Opposition is true friendship: a talk on the End Times

I'm going to take a break from writing straight-up blogs and respond to criticism. This will make my position more clear and maybe bring out the reasons a little better. You'll also be able to see other views and their reasons better. One of my best friends, Jacob, disagrees with nearly everything I've said so far, which is awesome. Hence, the title of the blog. He sent me a couple emails and, so, in this blog I'll respond to the emails. If you remember, I believe that nearly all the prophecies about the End Times have already been fulfilled when the Romans destroyed the Jews in the Jewish War, with the Jewish Temple being destroyed sometime in the middle, 70 AD. Jacob, though, thinks - and I'm summarizing here - that all these prophecies are still future: that the Jewish War didn't fulfill anything Revelation is talking about, or anything Jesus or Paul talked about, or anything Daniel and the other major prophets talked about. I touched on - but didn't finish - Jesus, neglected Paul (which I'll get to sooner or later), neglected Daniel (which I want to get into really bad!), and touched on the major (and minor!) prophets. Hopefully, responding to the emails will help me be more clear and bring out our differences to see which is really the correct view. So, this is exciting. I hope this will be a fruitful discussion.

Some end-time prophecies have a dual fulfillment. This is called the law of the double  reference. It means that a partial fulfillment of what was prophesied occurred in the past, while the complete fulfillment of the prophecy is yet in the future.

We talked about this on the phone. I don't think I had this understanding in mind, though. It was this: sure, the Jewish War fulfilled nearly all the prophecy 'once'; but, it could be fulfilled again in 'our future'. I say 'our future', because the Jewish War was still 'future' to Paul, Jesus, and the prophets. So, if 'in the past' means 'Paul's/Jesus'/the prophet's future', I agree. But if 'in the past' means 'Paul's/Jesus'/the prophet's future', that's different from what I had in mind. But I DO agree with the law of double reference. The partial-preterist, I think, just says the 'double fulfillment' isn't necessary, that the positive evidence fits in with the partial-preterist paradigm quite nicely. If there is a 'double fulfillment', the positive evidence doesn't indicate this (I would argue), so to say that there is a 'double fulfillment' is an argument from silence.

Most often the future fullness of a negative prophecy will be fulfilled in the Great Tribulation and the fullness of the positive prophecies will mostly be seen in the Millennial Kingdom.

The partial-preterist agrees! But . . .

1. The Great Tribulation = the rough 7-year period of the Jewish War (which was future to John, Paul, Jesus, and the prophets).
2. The Millenial Kingdom = the still 'future' (future to John and co.) 'age to come' Paul talks about, which is the age after 'the present age', which is the age just after Christ's Ascension and just before the end of The Great Tribulation, 73 AD. And, yes, I think the Millennium is figurative, just for the record.

So, we'll mean different things here. So, we'll agree on the whole 'double fulfillment' idea; but when you go to prove your point, you'll be using 'terms' (like the Great Tribulation) that have a totally different meaning to me. It'll probably boil down to 'who is right about the terms', in this case.

They will be fulfilled after He returns and establishes the fullness of His reign on the earth in the Millennial Kingdom.

Without getting into the details of Isaiah 61, there's not much to say here. The only worry here is that we (again) probably mean two totally different things by 'the Millennial Kingdom'. The reign is a reign from Heaven, so far. The kingdom on Earth will come after the second coming, after the Millennial Kingdom. This will happen after the 'age to come' Paul talks about, after all the enemies are put under Jesus' feet.

Many of the Old Testament prophecies have a partial fulfillment at some point in the past, with a complete fulfillment in the generation in which the Lord returns.

The debate here would be what 'the generation' refers to. If 'the generation' was just the people Jesus was talking to when He said it, then there wasn't a 'complete fulfillment' with the Jewish War, which just fulfilled up until Rev. 20.

Sometimes, the partial fulfillment can also serve as a prophetic picture of what the fullness will look like at the end of the age.

And the debate here is what age 'the end of the age' is referring to. In the Great Commission, Jesus tells His disciples that He will be with them up until the 'end of the age'. I think this is the 'present age', lasting up until 73 AD. And the 'world' they were being sent into wasn't the entire Earth, but the extent of the Roman Empire: the Greek word for 'world' that was used was 'oikoumene', meaning 'the Roman Empire'. If the entire globe were meant, the Greek word would have been 'kosmos'.

One underlying theme in these parables is that the full manifestation of the kingdom will happen after the Second Coming.  

I do think the kingdom will happen after the Second Coming. But by 'Second Coming', I mean - again - after The Millennium, after the 'age to come'. I know I'm getting repetitive, but I think that's good in the long run. I guess I make a distinction between how the Jewish War fulfilled all the events up to Rev. 20 and the 'official' Second Coming.

Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 17; Luke 21: Jesus’ main emphasis in these four parallel chapters is to describe the Great Tribulation just before His Second Coming. He predicted the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of its temple (Mt. 24:2) by the Roman armies in 70 AD. This tragedy foreshadows the siege of Jerusalem at the end of the age (Joel 3:2, 12; Zeph. 3:8; Zech. 12:2-3; 14:2; Rev. 16:14). Many details in these four chapters make it clear, that Jesus’ words go far beyond the events of 70 AD to describe the events at the end of the age. 

I actually went over Matthew 24 (and the parallels in Luke/Mark) a couple blogs back: it's the Olivet Discourse one. The key point is this: what is meant by the 'Great Tribulation', and is Matthew talking about the official 'Second Coming'? The author says the Jewish War 'foreshadows' the 'siege of Jerusalem' and 'the end of the age'. A couple of things: first, the end of which age? The present age? The age to come? If it's the age to come, I disagree. If it's the present age, that's partial-preterism. But if it's the present age, there isn't any 'foreshadowing', because 'the destruction of the temple' is just what Matthew 24 seems to be talking about.

Second, I'd have to get those prophets that are supposed to prove a 'foreshadowing'. Let's look at Joel 3:2 first:

I will gather all nations
and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat.
There I will enter into judgment against them
concerning my inheritance, my people Israel,
for they scattered my people among the nations
and divided up my land.

So, here, 'all nations' 'will enter into judgment' on Israel. My first reaction to 'all nations' is that it's hyperbolic. And in the context, it's to be expected. If it's Gog and Magog (The Turks), then it'd be them and many alliances. If it's the Roman Empire, it fits, for the Romans had some help from other nations in 'the siege'. Also, the 'all nations' term is used in Matthew 24:14 too:

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

But the problem is that 'world' here isn't 'kosmos'; it's 'oikoumene' again: the Roman Empire. So, in context, it seems 'all nations' include those in and around the Roman Empire only. In light of that, I'd interpret Joel in the same way. If I do, all the nations involved in the Jewish War fit into the preterist paradigm perfectly. Even John Gill, a futurist, sees Joel as talking about 'a multitude of nations'.

If you want to pin-point any of the other citations, that would be cool. I just thought I'd pick Joel by himself before this got too long.

Before I go on, though, I want to look at Luke 21:24

And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

There's 'all nations' again. This is Luke's counterpart to Matthew 24. But Luke's verse hearkens back to:

Ezekiel 5:9 And I will do in thee that which I have not done, and whereunto I will not do any more the like, because of all thine abominations.

Ezekiel is talking about the Babylonians. But didn't God say 'I will not do any more the like'? Isn't this the same language Matthew is using to say:

Matthew 24:21

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

You can also see the language used here:

Joel 2:2 A day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick darkness, as the morning spread upon the mountains: a great people and a strong; there hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations.

'Hath not been ever the like, neither shall be any more after it, even to the years of many generations'? But God is talking about Israel being judged by Assyria or Babylon. Surely, the Holocaust was worse than this! So, back to the main point. It's hyperbolic language. And I don't think there's a good reason to think Matthew wasn't being any different here.

Before it gets too long, I'll stop here and continue on to your email in more, individual blogs, so we're not drinking from fire hydrants.

Love ya!