We have been told countless times by scholars throughout history that in order to properly exegete Scripture we have to understand who was speaking, who was being addressed and the timeframe when the things were spoken. For some reason this is completely ignored in the theological branch of eschatology. Every other branch accepts that statement quite willingly and most exegetes are fairly good in holding to the historical context - but not eschatology. When viewing eschatological passages we seem to grab our warp drive engines, vault through a worm hole and end up in the 21st century. What's up with that?
To prove what I say is true, I challenge the reader who stumbles into this thread to exegete the following Revelation verse according to the standard rules of interpretation - the grammatical-historical method.
Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
If you were living back in the first century and received this letter from the Apostle John and it was read aloud in your assembly (Thyatira, or Smyrna for instance) how would you interpret John's words? Would you think the time was truly at hand or would it have no particular meaning whatsoever to that assembly of believers and was directed to another group of people at least 1,950 years into the future? Would you perhaps have thought something like this?:
"John is not writing to me at all. What he said has nothing to do with me or my situation. He must be talking to those believers who are 2,000 years removed from us."
If you are a futurist, you are forced to ignore the clear historical setting and jump into that worm hole.
If you accept the historical timeframe and the at hand timing of what was to transpire (as represented by the sayings of the prophecy of the book), then you are a preterist and are referred to as a heretic by many.
It really is that simple...
To be honest with you, I don't think there will be many responses to this thread.
Understanding audience relevance
Re: Understanding audience relevance
Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
When Isa spoke of Jesus in Isa 53 he spoke in the present tense. In Rom 4 Paul says God speaks of things that are not as though they are.
Like Isaiah , John was having a vision and could be seeing something in the future and speak in the present tense.
God said "the seed of the women will crush the head of the serpent", did that sound like it would happen thousands of years later?
When Isa spoke of Jesus in Isa 53 he spoke in the present tense. In Rom 4 Paul says God speaks of things that are not as though they are.
Like Isaiah , John was having a vision and could be seeing something in the future and speak in the present tense.
God said "the seed of the women will crush the head of the serpent", did that sound like it would happen thousands of years later?
Re: Understanding audience relevance
Hi Steve,steve7150 wrote:Revelation 22:10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
When Isa spoke of Jesus in Isa 53 he spoke in the present tense. In Rom 4 Paul says God speaks of things that are not as though they are.
Like Isaiah, John was having a vision and could be seeing something in the future and speak in the present tense.
God said "the seed of the women will crush the head of the serpent", did that sound like it would happen thousands of years later?
In order to help speed things up for this aged friend, could you give me the exact references you are speaking of? Thanks.
Do you really think Revelation 22:10 takes place within the vision? Do you really think its beginning counterpart (Revelation 1:3) takes place within the vision as well:
Revelation 1:3 - Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
As for Genesis 3:15...
Genesis 3:15 - And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
Notice that there is NO time statement associated with that event. Notice also that Paul may very well be speaking of that same event in Romans 16:20. Only this time it is time stamped...
Romans 16:20 - And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
What does the word "shortly" mean? Does it mean 2,000 years?
Please do me a favor. Instead of offering up all sorts of ideas on other passages of Scripture, why don't you put your sandals on, become one of those individuals in one of those first century churches, and tell us how you would have interpreted the words of Revelation 22:10 when they were read in your assembly? It is a simple exercise. Seemingly, no one wants to undertake the challenge because they all know what is meant by "at hand." Their futurism won't let them express it. Take the challenge.
Re: Understanding audience relevance
Do you really think Revelation 22:10 takes place within the vision? Do you really think its beginning counterpart (Revelation 1:3) takes place within the vision as well:
What was at hand could easily be understood as what the title of the book was "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" in his glory and not just the very limited events that took place in 70AD , which had already been described in 3 gospels , so why use 20+ chapters using highly synbolic language to warn an audience that already had been warned in clear language in the synoptics seems very problematic.
What was at hand could easily be understood as what the title of the book was "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" in his glory and not just the very limited events that took place in 70AD , which had already been described in 3 gospels , so why use 20+ chapters using highly synbolic language to warn an audience that already had been warned in clear language in the synoptics seems very problematic.
Last edited by steve7150 on Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Understanding audience relevance
If full preterism is true
Then there's no second coming for you
If that gives you a scare
Then hold on to your chair
Because there's no resurrection, too.
Sorry- that came to me on the drive into work this morning. i love a good limerick.
TK
Then there's no second coming for you
If that gives you a scare
Then hold on to your chair
Because there's no resurrection, too.
Sorry- that came to me on the drive into work this morning. i love a good limerick.
TK
Re: Understanding audience relevance
You don't seriously believe the title of the book came attached with John's letter, do you?steve7150 wrote:Do you really think Revelation 22:10 takes place within the vision? Do you really think its beginning counterpart (Revelation 1:3) takes place within the vision as well:
What was at hand could easily be understood as what the title of the book was "The Revelation of Jesus Christ" in his glory and not just the very limited events that took place in 70AD , which had already been described in 3 gospels , so why use 20+ chapters using highly synbolic language to warn an audience that already had been warned in clear language in the synoptics seems very problematic.
Why use 3 Gospels? Wouldn't two be enough? Not to mention that the Gospels were written much earlier than Revelation. Things were ramping up at the time Revelation was written...just as 2 Peter and a select few others. But I realize you don't see it that way...
Re: Understanding audience relevance
Hey Tk, that was pretty good. No apology necessary! Those first four verses were quite true for me. However, that last one isn't biblically correct... Resurrection is being raised from death unto life, right? Because of a wrong view of resurrection (physically and bodily from all the cemeterys, even though the vast majority have completely disintegrated), the second appearing is dismissed. Do you believe resurrection is possible while still living? I do.TK wrote:If full preterism is true
Then there's no second coming for you
If that gives you a scare
Then hold on to your chair
Because there's no resurrection, too.
Sorry- that came to me on the drive into work this morning. i love a good limerick.
TK
John 5:24 - Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
1 John 3:14 - We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
Hope you noticed the past tense in those verses...
I definitely see talent in you as a writer and I appreciate the lightheartedness in your responses. Most get so worked up trying to maintain their paradigm. You can't imagine how we are treated just because we happen to believe the time statements as being literal when they are outside of visions and such.
Here is a poem I wrote about two years ago very early in my theolgical change to preterism:
FREEDOM
Worn down faces and desolate places
Bring to mind a troubled faith.
But distant traces and empty embraces
Makes great your reward, He saith.
A faith tried and a false pride
Turn the stomachs of most.
But to divide and set aside
Is now today’s guest and host.
Proclaiming truth and being sleuth
Is a past promise to our Lord.
But a drunken youth or a broken tooth
Is to battle with a dull sword.
A new Word and doctrines absurd
Confuse the lost and sheep alike.
But God preferred and the Spirit heard
Makes all the guilty Christlike!
Blood not shed and a new way instead
Promotes a rather liberal view.
But Spirit bred and a Christ undead
Pays for sin and begins anew.
The Bible scorned and sinners unwarned
Shows life in disarray.
But sinners mourned and His Word adorned
Serves the debt we can’t repay.
A remnant saved and in Pella caved
When Jerusalem burned with fire.
But prophets raved with offerings waived
As the city became a funeral pyre.
Ruins like a flood because of righteous blood
When the Roman army did surround.
But among the mud with vines in bud
His Grace did yet abound.
The newborn saint with body taint
Will one day lose his breath.
But without restraint or with complaint
Shall be freed from this old body’s death.
Re: Understanding audience relevance
Nice work, Mellontes!
I didnt mean to derail the thread.
Of course I believe in life after death, but I also believe in a physical resurrection body- yes even for those Christians in Hiroshima who were evaporated by the A-bomb. I don't think that is a problem for God. That is just how i read 1 Cor 15. But i dont want to get off on that tangent.
I really dont have a great response to your current question, other than it doesnt merely mean what it seems to mean.
TK
I didnt mean to derail the thread.
Of course I believe in life after death, but I also believe in a physical resurrection body- yes even for those Christians in Hiroshima who were evaporated by the A-bomb. I don't think that is a problem for God. That is just how i read 1 Cor 15. But i dont want to get off on that tangent.
I really dont have a great response to your current question, other than it doesnt merely mean what it seems to mean.
TK
Re: Understanding audience relevance
I didn't understand why you said "Of course I believe in life after death." It almost sounds like you thought I was mentioning that sort of thing in my last post. I wasn't. And yes, I realize you believe in a resurrection body. I used to believe that too. That means you believe in two resurrections for one Christian - one from sin and one from physical death. I can't find anywhere where Scripture talks about two resurrections for one individual. I know it talks about two resurrections for various groups at various times, but not for one individual...TK wrote:Nice work, Mellontes!
I didnt mean to derail the thread.
Of course I believe in life after death, but I also believe in a physical resurrection body- yes even for those Christians in Hiroshima who were evaporated by the A-bomb. I don't think that is a problem for God. That is just how i read 1 Cor 15. But i dont want to get off on that tangent.
I really dont have a great response to your current question, other than it doesnt merely mean what it seems to mean.
TK
And of course, it is probably best to leave 1 Corinthians 15 alone for a little while...
BTW, do you believe new Jerusalem is the church? Or do you believe the new Jerusalem is that square cube-like structure that comes from heaven sometime in the future?
Re: Understanding audience relevance
Mellontes wrote:
I believe the New Jerusalem is the Church, although a 1500 mile cube would be kind of neat. However, being fairly new to the non-literal cube idea, I am not 100% clear about all the symbolism and everything. I always wondered where they got oysters to make a pearl the size of a gate. They must have used whips.
I apologize for jumping around all over the place- as I know I am supposed to stay on topic. I know many of these things have been discussed elsewhere on the forum- 1 Cor 15 for example. I will have to try to find it- I dont expect you to re-write everything again. But i was wondering if FP's believe that certain early Christians (pre 70 AD?) DO have a physical resurrection body.
TK
Sorry- i read too fast. You are calling "regeneration" resurrection, which I suppose is okay if you want to do so. Yes, I believe that in a sense regeneration is a movement from death to life.I didn't understand why you said "Of course I believe in life after death." It almost sounds like you thought I was mentioning that sort of thing in my last post. I wasn't.
I believe the New Jerusalem is the Church, although a 1500 mile cube would be kind of neat. However, being fairly new to the non-literal cube idea, I am not 100% clear about all the symbolism and everything. I always wondered where they got oysters to make a pearl the size of a gate. They must have used whips.
I apologize for jumping around all over the place- as I know I am supposed to stay on topic. I know many of these things have been discussed elsewhere on the forum- 1 Cor 15 for example. I will have to try to find it- I dont expect you to re-write everything again. But i was wondering if FP's believe that certain early Christians (pre 70 AD?) DO have a physical resurrection body.
TK