Hey gotta question in your theological framework where does the chaining of satan and take place? Revelation speaks of it during the millenial reign and then his release again to disceive the nations at the end of the millenium. Is Satan chained and unable to tempt now? How does your view interpret these scriptures?
Also this view (partial preterism) takes the times of the tribulation literal in time and history in 70 AD but then takes the millenium not literal but rather symbolic of an era of time. Why do they interpret it this way?
Also how does Partial Pret interpret the miracles of Jesus and the prophecies concerning Jesus first coming? Symbolic or literal?
See the book of daniel on the years prophetically decreed on the rejection of Jesus on the cross
Old T prophets released prophetic words from God who stands outside of time and releases applicable words that are then specific and future specific ( see OT prophecies on the destruction of Babylon- the specific destruction did not take place on the scale depicted by the prophet instead there was a seamless cou de ta by the medes and the persians- when then will that destruction take place?)
The prophetic word given to abraham and joseph on the slavery in egypt was clear and exact to the year, why then does the interpretation change to the time at the end of this age I.E. the millenium?
Have you studied into the perspective the hebrew scholars say on the millenial kingdom? To gain a jewish perpective is vital. It must be pointed out that the interpretation of more symbolic look into the end of this age is due to an influence of origen who greek philosophy that downplayed the role of the physical and lifted more the spiritual. Chrisitian theology brings a marriage to both throughout an individual and even in redemptive history now and future.
Our tie to jewish perspective see paul in romans.
-I pray that I was clear and concise!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Like I told you in the facebook inbox, I'll get to this as soon as possible. I had a turn of events. I start my Tech-School on Monday! That came out of no where. So, I'm going to work on it bit by bit until I can post something that satisfies me. All great questions I'm going to read up on!
ReplyDeleteJacob: Is Satan chained and unable to tempt now? How does your view interpret these scriptures?
ReplyDeleteMatt: Yes. We're in the Millennial Reign now, when all the enemies are being put under Jesus' feet. Christianity is spreading like a wild fire, so this makes sense, and it's still in line with the spiritual kind of reign Jesus talked about, instead of the military reign the Jews were expecting. But after the 2nd coming, the New Jerusalem will reign here, in the New Earth, and the kingdom the Jews were always waiting for will finally be here.
Jacob: Also this view (partial preterism) takes the times of the tribulation literal in time and history in 70 AD but then takes the millenium not literal but rather symbolic of an era of time. Why do they interpret it this way?
Matt: But I think the Millennium is taking place 'literally in time and history' too. Are you asking: why is the Trib. 7 literal years and the Millennium not 1,000 literal years? The reason I think the Trib. is 7 years is because the Jewish War fulfills (and we can debate the minutiae) everything Jesus and the prophets said it would be like. It fits the paradigm perfectly. Now, barring a double fulfillment, a future fulfillment (while possible) isn't necessary, and - I might argue - the text is silent on it. The reason I think the Millennium is a figurative 1,000 years is mainly because of the time-line Paul gave us in 1 Cor. 15: 24,25 - "24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Since this isn't done yet, and it's been over a 1,000 years, it's probably figurative. You also have the precedent in 2 Peter 3:8, where it's obviously used metaphorically.
Brief intermission . . .
Jacob: Also how does Partial Pret interpret the miracles of Jesus and the prophecies concerning Jesus first coming? Symbolic or literal?
ReplyDeleteMatt: The miracles of Jesus are literal. The Gospels aren't Apocalyptic Literature, only the content of some of Jesus' sermons. But Gospel's genre is 'ancient biography'. But I would argue the miracles are symbolic for other things; but that's another issue - which is very cool, btw. But I don't think we should put a wedge between 'symbolic' and 'literal': symbols represent real literal events in space/time. We just can't mistake the symbol for the reality. It would be like saying: the bald eagle swooped down and, with its talons, ripped through the iron curtain. The bald eagle is a symbol for America; the iron curtain is a symbol for Russia. But just because these are symbols doesn't mean there wasn't any America, Russia, or Cold War. It does mean, though, that there never was - in space/time - a literal eagle that ripped through a literal iron curtain.
The prophets: this is tricky, but my view (based on my study; and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the prophecies were literal and symbolic. For example: Isaiah 53 is literally talking about Israel, but symbolically talking about Christ. Instead of using abstract symbols (like the bald eagle or the iron curtain) we have concrete symbols, real space/time entities that represent/anticipate (symbolically) another real space/time entity, Jesus. Tell me what you think.
Jacob: Old T prophets released prophetic words from God who stands outside of time and releases applicable words that are then specific and future specific ( see OT prophecies on the destruction of Babylon- the specific destruction did not take place on the scale depicted by the prophet instead there was a seamless cou de ta by the medes and the persians- when then will that destruction take place?)
ReplyDeleteMatt:
1. Off-topic: but I have problems with God being 'outside' time. lol. We could talk about that too!
2. On the destruction of Babylon: in one of the previous blogs, I mentioned this. The consensus of scholarship on the language used for these judgments is that they are figurative/hyperbolic, because they are apocalyptic. This point is a main pillar for the partial-preterist. If the language is apocalyptic, then the language isn't literal, even though the events to which the language refers are literal. One step further: since the language in the Olivet Discourse and Revelation and 1 Peter (et al.) is similarly apocalyptic, then there's no reason the Jewish War wasn't meant; since (as you mention) in the case of Babylon, the scale of its destruction wasn't near the scale it should be if the language was literal.
Jacob: The prophetic word given to abraham and joseph on the slavery in egypt was clear and exact to the year, why then does the interpretation change to the time at the end of this age I.E. the millenium?
ReplyDeleteMatt: I might not be following you here. As far as I can tell, Exodus isn't in the genre of Apocalyptic Lit. Exodus' genre is historical narrative/epic, at least the 1st 1/2. The last half would be 'law'. So, the burden of proof would lie with someone who said the numbers in this genre aren't literal. But if we're reading Apoc. Lit., the burden is on those who say something like numbers are literal. With the 7-year Trib., partial-preterist carry the burden by pointing to the Jewish War, an event - they say - that fulfilled everything up until Rev. 20.
Jacob: Have you studied into the perspective the hebrew scholars say on the millenial kingdom? To gain a jewish perpective is vital.
ReplyDeleteMatt: Agreed. That's exactly what appeals to me about partial-preterism. I want to know what the Jewish Perspective of the writers of the NT were. Not aware of Hebrew scholars. I do know scholars are on all sides. If anything, I'd be very interested in the scholars and their arguments. But partial-preterists have their scholars too. NT Wright, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, David Chilton, to name a few.
Jacob: It must be pointed out that the interpretation of more symbolic look into the end of this age is due to an influence of origen who greek philosophy that downplayed the role of the physical and lifted more the spiritual.
Matt: Hmmm. I don't see a correlation between interpreting a language as symbolic or literal and 'downplaying the physical and lifting the spiritual'. If I say my muscle is like a rock, I don't think I'm being 'spiritual'. So, I don't see what being symbolic has to do with being spiritual or what being literal has to do with being physical. I can say Jesus literally raised Lazarus from the dead, even though the event was spiritual; and I can say the bald eagle ripped through the iron curtain (symbolic), even though the event was physical.
Jacob: Our tie to jewish perspective see paul in romans.
ReplyDeleteMatt: Are you talking about Romans 11:26? If so, I think I understand it. I'm open to any option. I lean toward the 'spiritual Israel' interpretation, though I know it could mean 'every single Jew'. I tend to think it's 'spiritual' because of the 'grafting in' points Paul was making earlier in the chapter. The unbelieving Jews are 'broken off' and 'thrown into the fire': and the Gentiles are 'grafted in', and they can drink the 'nourishing sap of the olive root'. The 'root', I suppose, is what God originally meant for Israel to be, before disobedience. But after the 2nd covenant, after Jesus, some Jews believed and other didn't. Those who didn't are 'broken off', those who did stay where they are, and the Gentiles who believe are 'grafted in'. The seems to flow seamlessly into 'all Israel being saved', since the 'root' didn't go anywhere; it just lost some of the original branches, but which were replaced by new ones.
Paul says: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
'Come in' means 'grafted into the root'. The very next verse starts with 'And so . . .', so it's a conclusion from the previous verse. It says: And so all Israel will be saved. Meaning: the root, and all the branches connected to the root.
Tell me what you think!
Love ya!