Eschatology Archives - Page 9 of 9

November 4, 2005

A Case for Preterism and a Critique of Dispensationalism, Hoekema and a host of other eschatological discussions Part 2

The Signs of the times were to be seen and experienced by no other recipients than the first century generation. This is clear for at least five reasons: 1) It is noteworthy that Jesus is speaking to a real group of people with real questions. This means that Jesus sought to address their primary concerns and not any other group’s concern. 2) The language itself confirms this: “Do YOU see all these things? (24:2),” I tell YOU the truth (24:2),” “Tell US (24:3),” “Watch out that no one deceives YOU (24:4),” “ YOU will hear of wars and rumors of wars…(24:6).” It would be non-sensical to address an imaginary audience when Jesus is specifically addressing his disciples. 3) There is local language being used as opposed to vague or universal language. Jesus refers to those in Judea and further, to the still pending ceremonial observance of the Sabbath (24:20 – The ceremonial nature of the Sabbath was abolished with the end of the Jewish Age). 4) Virtually every sign spoken of Jesus is written in the corridors of history through the historian Josephus, Tacitus, and many others adding greater reliability to the text. 5) Many of the signs are already at work during the New Testament period, particularly in the book of Acts where Peter mentions famine (Acts 11:27-29) and false prophets (Acts 13:6). This indicates that the first century audience did not have to wait to see some of those signs, which were already at work.

For these reasons and others, it is incumbent upon the Biblical interpreter to alter their current presuppositions of the text and embrace Preterism, as expressed in the Olivet Discourse. In this fashion, not only will one answer objections as those proposed by Russell, but also be assured of the truthfulness and reliability of the words of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Part I

October 19, 2005

A Case for Preterism and a Critique of Dispensationalism, Hoekema and a host of other eschatological discussions Part 1

In a significant manner, Gary Demar’s book Last Days Madness has brought sanity to the historical nature of predicted eschatology. The famous atheist Bertrand Russell once wrote: “I am concerned with Christ as he appears in the Gospels, taking the Gospel narratives as it stands, and there one does find some things that do not seem to be very wise. For one thing, He certainly thought that His Second coming would occur in clouds of glory before the death of all the people who were living at that time.” Russell and many others have felt the immensity of Jesus’ comments in the Olivet Discourse. Due to their presuppositions, this led to the ardent denial of the truthfulness and reliability of Christ’s words.

There is a sense in which all of eschatology has implications. That is, it affects our lives in a variety of ways. Dr. Gary North writes about the eschatology of economics. Professor George Grant has dealt marvelously with the eschatology of education. So at the beginning we acknowledge that one’s understanding of the future affects one’s understanding of the now. Unfortunately, most Christians have never developed or thought through the implications of their own eschatology due to 1) A simplistic knowledge of Scripture, 2) An anti-holistic world view (meaning a fragmented view of life), and 3) Lack of consistency in one’s own spiritual life. All of us are indeed guilty of these flaws; nevertheless we are called to put on a new set of glasses by which we can view the world.

The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24) offers us a host of signs connected to the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds. In verses 4-34 Jesus elaborates on the questions of his disciples. He is compassionate towards them and heavily feels the profundity of their inquiry. Jesus’ language as in many other places is clear and direct. He uses imagery that is common to his Jewish audience and carefully articulates the coming events or the signs of the times. Gary Demar boldly accuses those who would interpret these passages as futuristic. As a brilliant researcher and historian, he traces the pitiful displays of exegetical incompetence in literally hundreds of prophetic writers throughout the centuries. As he argues, much of these mistakes arise from a “purposeful” or “flawed” attempt to read the Bible in light of what Professor Greg Bahnsen has called “newspaper exegesis.” In a subtle fashion, however, this writer believes that Demar has also dismantled Hoekema and others’ attempt to futurize the impending judgment on Jerusalem. The most common mistake in Hoekema’s treatment of the Olivet Discourse is his refusal to see the specific fulfillment of divine wrath upon Jerusalem (though Hoekema does acknowledge some elements of fulfillment in AD 70). In pages 116 and 117 in the Bible and the Future he writes, “this generation cannot be restricted to the Jews living at the time Jesus is saying these words.” This, he argues, from Matthew 23:35-36 implying that since the “blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah” indicate past and present sins, hence “this generation” cannot be restricted to the first century Jews. Notice however, that Jesus has been building a cumulative case against the Jews. In other words, He is bringing together the disobedience of their fathers and their present denial of the Messiah. This reaches a powerful and climactic moment when in the end of Matthew 23 he declares “your house has been left unto you desolate” (Matthew 23:37). Jesus gives a historical argument that leaves the Jews of his day speechless and utterly guilty. Now divine wrath must be manifested and the chosen generation to receive his full wrath is “this generation” (Mat.23: 36). The vindication of God is as certain as the permanence of the temple has been for Jews for centuries. Their house is left desolate; it is naked and hopeless. This is the context in which Jesus answers the questions of his disciples. In the Olivet Discourse, Bertrand Russell’s skepticism is refuted and Jesus’ future vindication confirmed.

October 17, 2005

Heaven our ultimate destiny? Part 2

Is it any surprise that our understanding of life is completely devoid of any kingdom orientation? In a real sense modern evangelicals (some even in our esteemed Reformed camp) would much desire to be “raptizo” than to live in this present world. As long as we continue with the refrain: “This world is not my home and I am just passing through…” we will simply as it were “pass through” life in the great tradition of monasticism with a blend of Mennonite pietism. Granted, the hymn writers were greatly inspired by the wonders of heaven; after all “heaven is a wonderful place full of glory and grace,” and all the benefits thereof. Nevertheless, it is far from the eschatological promise God intends for his people.

There is no finality in heaven as there is no finality on earth. The ultimate destiny of God’s people is therefore a combination of the grandness of earth and the glories of heaven…it is The New Heavens and The New Earth, and might I add, a special flavor added to the New Earth part. The creation of the world was not a temporary abode for humanity; nothing God creates serves as temporary housing or storage. Much of what we are and where we live will ultimately be purified and refined, bur never abolished and re-created; that is un-Christian. Notice that even Paul’s language of “new creation (II Corinthians 5:17)” does not mean abolishment or destruction. There is something very unique about our present bodies and our present world. It is created with a sense of connectedness; a sense of un-separateness.

In simple words, heaven is not our ultimate destiny nor should we desire it to be. As N.T. Wright has commented: courtship is good, but it would be terrible if it lasted forever! Completeness and wholeness is our desire and all things being equal (contrary to some) one day this will be perfectly manifested.

October 6, 2005

Heaven our ultimate destiny? Part 1

Hoekema in his very influential The Bible and the Future describes the outlandish confession of many Christians that heaven is our ultimate destiny. Many of these proclamations are found in the hymnology of the church, particularly in more evangelical hymnody. The emphasis tends to always be on the glory of heaven without any mention of the New Heavens and the New Earth. Hoekema argues brilliantly that the church has forgotten that the restored creation is the place of ultimate consummation. He further elaborates that the “New Heavens and the New Earth are equivalent to the created universe” and therefore, in my estimation, is a much more grandeur expression than God’s original creation. The garden was only an incomplete picture of the glorious destiny of the elect, not a replica.

Bishop N.T. Wright mentioned a few years ago at the Evangelical Theological Society that the evangelical emphasis on the life to come has detracted from the emphasis on the eternal life of God’s people. In other words, Wright’s point is that heaven is only a glimpse of the world to come. He mentioned the Pilgrim’s Progress by Bunyan, which gives the distinct impression that when Christian reaches the great city, this will be his final home forever. Let us not forget John’s words in describing those who are now in heaven in Revelation 6:10: They cried out with a loud voice, “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?” The saints in heaven cry out to God to bring ultimate justice to His creation and restore all things. The restoration of the cosmos is the ultimate purpose of God (or the Missio Dei). If we are so bold as Professor Richard Pratt, we may even say that heaven pales in comparison to the glorified and purified world where righteousnes dwells.

December 28, 2004

Biblical Sobriety During Tragedy!

While most of America was singing “Silent Night” in the last few days, Indonesia, Thailand and India were crying TRAGEDY! With the death toll of over 42,000 the world sees the massacre of the biggest earthquake in the last 40 years. Geoscience Australia said the quake, measuring 8.1 on the Richter Scale, hit the Macquarie Rise in the Pacific Ocean at 1.59am (AEDT).

I grieve for the massive amount of people who have died in this recent catastrophe. However, I am conscientious of the use and abuse of these events by current prophecy teachers. In fact, many are declaring that this is a direct fulfillment of Matthew 24: 7: “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places.” Is this truly a sign of the end of the church age where Christ will come and rapture his people and consequently inaugurate the seven-year period of tribulation? Amidst much turmoil and despair, I believe the church needs to take a sober look at the text of Scriptures and history and return to grieve for the families of those killed and pray that even in these times the glory of God would be manifested.
In this brief article, Gary Demar explains that recent earthquakes or any others that may come are not signs of future events.

Earthquakes: Are They Signs of the End?
By Gary DeMar

The Asian quake that hit off the Indonesian island of Sumatra on December 26, 2004, was the world’s fifth-largest since 1900 and the biggest since a 9.2 quake hit Prince William SoundAlaska in 1964. The death toll of more than 11,000 in six countries will undoubtedly rise. Prophecy writers are sure to point to this mega-quake as the sign that the “rapture” is near. They will point to Jesus’ words in the Olivet Discourse that “in various places there will be famines and earthquakes” (Matt. 24:7). How can earthquakes be a sign of the end when devastating earthquakes, even greater than this most recent one, have been recorded for thousands of years? Today’s prophecy “experts” will argue that it’s the increase and magnitude of modern earthquakes that make them significant for determining that we are living in the last days. “The Lord obviously meant earthquakes of unprecedented seismological dimension.”1

Jesus simply says that “in various places there will be famines and earthquakes” (24:7). He says nothing about an increase in their number. Luke writes, “there will be great earthquakes” (Luke 2:11). Jesus was describing signs that led up to the destruction of the temple that would take place before that first-century generation passed away (Matt. 24:33-34). Like famines (Acts 11:28), “great earthquakes” are part of the biblical historical record. Two earthquakes are mentioned in Matthew–when Jesus was crucified (27:54) and when the angel came down to roll the stone away from the tomb where Jesus was buried (28:2). This second earthquake is said to have been “severe.” Acts records “a great earthquake” that shook “the foundations of the prison house” (Acts 16:26). These earthquakes occurred before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Continue reading “Biblical Sobriety During Tragedy!”

December 3, 2004

The Last Disciple vs. The Left Behind

Someone has just sent me an interesting article on the current debate over the “eschatological novels.” After nine years of amazing success, The Left Behind Series, which has sold over 42 million copies, has found competition in the market. The same publisher that put out Tim Lahaye’s best-sellers is now putting out an alternative novel that runs completely against Tim Lahaye’s pre-tribulational stance. This new series is called The Last Disciple by Hank Hanegraaff and Sigmund Brouwer.

This new series espouses the idea that John’s letter was written before the destruction of the temple in AD 70. Contrary to Lahaye’s assertion that the book of Revelation was written in 95 AD, and therefore is entirely futuristic in nature, Brouwer and Hanegraaff assert that Revelation was written for a specific generation that endured the torment of persecution in the 1st century church.

Novels can be a very helpful source in understanding not only eschatology, but an ideology. There was nothing inherently wrong with Tim Lahaye’s idea to publicize his views through novels, but it is inconsistent for Lahaye to criticize someone else for doing the same thing.

If you would like further information about Dispensationalism or Partial-preterism (the position espoused in The Last Disciple) please e-mail me at: apologus@hotmail.com for links and articles on these topics.

November 17, 2004

A Confession

Yes, I admit it! I am a Postmillenialist. I have been for over 2 years. There is a lot of story behind why I became a postmillenialist, but this is not what I am concerned about here. I am concerned about the majority of the Amillennial population, specifically in the PCA. It appears that to be associated with Postmillennialism today is to be automatically associated with the so-called “Radical Theonomists.” Well, perhaps “Theonomy” will be part of another confessional blog. So in order to not associate themselves with Postmillennialism they carry on their lectures speaking of the grand accomplishments of the gospel in the world both geographically and spiritual in this age, but yet maintain the label of Amillennialism.

Perhaps, some are not aware of strong Postmillennialists such as Ian Murray, Keith Matthison, or R.C. Sproul who are not theonomic in their outlook. The misunderstanding comes in defining Postmillennial eschatology. This misunderstanding stems from the erroneous association of modern Postmillennial thought with the eschatology of the Puritans. The Puritans were also Postmillennial in their view, but they took the 1,000 years of Revelation 20 as a literal reference. Whereas, current Postmillennial eschatology held by Gary Demar and Ken Gentry see the thousand years as symbolic of a fructiferous age in Christendom.

In Postmillennialism, sin will not be eradicated, people will continue to die and –believe it or not– Jews will still be saved by gospel. Ok, now that we know what it isn’t, can we take a step of faith?

The reason this is becoming such an issue to me is that this week alone I have talked to a prominent PCA minister and a prominent theologian in the PCA who are committed to an optimistic view of the church but continue to wave their Amillennial banners. I think they need to re-evaluate their labels and renounce their traditional flag and embrace a new one. Well, at least that’s what I think.