noted previously in Grudem's text for you to consider and interact with, if that's of interest to you.
I'm definitely interested in interacting with the strongest arguments presented by scholars opposed to "Open Theism". As an Open Theist of sorts myself (with an accompanying aversion to Calvinist soteriology), I enjoy examining and critiquing the ideas and interpretive exercises promoted and practiced by those in the opposing camp. Thanks for the directing me to specific items of interest in Grudem's Theology, Reformer! I'll get back to you further on this as time permits!
JM