Steve wrote:The preterist view of Old Testament prophecy can begin its assumptions with the declaration of Christ that the temple would be destroyed and Jerusalem overthrown by Rome, “so that all things that are written may be fulfilled” (Luke 21:20-22). While it is true that these words could less-naturally be construed to mean something else, their plainest meaning would be that the events of AD 70 brought the culmination of all that was predicted in the Old Testament writings, including Malachi. Obviously, this interpretation will be disputed by Christians of the “futurist” persuasion, but taking this statement of Christ at face value provides a strikingly workable paradigm into which all Old Testament prophecy fits without violence to the text.
I understand your line of reasoning, but I prefer to take a different tact to understanding how to properly interpret the OT prophecies. I mentioned it in another post in this thread, calling it understanding "the end from the beginning."
Steve wrote:It is not very difficult for a preterist to demonstrate that the apostolic writers applied these prophecies to the time inaugurated by the first coming of Christ, and that no biblical writer applied any of them to the second coming of Christ. What is very difficult is to prove a man wrong who, like yourself, wishes to postulate multiple fulfillments or multiple layers of fulfillment. To prove this idea wrong would be like attempting to prove a universal negative. If a man were to assert that, when Jesus advocated the removal of an offending eye or hand, He meant this both literally and figuratively, it might be difficult to demonstrate him to be in error, even though it is counterintuitive and there is no concrete support for his position.
I'll give just one provable example of a prophecy with multiple fulfillments, then. Take Isaiah 7:14-16, the prophecy of the birth of a child named Immanuel. In the context of this chapter, this was to be a sign
to King Ahaz to help him to trust in God's divine protection from the conspiracy to assassinate him and put a puppet king on the throne of Judah. The fulfillment in the birth of Jesus Christ roughly seven hundred years later would not have been a sign
to King Ahaz. So historically, this was referring to the birth of a literal child named Immanuel whose father was the prophet Isaiah. (cf. Isa. 8:18 ) But we also know from Matthew 2:15 that it was again fulfilled in Jesus' birth.
When I first began seeing that the bible called for multiple fulfillments of prophecies in certain places, I began to wonder why. Critics of Christianity claim that the New Testament simply "proof texts" the Old Testament by quoting passages out of context. I didn't believe this to be the case, but I still wanted to know why.
Then I came across Isaiah 46:10 which said that God "declared the end from the beginning." In other words, we can understand the end of human history by looking at its beginning. Thus, I began my study of the Creation account and the beginning of human history as recorded in the bible with that in mind.
And I have indeed found the answers I was looking for! I can now explain precisely why Isaiah 7:14-16 should have two separate fulfillments, and what it was that connected them in the first place. Furthermore, I can do the same with many other Old Testament and New Testament prophecies, most of which don't have such clear-cut and provable multiple fulfillments.
I went through a lot of this in my post on prophetic symbolism in this section on Eschatology. Take a look at what I said concerning Jeremiah 4 in that post, and why Jeremiah used 'Creation in reverse' language to describe the destruction of Jerusalem. Again, that understanding came directly out of my studies to try to make sense of "the end from the beginning."
Steve wrote:I think it is possible to show from the scriptures that God will never again embrace a Jewish temple in Jerusalem (John 4:23), a Levitical priesthood (Heb.7:12), animal sacrifices (Heb. 10:8-10), etc. But for many people, belief in the future reestablishment of such things is deeply ingrained in their minds and their emotions. When they are shown the first-century fulfillment of the things that they have always applied to the future, they invariably resort to an appeal for multiple fulfillments.
Well, like I said, that isn't why I'm claiming multiple fulfillments. I never came at it from that direction, anyway. I've also given my answer, earlier in this thread, as to why John 4:23 doesn't preclude having a physical Temple being built in Jerusalem prior to Christ's return. To me, the answer I gave is just as compelling to me as I'm sure John 4:23 is to you. Rather than going through each and every one of the items above, though, I'll leave you to decide whether or not we should simply agree to disagree.
Steve wrote:This reduction in honor given to Christ is observable in the theology of those Christians who take a sympathetic interest in apostate Judaism (just as would be the case of a Christian who became sympathetic to the views of Islam or Hinduism). It is hard to be fully loyal to Christ and sympathetic to His enemies as well.
Umm...the earliest Christians
were Jews, and shared a great deal of their views, including an apparently premillenial view of things. (At least, that's how the last few chapters of Revelation were often read, up until the time of Augustine.)
Also, understanding the cultural context of the Old Testament isn't a bad or wrong approach to understanding its proper interpretation. No scholar would put up an argument to understanding Egyptian religious beliefs in
their cultural context, would they? They wouldn't try to understand Egyptian beliefs by only looking at them through the lens of Hermetism, Hermeticism, or Freemasonry, would they?
That being the case, why is it okay to do that with the bible?
Steve wrote:Though he greatly desired their salvation (Rom.9:3; 10:1), Paul felt no sympathy toward the views or motivations of his apostate countrymen (Acts 13:46/ Rom.10:21/ 1 Thess.2:14—16/ Phil.3:2). Those Christians who decry what they call “replacement theology” (i.e., the position taken by the apostles and historic Christianity about Israel and the church), are observably guilty of making their own “replacement” of Christ with Israel as being the center of their eschatological interest.
Israel
is the center of interest, but from a Christian perspective, it's because the Gentiles have been grafted into Israel. So there should be no difficulty.
Look, let me backtrack and make sure we're on the same page here, historically speaking. You do know that there was a question within first century Judaism, before Christianity ever entered the scene, as to how the Jews should view the Gentiles, right? Judaism was much more of a proselytizing religion at that time. Some of them wanted the Gentiles to observe the whole law of Moses, as we read in Acts 15:1 and in other places. Some of them contended that the Gentiles were only responsible for keeping the so-called seven Noahide Laws - laws which were found throughout the books of the Pentateuch and which were considered binding on all of humanity, not just the Jews. (You can do a web search on these Noahide Laws if you don't already know about them, although I'm pretty certain you do as you've got a lot of years invested in your own studies.) Some of them preferred to avoid the issue entirely and seclude themselves away from the rest of the Jews, considering them to be apostate.
When Christianity came along, these same questions were raised by the members of the nascent faith. Between Acts 15 and Galatians 2, Paul did his best to settle those questions. However, nevertheless we still find a general awareness of, and probably an adherence to, practices that were considered part of that same "Mosaic Law", among these same early Christians. For example, 1 Thessalonians 5:1, speaking of the "times and seasons", was a direct reference to the Jewish High Holy Days found in Leviticus 23 which were symbolic of the different aspects of God's plan for humanity. And remember, the Thessalonians were Gentiles, not Jews who were still clinging to legalism.
That being the case, there's not the clear-cut demarcation between what was considered Jewish, part of the "old covenant," and "ready to vanish away," and what was considered Christian, that you seem to be indicating. There was most certainly a
change...but exactly how much of so-called "apostate Judaism" did that change actually retain?
Did it, for example, retain the belief in the fulfillment of the physical promises to Israel? Did it retain the belief in a literal thousand year Messianic reign? And how do we know for sure?
Once again, I suggest that the best way to understand what this change did and did not retain is to study "the end from the beginning."
Steve wrote:Your suggestion (above) that the Jews rebuilding a future temple might not be an ignorant act shows that you have, in measure, made this “replacement” in your own thinking. The Jews who want to rebuild the temple, just as the Jews who defended the old temple against the Roman invasion, are, by biblical definitions, “antichrist” (1 John 2:22).
So what you're saying is there's absolutely no possibility that the building of a third Temple in Jerusalem could be of God, because the Jews,
at this present time, aren't Christian.
Doesn't that line of logic make the implicit assumption that nothing will happen to change that?
Like I had said before, it's the "messenger of the covenant" spoken of in Malachi 3:1 who will decree that the Temple be rebuilt. Granting that this is talking about a physical Temple for the sake of argument, exactly what covenant do you think he'll be a messenger of? The antichrist's?
Steve wrote:The interpretations of Old Testament scripture that the Jews have adopted are the speculations of rabbis who have a veil over their eyes, and the veil is only removed when they turn to Christ (2 Cor.3:14-16). Jews who reject Christ have been “blinded” (Rom.11:7), and do not understand the scriptures. It is significant that Jesus needed to open the disciples’ understanding, “that they might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:45).
Even Christ Himself did not dismiss the Jews' interpretations wholesale. For instance, there was one famous argument between the disciples of Rabbi Hillel and the disciples of Rabbi Shammai over what the proper grounds for divorce were. Both of them were interpreting the same text about finding some "uncleanness" in the wife (Deut. 24:1). Hillel's disciples claimed that a wife could be divorced for as small an offense as serving an unappetizing meal. Shammai's disciples, on the other hand, asserted that
only fornication was proper grounds for divorce.
When Jesus was asked this question in Matthew 19:3-9, He was actually agreeing with the disciples of Shammai!
He did disagree with both of them on one major point, though. They both interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1 as a
commandment to divorce if said "uncleanness" was found in the wife. Jesus corrected them, claiming that Moses
permitted divorce, rather than
commanding it if the "uncleanness" was found.
Steve, I truly believe that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not everything the Jews believed was evil, bad or wrong. Sadly, most Christians today tend to see issues like this in black and white. Either Jewish beliefs should be accepted or rejected. There's just no middle ground. I would beg to differ, claiming that proper discernment is what's necessary (Heb. 5:12-14).
Steve wrote:Now concerning Malachi, I understand his message as I do that of the other prophets. ...
[snip]
Christ gave us the correct understanding of Malachi 3 and 4, when He applied both passages to the era which began with John’s preaching in the wilderness (Matthew 11:10, 14; 17:11-12). These statements make it clear that Jesus saw, in John the Baptist, the fulfillment of both Malachi 3:1 and 4:5-6. John’s message heralded the coming of the messianic age, but not merely in the Messiah’s role as savior, but also His role as destroyer of the apostate Jewish order, and thus, the purging of God’s people—His “Levites” (Mal.3:3).
This doesn't make sense, though. The Levites were given a special calling by God for service in the Tabernacle (Ex. 38:21; Num. 1:50-53) and naturally later in the Temple. There is an OT prophecy which talks about Gentiles being taken for priests and for Levites (Isa. 66:18-21), but the sense is different here in Malachi 3. The sense of the text is that the Levites being cleansed in order to offer righteous offerings had formerly been offering
polluted offerings to God (compare Mal. 1:6-7, for instance). If these were merely Gentiles who were being called to
spiritual Temple service,
what polluted offerings had they formerly been offering to God?
If instead this is talking about
physical Levites being purified for service at a
spiritual Temple, then where in the New Testament do we read that John the Baptist focused his ministry on physical Levites at all?
What I see is that this text can be interpreted
piecemeal to refer to John the Baptist heralding Christ's first coming. It was even quoted
piecemeal in the New Testament, repeating the parts that directly applied to John the Baptist. (I'm not saying that none of the rest of this passage can apply, though.) However, John the Baptist in no way fulfilled the full sense of Malachi 3-4. So, a multiple fulfillment is therefore necessarily called for.
Does that not make sense?
[snip]
Steve wrote:The messenger of the covenant, who suddenly comes to the temple (Mal.3:1) is best understood as Christ, coming in judgment in AD 70 upon the apostate chaff and fruitless trees in the apostate city.
Why identify Christ as "the messenger of the covenant" in the act of "suddenly coming to His Temple" if the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD had nothing whatsoever to do with any covenantal message? That makes no sense to me.
Just using these specific examples, I think there's sufficient evidence for both a preterist position as well as a futurist one.
Damon