Preterism vs Dispensationalism

Discussion in 'Bible Prophecy' started by Joshuastone7, Jan 19, 2021.

  1. 4,055
    825
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,055
    Likes Received:
    825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Greetings brother...

    Thank you for your response; however, since writing that last post, I have done some further study of verse 27 and have determined that it speaks of the complete destruction of Jerusalem, not that of the destroyer...

    As for our Lord confirming the covenant and cut off at the half of the week, resources on Biblehub are useful in that discussion.

    In my opinion, there is no reason not to believe the 70th week does not follow the 69th...

    All love...
     
  2. 68
    35
    18
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI


    Arguably, Futurism has the same textbook origins as Preterism, which informs me that we’ll potentially and eventually talk in circles while the Historicist will enjoy eating his popcorn.

    I’ll come back to that shortly.


    Timothy Kline said:

    The question is: Did Jesus himself raise up his body?

    Jesus was speaking metaphorically when He told the elders, "destroy this temple." Therefore obviously, His very next statement would be metaphoric as well, "In three days I will raise it again." The temple was metaphoric, and so was His raising it. He was speaking metaphorically that He would raise it because of His faithfulness.

    The principle stands…


    Bear with me, please, if I’m being (thick) there, brother…

    As I understand the term, “A metaphor is a figure of speech that describes an object or action in a way that isn’t literally true, but helps explain an idea or make a comparison.”

    I may be mistaken here, but according to scripture, our bodies are, literally, temples for the holy spirit, so I’m not convinced that Jesus was speaking metaphorically here— however, this doesn’t preclude that those he was speaking to thought him to be speaking literally of the Temple in Jerusalem. He was saying one thing— they were thinking another. So were the disciples, evidently, factoring in the accounts I mentioned earlier from the gospel writings.

    The apostle Paul conveys his understanding of this in his first letter to the believers of Corinth:

    Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit in you, whom you have from God? And you are not your own, for you were bought with a price. Therefore glorify God in your body. —1 Corinthians 6:19-20 Berean Literal Bible (BLB)​

    He returns to this subject again in his second letter to the believers of Corinth:

    What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will dwell with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be My people." —2 Corinthians 6:16 BLB​

    The apostle Paul here is referring to Ezekiel’s prophecy of the Valley of Dry Bones—specifically Ezekiel 37…

    And I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary among them forever. My dwelling placed will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be My people. Then the nations will know that I the LORD sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is among them forever.’ ” —Ezekiel 37:26-27 BLB​

    I also find, in the Revelation of Jesus Christ:

    And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying: "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man, and He will dwell with them. They will be His people, and God Himself will be with them as their God. —Revelation 21:3 ​

    This is, as I presently understand as I read, speaking of the new heavens and new earth and the (conditions) therein:

    And the One seated on the throne said, “Behold, I make all things new.” Then He said, “Write this down, for these words are faithful and true.” And He told me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give freely from the spring of the water of life. The one who overcomes will inherit all things, and I will be his God, and he will be My son. —Revelation 21:5-7 Berean Study Bible (BSB)​

    Before I get too far off course here, though, returning to the matter of the temple, I believe there is a reasonable witness in the scriptures that our bodies are literally temples for the in-dwelling of our Father’s holy spirit, as the apostle Paul seems to be trying to convey to his audience in Corinth.

    For the temple to be a metaphor here, then, it couldn’t literally be true— but according to both Jesus and the apostle Paul, it is literally true.

    Separately, in his letter to the Romans, the apostle further goes on to elaborate:

    Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship. Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will. —Romans 12:1-2​

    He’s speaking literally here, is he not? What I mean is that he is conveying the importance of literally offering our bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God. We do this by being transformed by the renewing of [our] mind, the apostle Paul writes. Where we fall short, we have Jesus acting as our Mediator and High Priest before God, with his perfect sacrifice covering a “multitude of sins” (cf John 3:16-18; John 15:12-13; Romans 5:8; 1 Peter 4:8 et al)

    Before I forget, I wanted to also mention that on the matter of anyone insisting that Jesus, on the matter of “destroying this temple,” saying that he’d raise himself from the dead proves that he is God [since only God can restore life— being the Source of Life (I’d add literally here, not in a metaphorical sense)]— I’d probably refer them to this passage in the Johannine Gospel:

    I am the good shepherd. I know My sheep and My sheep know Me, just as the Father knows Me and I know the Father. And I lay down My life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them in as well, and they will listen to My voice. Then there will be one flock and one shepherd. The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father.” —John 10:14-18 BSB (Cf Ezekiel 37:15-28)​

    Jesus here declares that he has the authority, having received that charge / authority from the Father, to both lay down his life and to take it up again— indicating a clear distinction between the persona of the Father and that of His only-begotten Son, Jesus of Nazareth.

    But I digress.

    Here's the problem, brother: Let's say I wanted to argue all prophecy was fulfilled at Jesus sacrifice and not 70ce, or still yet future.

    In Mathew 24, Jesus said regarding the temple, "Do you see all these things? Not one stone will be left upon another and not be thrown down." Now, Jesus' body was the temple he spoke about metaphorically that the elders would destroy. What makes us think Jesus was talking about the physical temple in Mathew 24? I could apply Jesus' words in Mathew 24 to His physical body and not the physical temple. Therefore I could argue Jesus was speaking of His body and not the physical temple. The original Greek in Mth 24:2 could read, "Do you see this whole man?' Or "Do you see all of these men," etc…

    I would disagree with you here, since the apostles had just pointed out the Temple and how it was adorned with “beautiful stones and consecrated gifts” (parallel accounts Mark 13:1; Luke 21:5)

    The account at John 2:21 has Jesus speaking about his body being the temple of which he spoke, whereas in Matthew 24 he’s addressing what the disciples have been oohing and aahing over (the “beautiful stones and consecrated gifts” adorning the Temple) and how that Temple would be cast down, stone from stone.

    Jesus is the cornerstone is he not? (Eph 2:20) So how do we know Jesus wasn't talking about himself when he said, "not one stone would be left upon another?" The disciples were described as stones like Peter the rock. Why do we not think Jesus was speaking about himself and his disciples being dispersed? Jesus said to remain in Him; the stones not remaining on another could represent the breaking apart of their group.

    Again, I would disagree since I don’t really see any reasonable way someone would arrive at such conclusions even when read in isolation of all related scriptural references.

    For one thing, this wouldn’t have been the first time that Jerusalem lay in ruins from conquest, if the historical scriptures are considered. As far as the disciples may have been thinking after listening to what Jesus had been saying, was that Jerusalem was facing a similar destruction as had happened in the days of their forefathers, when they went into captivity by Babylon. The difference that they evidently didn’t realize until after Jesus’ restoration to life was that this would be a final, everlasting destruction of that Temple and with it the sacrifices and, really, the Law of Moses.

    I say I could place every single prophecy from Mathew 24, having been fulfilled on the day Jesus was sacrificed simply by applying scripture just as the Preterist explanation connects them to 70CE. Again, I don't mean you; my mind focuses on the centuries-old Preterist view and the manner it uses to come about its interpretation. Because obviously, I believe either one of us wouldn't care in the slightest which one was right in the New Kingdom, just as you say.

    I feel I need to provide a clarification here:

    Covenant eschatology (aka preterism) does not connect all prophecy fulfillment to 70CE, but rather holds that all prophecies speaking of the “last days,” “final part of days,” “the day of the Lord,” “the end,” and their like were fulfilled by 70CE, with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the sacrificial laws and priesthood under the Law of Moses. This includes the 40-year transitional (read: gestational) period between “Ages” as the new creation (aka spiritual Jews which includes Gentile believers) underwent a birthing period while the non-believing Jews carried on with the Temple sacrifices, etc.

    The Preterist understanding came about during the Reformation to attempt to prove the Pope was not the Anti-Christ. That is an end result way of interpreting Scripture.

    This is likewise said to be the source of Futurism. ;) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurism_(Christianity)#History

    That being the case, we should probably, then, be Historicist Christians. ;)


    Timothy Kline said:

    Did they believe, or didn't they?

    There is no paradox. They lacked faith before and later gained it. Just because they didn't fully understand that He came to the earth to die while He was alive doesn't mean they didn't fully accept it and remember His words after His resurrection. At which point, their faith was strengthened by what they had heard and seen.

    Believing He was the Son of God, and yet not understanding he was destined to die is not a paradox.


    May I ask you:

    After He was raised from the dead, His disciples remembered that He had said this. Then they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken. —John 2:22 BSB​

    If we accept what we find here in scripture, “Then they believed the Scripture and the word Jesus had spoken,” what was their view BEFORE the then here? Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that they did not believe the Scripture and did not believe the word Jesus had spoken before his being raised from the dead?

    In any event, if you are saying that having faith does not require having [uniform] understanding in eschatological matters, I think I’m in agreement. Besides, according to Paul, faith is “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not being seen.” (Hebrews 11:1 Berean Literal Bible)

    If we have faith, it is not in the things we have seen (or, arguably, understand) but in the things we have not (yet) seen (or, arguably, understand) and hope toward.

    The Bible is no different. We must allow it to tell us what it is saying through the flow of context, not by applying our own end result to Scripture...

    I completely agree!

    A fellow believer,
    Timothy
     
  3. 68
    35
    18
    Timothy Kline

    Timothy Kline New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2021
    Messages:
    68
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perry, MI
    Just by way of a quick follow-up....

    This, I understand to be a metaphor, since it cannot literally be true (we don't emit beams of light), but is true as a metaphorical for our thoughts, words, and deeds in response to the in-dwelling of our Father's holy spirit as believers.

    You are the light of the world. —Matthew 5:14 BSB.
    Another example of a metaphor that comes to mind is this one:

    Now you are the body of Christ, and each of you is a member of it. —1 Corinthians 12:27 BSB

    Now, we aren't literally the body of Christ— that is to say in any carnal sense like our hands are literally a part of our body with our eyes, feet, and mouth. It's a metaphor for the relationship we have for one another as brothers in sisters in Christ, like the cells we now know to make up the various organs and parts that make up our individual bodies. As my wife will sometimes hear me say, "Isn't it amazing what we humans can accomplish when we aren't trying to stomp on and kill each other?" whenever I see moments where people come together for a rescue effort or do a common good.

    Anyhow, I just wanted to add that thought to my previous post (above) to better illustrate why I believe the body is literally a temple (a living temple) for the in-dwelling of our Father's holy spirit, while we are, in a metaphorical sense, a light unto the world as well as all members of the body of Christ, each fulfilling a role as the various parts of our body do for us.

    A fellow believer,
    Timothy
     
  4. 4,055
    825
    113
    Joshuastone7

    Joshuastone7 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2013
    Messages:
    4,055
    Likes Received:
    825
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Home Page:
    Greetings, brother, and thank you for your response.

    From my understanding, the Greek word used for temple being nah-os' carries the meaning of a building. Therefore saying our bodies are a building to house something would constitute a metaphor. Hence why it appears to me, Jesus extends that metaphor to His raising it again. His raising it again is a metaphor. Is this not the very reason those around Him did not understand He was speaking of His body, because they would have understood Him to be speaking of a literal building?

    Why would Jesus use this metaphor of a temple when speaking of the Spirit within us? Would it not have constituted a parable to those who would listen? The physical temple would have been known as the place where our Lord's Spirit resided in Jerusalem. Therefore, no longer was a physical building to be the place our Father's Spirit resided, but now we are that temple. His point wasn't to say that our bodies were a building, but that our Father's Spirit resides in us, was it not? What use would Jesus have for telling us our bodies were a building structure? Rather, the building structure was used as a metaphor to show God's Spirit resides in us.

    I would say no, Jesus was not speaking literally here. Would not the disciples have understood the Greek word for sacrifice thoo-see'-ah as an animal given at the physical temple as a blood offering to Jehovah? It appears to me Jesus is using those sacrifices as a metaphor to His disciples in order to encourage them to offer their services rather than their bodies as a physical sacrifice.

    Offering our bodies as a sacrifice was a metaphor for service, not blood...

    Again brother, had not Jesus explained He was talking about His body when using the word temple, would anyone have understood Him? There were temples all over the known world at the time, not just the one in Jerusalem. Does not the very fact that everyone believed He was talking about the physical temple building show that saying His body was a temple is a metaphor? A temple is a building and was never used to denote the body until Jesus uses it to make a point, ie: in a parable. Was it not common for Him to speak in parables? His point was that our bodies are housing for the Spirit, not that our bodies are buildings. That was His point, right?

    I wouldn't say that.

    An angel told John the Baptist (Jesus' own cousin) that he would see the Meshiach. He even pointed out Jesus as such before he baptized him. So then, why does he say this? "I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel” Jhn 1:31. It seems clear to me that even though John knew Jesus was to be the Meshiach, he did not fully believe it, or fully accept it and understand till later. I see the same thing with the disciple's acceptance as well.

    Yes, I believe that is what we are seeing here. We should understand that Jesus was a man, and that is how His disciples saw Him. Jesus would have told them about future events, and they may not have just believed or understand everything He said at that very moment. However, later as all events were fulfilled, they were reminded of HIs words and then fully believed they were true, all-be-it after they were fulfilled.

    I absolutely agree, brother...

    From everything I see within the text and the original Greek, Jesus would have had to been using the word temple as a metaphor. Any physical object He would have used would have been the same thing. Let's say He used the word pottery. If He would have said we are a pot to the Holy Spirit, would He be saying we are a pot? That wouldn't be what He was meaning, nor the intent of His words. Correct?

    Why did He use the word temple? Was it not because they would have known the Father's Spirit resided in the physical temple? The Father's Spirit resided within the Most Holy. Our bodies can't be a literal pot, just as our bodies can not be a literal temple, as all those before Him would have understood as a physical building. No, I believe Jesus' point was that our bodies house our Father's Spirit, not that they are a building.

    All love...
     

Share This Page