A question asked but never answered

[Mellontes]

On this forum and several others, I have always asked this question:

"Which passages pertain to 70AD and which ones pertain to the far off future parousia?"

I have never received an answer to that question. We are often accused of "shoehorning" or "cramming" all the passages to reflect a 70 AD parousia. I would finally like to see the Scriptures futurists bring forth to present the far off position. Only then can a discussion begin. Saying that all passages do not reflect a 70 AD parousia coming is merely an assertion. Futurists need to provide the Scriptural backing. A predetermined NATURE for the parousia does not constitute evidence.

And yes, I realize that likely no answer will be forthcoming in direct response, because some may not deem it within their interest or do have the desire nor the time to comply. So, I guess until those Scriptures come forth, discussion is at a standstill.

And as a side note, I still am constantly amazed how 1 Thess 1:6-10 is COMMONLY referred to as THE far off Parousia event, yet it lacks the recognition of JEWISH PERSECUTION. It also lacks the understanding that it was the JEWS who were going to be judged for the persecution upon the church - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! Not the general planet of unbelievers...

[steve7150]

And yes, I realize that likely no answer will be forthcoming in direct response, because some may not deem it within their interest or do have the desire nor the time to comply. So, I guess until those Scriptures come forth, discussion is at a standstill








As soon as i get time i'll list more but to start, according to Rev 20 the day of judgment accompanying Christ's return occurs after a thousand years. You keep telling us to interpret words literally. Why not this?
It certainly does'nt sound like 40 years.

[steve]

Like Steve7150, above, I cannot write extensively here on this question. However, it is not "a question asked but never answered." I have been asked this very question on the air over a dozen times, and always answer. You should call me, sometime.

The passages that have not yet been fulfilled are the ones that describe things that have not yet happened. Pretty simple, right?

I will believe that the resurrection has happened when believers are "like the angels," and "do not get married," and "can no longer die," as per Luke 20:35-36;

I will believe the resurrection has happened when the uncompensated acts of generosity of the saints are all repaid, as per Luke 14:14;

I will believe that the resurrection has happened when I see the dead rise in the manner that was expected by the Jews who had Paul on trial, as per Acts 24:15;

I will believe that the resurrection has happened when there is a general harvest in kind, resembling the Firstfruits, which was the resurrection of the body of Jesus from the grave, as per 1 Corinthians 15:20;

I will believe that the resurrection has happened when the Queen of the South (Sheba) and the Ninevites of Jonah's day rise up and condemn the men of Jesus' generation, as per Luke 11:31-32;

I will believe that the resurrection has happened when all the graves are emptied and the righteous and the unrighteous together come forth to their eternal fates, as per John 5:28-29;

I will believe that the resurrection has happened when it is "the last day" (as per John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; cf., 11:24)—after which there will be no other days;

I will believe that the resurrection has happened when the "world that now is" (i.e., that which has existed since Noah's flood, in context) is judged by fire and there is a new heaven and earth in which righteousness dwells, as per 2 Peter 3:10-13. (This corresponds to Paul's hope that the creation will be delivered from the bondage of decay, which it incurred at the time of the fall—Romans 8:20-23);

I will believe that the resurrection has happened when every man stands before the judgment seat of Christ and receives, each one, the things done in their bodily lives on earth, as per 2 Corinthians 5:10.

In short, I will believe that the resurrection has happened when it happens. The passages that still apply to the future are those which unambiguously predict a general resurrection of the dead and a universal judgment. That there are some ambiguous passages, which may speak of this judgment, or possibly of some other, I do not deny. I am talking about the plain passages—none of which contain anything like a time indication (e.g., "soon," "at hand," etc.).

For over 25 years, I have maintained (against full-preterism) that there are judgment passages that are and passages that are not describing the judgment on Jerusalem in AD70. The fact that judgment passages of all kinds tend to use similar language (e.g., "fire," "angels," "trumpets," etc) apparently confuses those who do not care to take the passages case-by-case in context and to determine which ones apply to AD70 and which ones do not.

Jesus said that everything predicted in the Old Testament was fulfilled no later than AD70 (though many Old Testament passages using identical language had already been fulfilled before Jesus' lifetime, as against Tyre, Babylon, Assyria, Egypt, etc.). However, Jesus' statement to this effect, in Luke 21, cannot legitimately be applied to predictions which had not yet been made (e.g., by Paul, Peter, etc.). There are references to AD70 that are made by these later writers, but there is no reason in the world to assume that there is only one future event of which they ever spoke.

[SteveF]

As soon as i get time i'll list more but to start, according to Rev 20 the day of judgment accompanying Christ's return occurs after a thousand years. You keep telling us to interpret words literally. Why not this?
It certainly does'nt sound like 40 years.

Hi Steve, I’m not a FP but I thought I’d toss this in. Unless his views have changed, Mellonetes does nol concede this is future but James Stuart Russell does. He’s considered by most, if not all FP’s, to be a champion of the FP position. Here’s a quote from “The Parousia” pg 522

It would have been an abuse of language to say that the events at the distance of a thousand years were to come to pass shortly; we are therefore compelled to regard this prediction as lying outside the apocalyptic limits altogether.
We must consequently regard this prediction of the loosing of Satan, and the events that follow, as still future, and therefore unfulfilled. We know of nothing recorded in history which can be adduced as in any way a probable fulfillment of this prophecy. Westein has hazarded the hypothesis that possibly it may symbolise the Jewish revolt under Barcochebas, in the reign of Hadrian; but the suggestion is too extravagant to be entertained for a moment.

Mellontes, this brings up something I want to ask you. I was going to ask you a while ago but I hesitated. Why did you insist on referring to Steve7150 as a Futurist when he asked to be referred to as a Historist in order to distinguish himself from other views? I consider it common courtesy and respectful to honour his request.

Further, it creates confusion for readers when the views are defined differently than they are commonly understood. People generally understand the basic concept of the different views and if they don’t they can look it up. If Steve7150 is referred to as a Futurist it is not an accurate representation of his view. Others may assume certain things about his beliefs that aren't true. Does this matter to you?

According to your definition “If someone believes most prophecies have been fulfilled but not all and that is the definition of a futurist” James Stuart Russell is a futurist as well.

[Allyn]

And yes, I realize that likely no answer will be forthcoming in direct response, because some may not deem it within their interest or do have the desire nor the time to comply. So, I guess until those Scriptures come forth, discussion is at a standstill








As soon as i get time i'll list more but to start, according to Rev 20 the day of judgment accompanying Christ's return occurs after a thousand years. You keep telling us to interpret words literally. Why not this?
It certainly does'nt sound like 40 years.

Knowing you are not a partial nor full-pret, steve, I think this is a fair question and one every end times point of view contends with. Personally since I look at this event as being heaven bound then I find no problem with it simply being a period of time. There is far more other passages that place the timing in the first century that the more obscure issues are simply mysteries.

[steve]

Personally since I look at this event as being heaven bound then I find no problem with it simply being a period of time. There is far more other passages that place the timing in the first century that the more obscure issues are simply mysteries.

Allyn,

This is an example of what I have been saying all along. Why do you assume that an event that is described as being 1000 years remote is the same event that is elsewhere said to be "at hand"? Why can't you allow there to be two events? It seems an obvious conclusion to one who has no interpretive agenda. What justifies that agenda?

Do you realize that by relegating passages that stubbornly refuse to fit in your paradigm to the realm of "mysteries," you are taking the same rhetorical approach as that taken by Calvinists when they find themselves in the same situation?

[Allyn]

Personally since I look at this event as being heaven bound then I find no problem with it simply being a period of time. There is far more other passages that place the timing in the first century that the more obscure issues are simply mysteries.

Allyn,

This is an example of what I have been saying all along. Why do you assume that an event that is described as being 1000 years remote is the same event that is elsewhere said to be "at hand"? Why can't you allow there to be two events? It seems an obvious conclusion to one who has no interpretive agenda. What justifies that agenda?

Do you realize that by relegating passages that stubbornly refuse to fit in your paradigm to the realm of "mysteries," you are taking the same rhetorical approach as that taken by Calvinists when they find themselves in the same situation?

Hello Steve.
If I remember from your verse x verse teachings you are an amillennialist - which means you take the 1000 years to be a time from the 1st century continuing on for at least 2000 years and counting. But yet the time statements have also been your teaching in your Matthew lectures.
You seem to have a problem with my honesty that Rev 20 does present a mystery for me when there is no other Scripture to nail it down as absolute according to my view or absolute according to your view for that matter.

[Mellontes]

As soon as i get time i'll list more but to start, according to Rev 20 the day of judgment accompanying Christ's return occurs after a thousand years. You keep telling us to interpret words literally. Why not this?
It certainly does'nt sound like 40 years.

Hi Steve, I’m not a FP but I thought I’d toss this in. Unless his views have changed, Mellonetes does nol concede this is future but James Stuart Russell does. He’s considered by most, if not all FP’s, to be a champion of the FP position. Here’s a quote from “The Parousia” pg 522

It would have been an abuse of language to say that the events at the distance of a thousand years were to come to pass shortly; we are therefore compelled to regard this prediction as lying outside the apocalyptic limits altogether.
We must consequently regard this prediction of the loosing of Satan, and the events that follow, as still future, and therefore unfulfilled. We know of nothing recorded in history which can be adduced as in any way a probable fulfillment of this prophecy. Westein has hazarded the hypothesis that possibly it may symbolise the Jewish revolt under Barcochebas, in the reign of Hadrian; but the suggestion is too extravagant to be entertained for a moment.

Mellontes, this brings up something I want to ask you. I was going to ask you a while ago but I hesitated. Why did you insist on referring to Steve7150 as a Futurist when he asked to be referred to as a Historist in order to distinguish himself from other views? I consider it common courtesy and respectful to honour his request.

Further, it creates confusion for readers when the views are defined differently than they are commonly understood. People generally understand the basic concept of the different views and if they don’t they can look it up. If Steve7150 is referred to as a Futurist it is not an accurate representation of his view. Others may assume certain things about his beliefs that aren't true. Does this matter to you?

According to your definition “If someone believes most prophecies have been fulfilled but not all and that is the definition of a futurist” James Stuart Russell is a futurist as well.

Yes, Russell has a varying view on the millenium, no doubt. So do premills, amills and postmills. I guess full preterists would technically be post mills...

Definition of a futurist: one who does NOT believe all prophecy has been fulfilled. According to that definition J.S. Russell would be classified as a futurist even though he believe the "appearing the second time" was a past event. A Historist is a futurist too, according to that definition

And guys, I don't really understand where all this rhetoric is coming from.

All I want is:
1) a list of verses showing "the coming" as a yet future event.
2) a list of verses showing "a coming" as pointing to 70 AD as a type of coming (as it is referred to by futurists)

For instance, 2 Thess 1:7-10...

2 Thessalonians 1:7-10 - And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

This is commonly exegeted as being the future Parousia. So, I'm assuming that this passage would go into the future parousia classification. If not, it goes into the other list for 70AD.

All I want are the passages that point to the COMING that is directly related to either the coming in 70AD (type, as you folks say) or the future coming.

I want nothing else - Just Scripture passages regarding THE COMING and which category they belong.

And since the administrator has always answered that question, I am sure he already has that list for us...
I am not interested in resurrection verses, judgment verses, millenium verses, lake of fire verses. I am only interested in the COMING verses at this juncture. I am not interested in opinions, views, positions, conjecture, suppostions, presuppositions, paradigms. I just want the passages of Scripture regarding the COMING that apply to either 70 AD or your future coming. I can't state it any clearer than this. I didn't think I had to go into this kind of detail to get my point across...

[steve]

Allyn wrote:

If I remember from your verse x verse teachings you are an amillennialist - which means you take the 1000 years to be a time from the 1st century continuing on for at least 2000 years and counting. But yet the time statements have also been your teaching in your Matthew lectures.
You seem to have a problem with my honesty that Rev 20 does present a mystery for me when there is no other Scripture to nail it down as absolute according to my view or absolute according to your view for that matter.

Actually it must have been a while since you listened to those lectures. If you would listen to them again, I do not think you would be able to say "there is no other Scripture to nail it down"—since I give multiple cross-references for every detail of Revelation 20, such as leave its interpretation in no reasonable doubt.

While it is true that neither you nor I take the thousand years literally, you think it refers to a very short time, while I take its meaning to be a very long time. Given the consistent use of the number thousand throughout scripture, my identification would seem abundantly justified. Where in scripture is the number 1000 used as an indicator of a "small" number?

[Allyn]

Also Steve, I might add that Rev. 20 fits very well with the events Jesus and His INSPIRED writers had taught would take place upon the 1st century believers. Jesus said persecution would befall the Church and so did every other NT writer speak of this to their churches. Lets face it, Rev 20 has some issues but it is very clear on the fact that Satan is bound, and the 1st resurrection involves only those who had been martyred for their testimony concerning Jesus and that both events take place in the unseen, spiritual world. After that Satan is released for a little season and the dead OT saints are also raised at the end of the period.

Your view allows nothing for the 1st resurrection as portrayed in the chapter. Instead, your view makes those who were beheaded as the whole church age which you find convenient to bring to an end. A teach found contrary to Scripture in the fact that the kingdom of God never ends.