The Preterist Blog ~ 100% Hyperpreterist Free|we can haz rezurekshun?

I am presently reading R.T. France’s Commentary on Matthew and as usual, I mined it for quotes I thought might be edifying to share here, and that I am keeping in my research archives. This is the fourth post of a series:

Page 175

Matthew 9:37-38

If the need of Israel is one spur to urgency, another is the opportunity. The harvest is plentiful, and it is ripe. Harvest is used in the Old Testament as a picture of the coming judgment (Is. 27:12; Ho. 6:11; Joel 3:13); John the Baptist had taken this up (3:12), and Jesus does so elsewhere (13:39-40; cf. Mk. 4:29). Here, however, as in John 4:35, his thought is rather of men’s readiness now to respond to the Gospel by ‘fleeing from the wrath to come.’ The context shows that the labourers here are not angels sent out to executre final judgment on the nations, as his Jewish hearers would expect, but men sent out to recue others from judgment, and beginning within Israel itself (10:5-6).

Pages 212-213

Matthew 12:38-45

Jesus’ condemnation of ‘this generation’ is a prominent theme in Matthew; see, apart from this passage, 11:16-19; 16:4; 17:17; 24:34; and especially 23:29-36, which shows that it refers to his contemporaries, not just Jews or men in general, as those in whom Isreal’s age-long rebellion has culminated, and on whom judgment must therefore fall.

Pages 264-265

Matthew 7:11

Jesus endorses the scribes’ expectation (v. 11), but goes on to show that the reality is so different from the way they pictured it that they did not know him(v. 12). Is to restore all thing (the future tense is that of the scribal hope, not Jesus’ prediction of a still future coming of Elijah) reflects Malachi 4:6 (3:24; Heb.), where the same verb is used only of Elijah’s ‘turning’ the hearts of fathers to children. Hence the failure to recognize John the Baptist as the returning Elijah…

Page 276

Matthew 18:19-20

… if their gathering is in my name then Jesus himself is part of that gathering. Davies calls this ‘a Christified bit of rabbinism,’ as it echoes a rabbinic belief that ‘if two sit together and words of the Law [are] between them, the Shekinah (God’s presence) rests between them’ (Mishnah Aboth 3:2). But now the ‘divine presence’ is Jesus himself.

Page 294

At Qumran and in some Rabbinic writing, ‘the many’ is a term for the covenant community…

Below is an except from the book “Jesus Ascended: The Meaning of Christ’s Continuing Incarnation” by Author Gerritt Scott Dawson.  I found this to be quite edifying and thought provoking. 

“One nuance from the church fathers on the ascension and the person of Christ deserves attention. The passage quoted in Chapter 2 from Tertullian’s “On the Resurrection of the Flesh” continues:

the last Adam, yet the primary Word – flesh and blood, yet purer than ours -… ‘shall descend in like matter as He ascended into heaven’ the same both in substance and form, as the angels affirmed, so as even to be recognized by those who pierced Him. Designated, as He is, ‘the Mediator between God and man,’ He keeps in His own self the deposit of flesh which has been committed to Him by both parties – the pledge and security of its entire perfection. For as ‘He has given to us the earnest of the Spirit,’ so has He received from us the earnest of the flesh, and has carried it with Him into heaven as a pledge of that complete entirety which is one day to be restored to it. Be not disquieted, O flesh and blood, with any care; in Christ you have acquired both heaven and the kingdom of God.

Read the rest of this entry »

I am once again attempting to listen straight through Dr. Bahnsen’s audio series on Revelation. I tried this before but my life got very busy, and I didn’t get very far. So I am starting again, and will post the nuggets here.

Dr. Bahsen warned against “flattening” our theology when we compare Scripture to Scripture and to remember that it is not always true that similar phrases mean the same thing. They can…. but they always sometimes don’t. This is of course part of the interpretative error of the hyperpreterists who shoehorn everything into an AD70 mold, which error is sometimes ignorantly propogated by my orthodox preterist brethren.

Specifically Dr. Bahnsen pointed this out:

Romans 8:9 - But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit….

Revelation 1:10 - I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s Day….

“In the Spirit” in these two passages are not the same thing, but they are related.

In a related issue, J.A. Schep noted in his work The Nature of Resurrection Body:

As is the case with Paul’s usage of the word “sarx,” the term “body of Christ”? isused with different conclusions. It can denote Christ’s personal, literal body, in which he dies, rose from the dead, went to heaven, and will come again; the Church; and the bread in the Lord’s Supper. Though the three are related, they are not identical.

Gentry makes the same point:

Beyond the introduction of this matter relative to the philosophy of language, it is important to realize that A.D. 70 is not unrelated to the Second Advent. As the ending of the era of sacrificial rituals and Israel-exalting redemptive history, A.D. 70 is a pre-consummational type of the Second Advent’s history ending, consummational conclusion. Hence, the similarity of language and the mixing of ideas is justified on the basis of the relationship of type (A.D. 70) to antitype (Second Advent) [This phenomenon of type/anti-type is very common in Davidic/Messianic passages. In such references, what is said of the historical King David often applies to the Messianic King Jesus.]

Even so come Lord Jesus.

Originally posted March 26, 2005

I am presently reading R.T. France’s Commentary on Matthew and as usual, I mined it for quotes I thought might be edifying to share here, and that I am keeping in my research archives. This is the third post of a series:

Pages 52–54

The True Israel

C.H. Dodd suggested that in Jesus’ view ‘The Messiah is not only founder and leader of the Israel-to-be, the new people of God; he is its “inclusive representation.” In a real sense he is the true Israel, carrying through in his own experience the process through which it comes into being.”

Matthew also seems to present this idea that Jesus himself is the true Israel. Perhaps it is already implicit in his presentation of Jesus as ‘King of the Jews,’ but it come to more obvious expression in some of the typological references to the Old Testament. The use of Hosea 11:1 in 2:15 makes sense only if Jesus, as God’s son, is equated with Israel as ‘God’s son.’ the same typology underlies the references to Deuteronomy 6–8 in the account of Jesus’ testing in the wilderness. The parable which most clearly speaks of the failure and replacement of Israel (21:33–43)concludes, with Jesus’ reference to Psalm 118:22, a passage about Israel’s unexpected vindication but now transferred to Jesus in his vindication over Israel’s rebellion.

Read the rest of this entry »

I am presently reading R.T. France’s Commentary on Matthew and as usual, I mined it for quotes I thought might be edifying to share here, and that I am keeping in my research archives. This is the second post of a series:

Pages 51–52

The Failure of Israel

John the Baptist called Israel to repentance in the light of coming judgment. His new type of baptism symbolized what he explicitly proclaims, that this judgment threatened the ‘children of Abraham’ themselves, whose deed had not matched up to their privileged status. And Matthew takes care to show Jesus’ ministry as in direct succession to that of John, as the bringer of ‘Holy Spirit and fire,’ the one who is to implement the judgment.

So, we hear repeatedly Jesus’ condemnation of ‘this generation’ for its failure to recognize God’s messengers and to respond to his call, culminating in the clear warning that now the rebellion of Israel has gone too far, and that the time for judgment has come, which leads on in its turn to the prediction of the destruction of the temple, ‘this generation.’ No wonder Jesus was seen as a second Jeremiah!

Read the rest of this entry »

This was originally posted May 2009. I thought Samuel would find my comments on the elect interesting.

I have expressed over the past few years the view that I was coming to regarding the coming of Christ. (pun intended) That is that the coming of Christ is the reign of Christ bookended by two physical advents. It is both its parts and the whole. This is the most Biblically consistent way I believe of looking at the issue. Now, when I first thought of it, I was wary. I am always wary of theological novelty. I don’t presume to be so clever as to come up with some new theory that others have not. My first encouragement came when I was listening to Greg Bahnsen’s series on Revelation when he quoted Hengenstenberg. I immediately got the book, and I am not exaggerating to say that I got all misty-eyed with joy on how my thoughts were so eloquently put down nearly two centuries ago. Without further ado, here is the Hengstenberg passage that has blessed me so much, and is the key to inoculate oneself against hyperpreterism.

What is interesting is that Hengstenberg is working backwards to the same point I am working forwards to. He is coming at the passage as an orthodox believer in the future final physical return to show that this final return has echoes in the past and is part and parcel of an ongoing event.

I come to the passage as someone who sees clearly the first century application and works forward to show that it must point ultimately to the consummation. To deny either is to rob Christ of the fullness of His reign. Christ is not reigning in hyperpreterist-world as the mediator. He has already given up the Messianic Kingdom to the Father (1 Cor. 15). And to the hyperpreterist who denies an end of history and tries to claim that Christ already resurrected him, how could Christ even do that when there is no end to the number of the elect as there is no end to history. And an actual infinite number is an impossibility. No matter what number you posit, you can always add one more to it. This makes Calvinistic hyperpreterism absurd. It would fit with an open theism version of hyperpreterism, but not a Calvinist one. Calvinism requires a fixed number of elect that can be foreknown. A never-ending history does not and cannot provide that.

Read the rest of this entry »

I am presently reading R.T. France’s Commentary on Matthew and as usual, I mined it for quotes I thought might be edifying to share here, and that I am keeping in my research archives. This is the first post of a series:

Page 38

The essential key to all Matthew’s theology is that in Jesus all God’s purposes have come to fulfillment. That is, of course, true of all New Testament theology, but it is emphasized in a remarkable way in Matthew. Everything is related to Jesus. The Old Testament points forward to him; its law is ‘fulfilled’ in his teaching; he is the true Israel through whom God’s plans for his people now go forward; the future no less than the present is to be understood as the working out of the ministry of Jesus. History revolves around him, in that his coming is the turning point at which the age of preparation gives way to the age of fulfillment. Matthew leaves no room for any idea of the fulfillment of God’s purposes, whether for Israel or in any other respect, which is not focused in this theme of fulfillment in Jesus. In his coming a new age has dawned; nothing will ever be quite the same again.

Read the rest of this entry »

I recently read From Age to Age by Keith Mathison and as usual, I mined it for quotes I thought might be edifying to share here, and that I am keeping in my research archives. This is the last post of a series. I will be combining them all into an article at PreteristSite, and will post a link when I do so.

Pages 688-689

Revelation 20:1-10 is another text in the book that has been the source of much disagreement. This text describes a period of a “thousand years,” or a millennium, and is at the center of the ongoing debate between premillennialists, amillennialists, and postmillennialists. Because of its significance in contemporary debates, we must examine this text carefully. It is important to keep in mind, however, that verse 1-3 refer to events preceding or at the beginning of the thousand years. Verses 4-6 refer to the millennium itself, and verses 7-10 refer to events occurring at the end of the thousand years.

Read the rest of this entry »

I recently read From Age to Age by Keith Mathison and as usual, I mined it for quotes I thought might be edifying to share here, and that I am keeping in my research archives. This is a continuation of a series.

Page 546—551

The Resurrection of the Dead (1 Cor. 15)

Eschatology moves from the background to the foreground in 1 Corinthians 15. Here Paul turns his full attention to the doctrine of the resurrection. The question to which Paul is responding is not stated explicitly until verse 12. Paul informs us there that some of the Corinthians were saying that “there is no resurrection of the dead.” As we examine the text, it will become clear that what they were denying was the future bodily resurrection of believers. Paul makes very clear in this chapter how central the doctrine of the resurrection is to the Christian faith. His argument proceeds in two stages. In verses 1—34, he demonstrates the reality of the resurrection of the dead. In verses 25—58, he explains how it is that the bodily resurrection of believers is possible.

Read the rest of this entry »

I recently read From Age to Age by Keith Mathison and as usual, I mined it for quotes I thought might be edifying to share here, and that I am keeping in my research archives. This is a continuation of a series.

Page 472-474

Acts 3:19-21
“Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago” (3:19-21). The people had rejected Jesus, and Peter is now calling upon them to repent.

The structure of the sentence indicates that repentance has two consequences. The immediate personal consequence of repentance is ice is the blotting out of sin (3:19). The broader consequence of repentance is the coming of “times of refreshing” and the sending of Jesus the Messiah (v. 20). What does Peter mean when he speaks of “times of refreshing”? C.K. Barrett argues that the plural “times” indicates that the “times of refreshing” are repeated intervals of respite between the resurrection and the parousia. Hans Conzelmann and others rightly reject this idea. They argue instead that “times of refreshing” refers to the final age of salvation. But is this a better interpretation?

Read the rest of this entry »