|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 10, 2009 10:46:29 GMT -5
I'm not brand-spanking new to preterism, but new enough that some things are still just sinking in as I read the scriptures.
I was reading Matthew 13 this morning when I got to Jesus' explanation of the parable of the tares:
Matthew 13:37-38 NASB
(37) And He said, "The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man,
(38) and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one;
The sower is Jesus and the "field" is "the world."
We know from elsewhere (Matthew 15:24, Matthew 10:6) that the Son of Man was sent "only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Therefore, the "world" refers only to the house of Israel! The implication of this is HUGE if we look at where that same word "world" (G2889, kosmos) is used (not least of which are references to the "foundation of the world"). For example:
(John 1:29 NASB) The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!
If "the world" here is old covenant Israel, then that makes sense of Hebrews 9:15, where Jesus' death is said to be for redemption of the transgressions committed under the first covenant. How many times have you heard the question raised, "But gentiles were never under the first covenant?"
Also consider:
John 3:16-17 NASB
(16) "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
(17) "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Acts 13:23 NASB
(23) "From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus,
Acts 5:31 NASB
(31) "He is the one whom God exalted to His right hand as a Prince and a Savior, to grant repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
John 4:42 NASB
(42) and they were saying to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world."
The "world" is the corrupt old covenant Israel, thus the following verses make sense in that light:
John 8:23 NASB
(23) And He was saying to them [the Jews], "You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world.
John 8:12 NASB
(12) Then Jesus again spoke to them, saying, "I am the Light of the world; he who follows Me will not walk in the darkness, but will have the Light of life."
John 18:20 NASB
(20) Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all the Jews come together; and I spoke nothing in secret.
I could go on and on. Sorry for this being so long, but this insight is nothing short of staggering, not only to eschatology, but to the teaching of the gospel itself in the churches.
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Dec 10, 2009 14:23:28 GMT -5
Absolutely correct Bev!  My personal belief is that when the word "world" is used, and whether it refers to the "kosmos," "oikumene," or "aion," that it NEVER refers to the planet. My understanding is that the "kosmos" is probably about 95% related to Israel in some respect... This is why I am adamant that we view the NT as an exchange and transition of covenants. New inaugurated at the cross and the old made of no effect (but still in practice) gradually diminishing until its final demise in the destruction of old Jerusalem... When one does not view the NT as this exchange of covenants, one always comes up with the physical demise (or refurbishment) of the planet Earth. I personally don't see these first century people had much of a proper understanding of the universe and how Earth was just another planet in the first place. Earth to them meant land, not planet Earth, which, incidentally, was given its name some time much later! 1 Corinthians 7:31 - And they that use this world [kosmos], as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world [kosmos] passeth away. Hebrews 1:11 - They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; Hebrews 8:13 - In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. The most difficult thing to understand regarding Hebrews 1:11 is the fact that it points back to the previous verse: Hebrews 1:10 - And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: Which is normally considered to be the physical creation, right? This is why, as a preterist, I have moved over to covenant creation. I don't understand all but I see its merits more and more every day. It is also my understanding (I may be wrong here) that the Calvinists teach that the "world" of John 3:16 refers strictly to the elect of God - which, to me, is in antithesis to the old covenant economy people... I think a proper view of preterism dismisses Calvinism.
|
|
|
|
Post by bryan729 on Dec 10, 2009 16:58:57 GMT -5
Good Job Bev, you furthered my education some more in fulfilled eschatology. I can relate to the joy you feel when these sort of things just seem to pop right off the page and are magnifed. I already discovered I can learn from mellontes as well. Being into preterism less than a year, I got so much to learn. With the folks here posting, that may not be as difficult as I thought. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Dec 10, 2009 17:16:32 GMT -5
Good Job Bev, you furthered my education some more in fulfilled eschatology. I can relate to the joy you feel when these sort of things just seem to pop right off the page and are magnifed. I already discovered I can learn from mellontes as well. Being into preterism less than a year, I got so much to learn. With the folks here posting, that may not be as difficult as I thought. Thanks. HA! You just "think" you can learn from mellontes. He has everyone fooled! It is just part of a chat hypnosis software that I developed a few months back... Isn't it amazing when something jumps off the pages of Scripture and slaps you hard in the face. And you have read it hundreds of times before...In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you said just that - "Amazing, I've read that hundreds of times before but..." Did you know that my "nick" is just a play on the Greek word derived from Strong's 3195 (Acts 20:13; 22:29; 23:20; 27:2; James 2:12; Revelation 6:11) Blessings! |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 10, 2009 18:48:33 GMT -5
Thanks, Ted! ... I think a proper view of preterism dismisses Calvinism. IMO, a proper view of anything dismisses Calvinism.  Bev |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 10, 2009 18:50:42 GMT -5
Good Job Bev, you furthered my education some more in fulfilled eschatology. I can relate to the joy you feel when these sort of things just seem to pop right off the page and are magnifed. I already discovered I can learn from mellontes as well. Being into preterism less than a year, I got so much to learn. With the folks here posting, that may not be as difficult as I thought. Thanks. Thanks, Bryan. I'm learning, too! Bev |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 10, 2009 18:55:09 GMT -5
... Did you know that my "nick" is just a play on the Greek word derived from Strong's 3195 (Acts 20:13; 22:29; 23:20; 27:2; James 2:12; Revelation 6:11) Blessings! I didn't know that! Did you intend for that play on words?  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 10, 2009 19:06:19 GMT -5
...
This is why, as a preterist, I have moved over to covenant creation. I don't understand all but I see its merits more and more every day. I've had some ah-ha moments in this area recently, too. I might start a new thread on it somewhere, if I can decide which forum here would be appropriate for it. Bev |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Dec 10, 2009 21:29:15 GMT -5
... Did you know that my "nick" is just a play on the Greek word derived from Strong's 3195 (Acts 20:13; 22:29; 23:20; 27:2; James 2:12; Revelation 6:11) Blessings! I didn't know that! Did you intend for that play on words? Absolutively!! It was just one more straw that broke the futurist's back... |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Dec 10, 2009 21:30:12 GMT -5
...
This is why, as a preterist, I have moved over to covenant creation. I don't understand all but I see its merits more and more every day. I've had some ah-ha moments in this area recently, too. I might start a new thread on it somewhere, if I can decide which forum here would be appropriate for it. Bev Perhaps somewhere in the BCS section... |
|
|
|
Post by bryan729 on Dec 10, 2009 21:57:53 GMT -5
mellontes, I appreciate your spirit of humility, honestly.  |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Dec 10, 2009 22:28:07 GMT -5
Perhaps somewhere in the BCS section... That section seems to have disappeared and been replaced with Games. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 11, 2010 9:51:44 GMT -5
I am not so sure that the kosmos world here is referring to Israel, because the children of the kingdom are the seed sown by the Son of Man. If the field world were only Israel then how is it the harvest at the end of the age removes only the tares from the kingdom - not the world? If Israel is to be seen here it is within the kingdom 'borders' - since that is the only kingdom of God in which the devil sowed tares that were removed at the end of the age.
The part-prets however think it is the world at large that must have all the tares removed - but that idea is not found in this parable.
Also the parable of the nets is telling a similar story. The nets do not gather all the fish in the sea, but of those that are gathered, a separation is made - at the end of the age.
|
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 11, 2010 10:28:19 GMT -5
I am not so sure that the kosmos world here is referring to Israel, because the children of the kingdom are the seed sown by the Son of Man. If the field world were only Israel then how is it the harvest at the end of the age removes only the tares from the kingdom - not the world? If Israel is to be seen here it is within the kingdom 'borders' - since that is the only kingdom of God in which the devil sowed tares that were removed at the end of the age. The part-prets however think it is the world at large that must have all the tares removed - but that idea is not found in this parable. Also the parable of the nets is telling a similar story. The nets do not gather all the fish in the sea, but of those that are gathered, a separation is made - at the end of the age. Good point. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 11, 2010 13:27:18 GMT -5
Robin, when you say, "I am not so sure that the kosmos world here is referring to Israel," could you be more specific of what "here" you are referring to? That is, in which verses. Thanks!
Bev
|
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 11, 2010 21:20:20 GMT -5
Hi Bev,
I was looking at the parable in your OP - Mat 13.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 11, 2010 23:16:35 GMT -5
Hi Bev, I was looking at the parable in your OP - Mat 13. Thanks, Robin. I see now that you did use some wording that, if I was a little more astute, should have been clear to me. Robin wrote:
I am not so sure that the kosmos world here is referring to Israel, because the children of the kingdom are the seed sown by the Son of Man. If the field world were only Israel then how is it the harvest at the end of the age removes only the tares from the kingdom - not the world? If Israel is to be seen here it is within the kingdom 'borders' - since that is the only kingdom of God in which the devil sowed tares that were removed at the end of the age.
The part-prets however think it is the world at large that must have all the tares removed - but that idea is not found in this parable.
Also the parable of the nets is telling a similar story. The nets do not gather all the fish in the sea, but of those that are gathered, a separation is made - at the end of the age. I keep re-reading this and each time I do, I become more and more convinced that we are agreeing. My mistake in my OP may have been to refer to Israel, if by that you thought I meant spiritual Israel. I meant physical Israel. The world would be the "Jewish world" of Old Covenant Israel. The sons of the kingdom (the good seed) would be those Jews who believed in Jesus as Messiah and the sons of the evil one (the tares) would be those Jews who denied him. Am I muddying the waters even more? I don't mean to. I may just be confused myself. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 12, 2010 9:21:20 GMT -5
I keep re-reading this and each time I do, I become more and more convinced that we are agreeing. My mistake in my OP may have been to refer to Israel, if by that you thought I meant spiritual Israel. I meant physical Israel. The world would be the "Jewish world" of Old Covenant Israel. The sons of the kingdom (the good seed) would be those Jews who believed in Jesus as Messiah and the sons of the evil one (the tares) would be those Jews who denied him. Am I muddying the waters even more? I don't mean to. I may just be confused myself. Bev, I am with you on this. It would seem that most, if not all, of Jesus' parables were concerning the house of Israel. He went unto His own and they received him not. As a prior dispensationalist, the parables were taught as having impetus to the church and the "regular" world out there. This is probably one of the things that lead so many astray...among the other things as well. "For God so loved the world" is strictly Jewish. It was Israel who expected the Messiah. These are not promises to the Gentiles. We were on the outside. We are allowed the opportunity to be co-heirs by total fluke (Israel's rejection). Of course, God knew about this as was prophesied in the OT. Same thing with Matthew 28:19-20 and Mark 16:15-18. Note the " end of the world" in the Matthew passage. We all know this to be the old covenant world, not our present globe. Jesus did not change the definition of world. And in the Mark passage, note the "signs." Signs are for the Jews. |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 12, 2010 17:23:36 GMT -5
Ted, thanks for your great reply.
Preterists are good at pointing out the proofs that show all prophecy fulfilled by A.D. 70.
What I would like to see, however, is a good scriptural essay (commentary, report, study, whatever) that tells people today how they are affected by the Scriptures and what fulfilled prophecy means for their future and death.
Part of the resistance to preterism may be the fear that, if everything in Scripture was pertinent to those living in the first century and that all prophecy is fulfilled, are we then without any hope at all? Does nothing apply to us?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 12, 2010 21:46:49 GMT -5
Ted, thanks for your great reply. Preterists are good at pointing out the proofs that show all prophecy fulfilled by A.D. 70. What I would like to see, however, is a good scriptural essay (commentary, report, study, whatever) that tells people today how they are affected by the Scriptures and what fulfilled prophecy means for their future and death. Part of the resistance to preterism may be the fear that, if everything in Scripture was pertinent to those living in the first century and that all prophecy is fulfilled, are we then without any hope at all? Does nothing apply to us? There are lots or articles that address exactly what you desire. I don't know of any exact links, but they are in many preterist books. But try not tot think along the lines of others who have criticised the all-fulfilled view that nothing applies any longer...A fulfilled Scripture means that it simply came to pass as the OT said. For instance, Isaiah 11:10 is shown its fulfillment by Romans 15:12, although I think it quite likely that the Gospel had gone to the Gentiles prior to Paul's mention of Romans 15:12. But the key thing is this...it continues to go to the Gentiles. Same thing for all the fulfillments concerning Christ. Are we to say that Christ's work on Calvary stopped at the generation who were alive when He died for us. What about those who were born after Calvary and PRIOR to 70 AD? What about those born after 70 AD? Does Calvary no longer have any application? No. Of course not. We no longer hope. We have the promise. Of the two choices below, what would you rather have? 1. Working, saving and hoping that one day you might get the home of your dreams 2. Possessing the home of your dreams Or better yet... 1. Hoping that one day you will have $5,000,000.00 in your bank account 2. Having $5,000,000.00 in your bank account We got it ALL at the moment of salvation, and the best part, we don't have to wait for it to be completed. Why don't you start a blog on all the sites you belong to asking for those articles and essays. I am sure Larry Siegle would have something on this... |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 12, 2010 21:54:41 GMT -5
Ted there is a 3rd choice.
3. Knowing your inheritance is secured, the taxes and mortgage have been paid and all it is waiting for is you to move in!
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 12, 2010 22:20:21 GMT -5
... Are we to say that Christ's work on Calvary stopped at the generation who were alive when He died for us. What about those who were born after Calvary and PRIOR to 70 AD? What about those born after 70 AD? ... Ted, I think those are excellent questions to pose to make people realize that it would not make sense for the benefit of Christ's sacrifice to be so limiting. After all, the old covenant endured through many generations over a period of some 1400 years. The new covenant surely does not become useless after a mere 40 years, a single generation. I can understand why someone deep in futurism would fear fulfilled eschatology -- because they are approaching it with the mindset that the "end of all things" is the end of the world as we know it. There would be no reason for a covenant to even exist once Christ returned and everyone was judged. That must mean (in their mind) that if Christ returned in 70 A.D. and the judgment has taken place, God is done with this world and from that time onward everyone may as well be atheists because God's plan is completed. Thanks for your thoughts on that! |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 13, 2010 1:14:43 GMT -5
Ted there is a 3rd choice. 3. Knowing your inheritance is secured, the taxes and mortgage have been paid and all it is waiting for is you to move in! Mograce, I have edited this response. Initially, I had said "I'll take the $5,000,000.00..." and tacked on a smiley face and left it at that. But while posting to Bev, I went back and looked again at what you said, and I must now ask for clarification. You said the inheritance is secured, the taxes and mortgage have been paid [fine so far - Mel], but then you said "it is waiting for you to move in." I think this differs a tad from what I was emphasizing. I am saying that we HAVE POSSESSED (past tense) and it " seems" that your example is " still waiting" (future tense). Perhaps I have misunderstood your 3rd example. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 13, 2010 1:23:22 GMT -5
Ted, I think those are excellent questions to pose to make people realize that it would not make sense for the benefit of Christ's sacrifice to be so limiting. After all, the old covenant endured through many generations over a period of some 1400 years. The new covenant surely does not become useless after a mere 40 years, a single generation. I can understand why someone deep in futurism would fear fulfilled eschatology -- because they are approaching it with the mindset that the "end of all things" is the end of the world as we know it. There would be no reason for a covenant to even exist once Christ returned and everyone was judged. That must mean (in their mind) that if Christ returned in 70 A.D. and the judgment has taken place, God is done with this world and from that time onward everyone may as well be atheists because God's plan is completed. Thanks for your thoughts on that! Fulfilled eschatology removes all their present hopes, especially for the dispensationalists. They have got a lot of brass polishing to catch up on! When one has been taught physical, physical, physical all their Christian life, and for us to come along and strip away everything they have believed, it comes as a complete shock. Many won't even consider full-preterism because the shock factor is too much for them to overcome. They have lived in a state of expectation for so long that they have no clue how to live in completed salvic state. What this generally means to most is R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y, now they are really accountable for what they do...and people who a have very limited working knowledge of the Bible (which preterism quickly exposes) feel extremely threatened by this heightened awareness of repsonsibility...IMO |
|
|
|
Post by Allyn on Jan 13, 2010 7:55:23 GMT -5
Ted, thanks for your great reply.
Preterists are good at pointing out the proofs that show all prophecy fulfilled by A.D. 70.
What I would like to see, however, is a good scriptural essay (commentary, report, study, whatever) that tells people today how they are affected by the Scriptures and what fulfilled prophecy means for their future and death.
Part of the resistance to preterism may be the fear that, if everything in Scripture was pertinent to those living in the first century and that all prophecy is fulfilled, are we then without any hope at all? Does nothing apply to us?
My argument has always been that the benefit for the believer today is the love of Christ in us through the Father who raised Christ from the dead. Are benefit is the fruit of the Spirit, the abundant life in Christ, the peace that passes all understanding, the life immortal here and now give by the Spirit of God through The love accomplished on the cross. This is my stand based on Romans 8 principle on living. |
|
|
|
Post by MoGrace2U on Jan 13, 2010 11:20:00 GMT -5
Ted there is a 3rd choice. 3. Knowing your inheritance is secured, the taxes and mortgage have been paid and all it is waiting for is you to move in! Mograce, I have edited this response. Initially, I had said "I'll take the $5,000,000.00..." and tacked on a smiley face and left it at that. But while posting to Bev, I went back and looked again at what you said, and I must now ask for clarification. You said the inheritance is secured, the taxes and mortgage have been paid [fine so far - Mel], but then you said "it is waiting for you to move in." I think this differs a tad from what I was emphasizing. I am saying that we HAVE POSSESSED (past tense) and it " seems" that your example is " still waiting" (future tense). Perhaps I have misunderstood your 3rd example. 1 Cor 15:19 - If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. We ain't home yet... |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 13, 2010 13:59:04 GMT -5
1 Cor 15:19 - If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. We ain't home yet... It would seem then that you have the same hope as the pre-parousia saints and the hope that present futurists have... All my hopes were realized in Christ at the moment of salvation. This is what the parousia does... |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 13, 2010 14:03:36 GMT -5
Ted, your recent comments prompt me to ask you a question. What do you think becomes of you (and I don't mean your physical body) when you die?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 14, 2010 8:20:52 GMT -5
Ted, your recent comments prompt me to ask you a question. What do you think becomes of you (and I don't mean your physical body) when you die? Hi Bev, And don't worry, I don't think I ever thought of the "me" portion as having anything to do with my temporary physical shell. Even dispensationalists preach at funerals that "he" or "she" is not in the coffin...but is with the Lord. They kind of leave out the part where they "apparently" have to crawl back into their decayed corpses which somehow get changed to be "better" fitted for life in another realm, which they just came from for goodness knows how long... I go somewhere else which I don't have much knowledge of, and even if knowledge was given I could not understand...but I will live forever... John 6:51 - I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. John 6:58 - This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. and here is a good covenant creation language verse: John 6:57 - As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. |
|
|
|
Post by Sower on Jan 14, 2010 11:39:44 GMT -5
Hi Bev,
Sorry, but I disagree! It seems inference that "world" refers to the house of Israel presents a problem, such as...
Matthew 16:26 for what is a man profited, if he gain the whole world and lose, and lose his own soul?...
John 18:36...My kingdom is not of this word...
Acts 17:31...He will judge the world in righteousness.
Note...
Romans 11:12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the "world," and the diminishing of the them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fullness?
15 For if thecasting away of them be the reconciling of the "world," what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead.
It seem to me if "world" refer to Israel, none Israelites will be eliminated from many promises pertaining to the kingdom.
The Sower~
|
|
