Eschatology

Paeter wrote:
You can read the first post here- http://hebrewgreekbiblegeek.blogspot.com/2011/08/introduction-background-and-revelation.html

This lesson outline is fantastic! What a blessing!

Thank you. The only response I have to the marriage is that Bell did present a video on that issue. The jist of it was that The Sadducees were talking about a very specific type of marriage where the widow has to marry her brother to have children. So it follows that Jesus' response was regarding only this specific type of situation. That's how he puts it in a nutshell.

But I like your other points. Thank You for your input.

In regards to point 3) That is a really good point!

In regards to point 4) Jesus also used the same wording when he talked about a hen gathering her chicks under her wings, in regards to Jerusalem. Isn't that the same wording but not literal? But the only thing I don't like about Bell's view is that hardly anyone will tackle Acts 1:1 and give a good explanation on what the angels meant.

In any case I think you're making some great points!

Thanks for taking the time to read through my responses and interacting with the ideas!

Hackmodford wrote:Thank you. The only response I have to the marriage is that Bell did present a video on that issue. The jist of it was that The Sadducees were talking about a very specific type of marriage where the widow has to marry her brother to have children. So it follows that Jesus' response was regarding only this specific type of situation. That's how he puts it in a nutshell.

It is highly probable that the Sadducees were refering to the Levirate Marriage practice (see the entire book of Ruth for an example), but they may also have been referring to a woman who married a lot of husbands who just up and died.

But don't let Mr. Bell confuse the situation. The main topic in the Mark 12 passage is not marriage. And the type of marriage the Sadducees were referencing is not terribly important information. The Sadducees were trying to find additional evidence against Jesus. They did not believe in the resurrection so they posed to him what they thought was a ridiculous situation that highlighted the absurdity of the resurrection. Jesus not only pointed out that their question didn't matter, because there was no marriage in the resurrection, but also that the Torah proved that there was a resurrection and a resurrection hope.

The type of marriage isn't really a primary feature. The point of this whole passage is that Jesus combats the Sadducee's unbelief in the bodily resurrection, while simultaneously criticizing the Pharisee's understanding (which is what the Sadducee question was attacking) because their idea of the resurrection was insufficient.

Hackmodford wrote:
In regards to point 4) Jesus also used the same wording when he talked about a hen gathering her chicks under her wings, in regards to Jerusalem. Isn't that the same wording but not literal? But the only thing I don't like about Bell's view is that hardly anyone will tackle Acts 1:1 and give a good explanation on what the angels meant.

In Matthew 23:37 Jesus says, "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling." (Mat 23:37 NAS)

In Acts 1:11 the angel says, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." (Act 1:11 NAS)

Now, it is true that the word Jesus uses here to indicate that he's using a metaphor is "τρόπον" or "Tropon/Tropos" is the same as Luke uses in Acts. This word can mean "like, just as, in this fashion, in this manner".

But the danger with the ever-popular word studies in Greek is that one word can have a wide-range of meanings. ("Trunk" for example can mean, tree trunk, elephant's nose, the trunk of a car, or a piece of luggage.) In every language, context gives meaning to words. Individual words do not dictate context (which is the argument Mr. Bell apparently is using).

In the Matthew text above, Jesus uses "τρόπον" to indicate that he is using a metaphor. No one is thinking that he's going to change gender, turn into a bird and transform Jerusalem into his chicks. He's talking about the tenderness he has towards his people.

In the Acts text, Jesus has just ascended in the body to heaven. (I assume Mr. Bell takes that literally). From the context of the text there is no indication that figurative language is now being used. If it was, the angel wouldn't have said, in the same way. He would have said "in a different way". The context dictates meaning . . . and a literal interpretation is always preferred in every biblical text unless the context indicates a metaphor or symbolism is being used. There is no such use here.

But . . . if you like your Greek. Luke throws "οὕτως" (in this way) in front of "τρόπον" (the same manner) to root the sentence into a literal interpretation. (Although, again, context is everything. Jesus will return the same way he went up, in a physical, glorified, resurrected body)

Thanks again!

I have a reservation for full-preterism because it's such a recent idea. Just like I have a reservation for Pentecostalism. (which I know isn't an eschatological view but a denomination)

I mean... if they could at least come up with some church history that showed that this was an idea floating around I think I'd have an easier time swallowing such an idea. You can find preterism but not full-preterism in history.

Hackmodford wrote:I have a reservation for full-preterism because it's such a recent idea. Just like I have a reservation for Pentecostalism. (which I know isn't an eschatological view but a denomination)

I mean... if they could at least come up with some church history that showed that this was an idea floating around I think I'd have an easier time swallowing such an idea. You can find preterism but not full-preterism in history.

I think not having any historical-backing is a "yellow" flag not necessarily a "red" flag for any doctrine.

I mean, if the Bible legitimately teaches something, its true, whether or not believers have acknowledged it in the past. But I agree, in the vast majority of cases, having no historical background is a yellow flag.

The red flags start coming in with:

- Inconsistent Hermeneutics (or switching from an allegorical interpretation, then back to a literal interpretation in the same or similar instances).
- Misrepresentation of the other side of the argument (if a argument is sound, it should be able to stand firm against the opposing viewpoint without having to misrepresent the other side).
- Ripping texts out of context to mean what they never meant.
- Alienation of believers from each other.

(I wrote the above list just as a universal precaution, not all of it necessarily pertains to the topic at hand.)

So in your opinion then I gather you'd say full preterism is red flag?

To be honest I'm not familiar enough with "Full Preterism" to give an intellectually honest answer on that.

But then again I'm having a hard time finding any scholarly work advocating Full Preterism (as presenting in this forum conversation).

But, Mr. Bell's version of Full Preterism contains multiple red flags for the issues mentioned above.

In regards to this topic this was pretty interesting to me.

http://prophecyhistory.com/node/49

Hackmodford wrote:In regards to this topic this was pretty interesting to me.

http://prophecyhistory.com/node/49

Pretty interesting read indeed! Thanks for sharing this.

For me, I think one of the biggest questions is "What about the Jews?" Many eschatological systems ignore or exclude the Jewish people. This is problematic for two reasons:

1. The Jewish people and the church are not the same thing, but we both fit under the umbrella of "God's People". Or, as Paul put it, the church is a tree branch in-grafted into the tree of God's people, which also includes the Jews.
Any Eschatology that ignores the Jewish People excludes a lot of Biblical data.

2. There are certain unconditional promises made to the Jews in the Old Testament that were never fulfilled. The Promised Land, for instances, was never fully subdued/inhabited by the Jews. If this promise is never fulfilled, God is either a liar or not all-powerful. A Premillenial view of the 1,000 years sees these unfulfilled promises completed.

I thought it really solved the problem that's been going around in my mind about what Jesus said. (In my view the preterits strongest card) But provided a clean solution to the issue that doesn't require re-interpreting and muddling the issue.

Just curious Nathan have you come across this book? http://www.amazon.com/New-Wine-End-Times-ebook/dp/B004NNVOHI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1328563424&sr=8-2

If you read the short "about the author" I think it explains were he's coming from. Your thoughts are valuable to me on this journey

edit: In regards to that book I think I might have had this article
http://www.newwine.org/Articles/Preterism.htm
confused with the one above.

This article is what really solved the issue for me that Jesus did not return in 70 AD.

I haven't read it . . . but I did read the "about" section. I'm not entirely sure what "The New Wine" system is (I'm sure he would like me to buy a book).

I agree with him about having a Millennial view of eschatology.
And I think I would agree with him about differentiating between hades(sheol) and Hell (the Lake of Fire). (Just like I differentiate between heaven and the resurrection).


From the "about section" I would have two criticisms/objections.

1. The church and the Jews are separate entities under the same umbrella of "God's People." Paul differentiates from Jews, non-believers, and the church:
"32 Give no offense to the Jews or the Greeks or the church of God," (1Co 10:32 CSB)

Paul talks about this using metaphors in Romans 11 where we see a difference between the elect in the church and the Jews.

Furthermore, there is a system (taught by some seminaries) where the church and Israel are one in the same. This is called Covenant Theology. But this is different because it teaches that the church has replaced Israel.

2. Good seminaries don't indoctrinate their students. It's ironic that Brown writes what happens in a seminary when he has not attended one himself. Also, his exposure seems to be primarily with Dallas Theological Seminary. He then proceeds to judge all seminaries based on his incidental knowledge of Dallas Th.. Dallas is know for it's classical dispensational views. I did not attend DTS, I attended Talbot. But from my colleagues who have attended there, among other seminaries, I can tell you that good seminaries don't indoctrinate you, they teach you to be critical thinkers. (Bad seminaries just teach you to be critical).

So, I don't know how this New Wine system would stack up against progressive dispensationalism . . . I think there would be some issues with not differentiating between the church and Israel under the umbrella of "God's People".


Some great books on Progressive Dispentationalism (in order from most recommended to least):

1. The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism (Robert L. Saucy - pronounced "soo-see")
http://www.amazon.com/Case-Progressive-Dispensationalism-Robert-Saucy/dp/0310304415/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_2

2. Progressive Dispensationalism (Bock, Blaising)
http://www.amazon.com/Progressive-Dispensationalism-BridgePoint-Books-Darrell/dp/0801022436/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1328630499&sr=8-2

This might help explaining his view point
http://www.newwine.org/index.html

In particular Israel as the Church (or a branch grafted on a vine)
http://www.newwine.org/Articles/NewWineSystem.htm#Israel

Hackmodford wrote:This might help explaining his view point
http://www.newwine.org/index.html

In particular Israel as the Church (or a branch grafted on a vine)
http://www.newwine.org/Articles/NewWineSystem.htm#Israel

I'm having a hard time following some of the logic here. But there's a huge red flag in this gentleman's thinking:

Mr. Brown writes: Salvation has been given to everyone by the death of Jesus Christ on the cross. Does this mean everyone will inherit eternal life? No, because some will lose their salvation and will be tormented in the lake of fire.

So he teaches everyone is saved but most people (he later argues) will lose their salvation. He also teaches that everyone is born a child of God. While it is true that everyone is a creation of God, not everyone (despite the popular and sentimental quotations from the last hundred years) is a child of God.

This is totally backwards from the Biblical model. Jesus didn't say, "Keep belonging to me," but rather "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel." (Mark 1:15)

There is a distinction from those who have entered into belief and unbelief:

"By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother." (1 John 1:30)

Scripture does not give us a picture of being born into the salvation of Christ. It is something we must turn to (repent and believe!).

Scripture gives a different view:

"Indeed, I was guilty [when I] was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me." (Ps. 51:5 HCSB)

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." Rom. 3:23

I agree with Martin Luther's assessment: Jesus' death, burial and resurrection is "sufficient for all, but efficient only for the elect." Jesus' atoning work has the capacity to cover everyone, but is only covers those who receive this gift.

While Mr. Brown's system might make sense within his closed system, it is not consistent with biblical truth. And I think a non-seminary mind can see this in a simple reading through the new testament whenever we see Jesus say things like "come to me" and not "come back to me, you were always saved". Instead we see Jesus telling us that to be saved we must be born again. The first time wasn't good enough. (See John 3).