A Son Of Liberty

Last night, while at the computer desk, I was inspired. Do you ever have one of those moments when you connect some dots and then it's as if the problem you are working on becomes unworldly simple? I ran into some material while chasing some research and was quite impressed and have been on a high all day. The material resides in my Bible, on the Internet and in hard-copy in my personal library. I chased this around the past two or three days, made copious notes and linked like crazy -- making synapses connections at an unbelievable rate for a 32-year old man. A portion of my resultant research was posted in the forums last night. The balance will be posted soon.

Here is what I was able to punch out on the keyboard before going to bed:

OK, I see a theme and need to address it. That theme is the statement "time-limited". You've jumped to that statement without any explanation. In fact, I'd almost accuse you of quoting R. C. Sproul without any Scriptural exegesis. So, I'll help.

What are these "time-limited" statements? Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:28 and Matthew 24:34. Right? [Joe's note: Since last night, I've discovered that Dr. Sproul summarized 18 "time-limited" statements in his book; so there may be a necessary follow-up.]

First, Matthew 10:23: "When they persecute you in this city, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes" (NKJV). In context (vv. 16-23), Jesus looks beyond the disciples' immediate ministry. And also notice that the same words show up in Matthew 24:13 when Jesus is certainly talking about the future, all the way to the "end" (compare Mark 13:3-13). So, in context, Jesus is talking about the near-end of the present age.

With this exegetical interpretation, see how well "gone through the cities of Israel" ties so nicely with Paul's writing in Romans 11:1-2, 25-32. God will not forget Israel until the end of the age. Also, interpreting "coming" in Matt. 10:23 as a future event does not require calling the "non-coming" in A.D. 70 a "coming".

Second, we come to Matthew 16:28: "Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." Read it in context. Unfortunately, in Matthew there is a chapter break immediately after this verse, but the parallel passages in Mark 9 and Luke 9 have no chapter division. "Some" is fullfilled when three saw Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration. Both John and Peter later wrote about this kingdom preview.

And, finally (if I haven't overlooked one), we have Matthew 24:34: "Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place." This one is crazy difficult to understand. As I said earlier, C.S. Lewis said that this is "the most embarrassing verse in the Bible." Theologians debate it. So, it certainly isn't a good verse to hang your hat on to defend a theological position.

But, if we look at it contextually (I learned a new word!), group it with Chapter 25. Therefore, Jesus' coming in Matthew 24:30-31 is the same coming of 25:31-32: "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats." This -- along with everything from verse four to forty-four -- wasn't fulfilled in A.D. 70, or we would at least expect John to have written something about it.

And, I beg your pardon, but I checked out some references. Look at Didache 16 [link]. Written from A.D. 80-100 -- after the destruction of the Temple -- it is forward-looking. Also, see the futurist writing of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho 110 (ca. A.D. 140-150) [link - remember "CX" is 110]. Neither author is convinced of a parousia around A.D. 70.

It seems to me from reading your posts and reading about the subject that the theology of preterism rests on two pillars (Forgive me if I over-simplify.): (1) the early writing date of Revelation; and (2) three verses in Matthew [see note above]. We won't consider the writing date of Revelation because it isn't clear-cut. But, I will mention that I find it interesting that the introductory notes in the New Geneva Study Bible states "Most scholars favor a date about A.D. 95." Dr. R. C. Sproul was the General Editor.

And, if the "time-limited" statements in Matthew are so convincing, why is there so much debate to their interpretations? And why are preterists so demanding that the statements are fulfilled in A.D. 70?

I know. And I will post that tomorrow.