When approaching the sacred texts of the Bible, the serious student must first realize that this Book is composed of writings from some 40 different authors over the course of about 1500 years. These books were penned by Hebrew writers (Luke excepted), to Hebrew audiences, in Hebraic thought, regarding Jehovah's promises to Old Covenant Israel. The layers of information run deep, and its terminology cannot be defined accurately by Webster's Dictionary. Until the Bible student realizes that one must allow the Bible to define its own terminology, and study to exegete what the text meant to the original audience, the true meaning of Scripture will never be contextually understood, because a word, phrase, or text cannot mean what it never meant, and a text without the context is a pretext. This is the fallacy of all biblical paradigms which do not recognize that all things have been fulfilled.
Jesus told the Pharisees that if they did not understand the words of Moses and the prophets, they could not understand His words (Joh.5:47). The fact that the same holds true even today cannot be denied, as the entirety of the Futurist paradigm rests solely upon a superficial, Hellenistic-based interpretation of the New Testament, devoid of its Hebraically-rooted structure in the Old Testament. Until the serious Bible student realizes that the NT is Holy Spirit's exegetical clarification of the OT, the true meaning of the Hebrew scriptures will never be properly understood, and thus, the words of Jesus and His apostles will always be misconstrued.
Peter, for instance, preached that Pentecost sermon from Psalms and Joel; Paul clearly states that his eschatology is based solely upon the words of Moses and the prophets, (Acts 26:22-23); and, that his doctrine of the resurrection was nothing more than the hope of the promise made to Old Covenant Israel (Acts 26:6-8), Paul's "kinsmen according to the flesh," (Rom.9:3-5). Since Paul taught the same thing everywhere in every church (1Cor.4:17), then his dissertations on the resurrection, such as 1Corinthians 15 and Romans 5-8, and his predictions of the day of the Lord (Rom.13:12; 1Th.4:15-17; 5:1-23) must be exegeted within that framework.
Throughout the course of this debate, I will be demonstrating the contrast of two vastly different hermeneutics in eschatology. The first is one which consistently ignores audience relevance; ignores the contextual time statements; ignores the context, both near and remote; builds ideologies on vague and ambiguous texts; employs the illegitimate transfer of context; inserts words, and sometimes whole phrases into the text; changes the pronouns; redefines terminology; disregards common Hebrew literary devices such as inclusio, ellipsis, and prolepsis; literalizes Hebrew idioms, metaphors and hyperbole; ignores and/or changes the linguistics by altering words from singular to plural, and vice versa; ignores and/or changes the tenses of the original Greek words, thus, reconstructing the text(s) to accommodate presuppositional bias; thus, wreaking havoc on the Scriptures. This is the hermeneutic of the Futurist's Eschatology (FE). In short, FE cannot be supported without applying one or more of the above stated fallacies to every eschatological text.
The second hermeneutic is one which respects audience relevance and honors the Divine time statements; this hermeneutic acknowledges and exegetes the New Testament contexts in light of their Old Testament foundational contexts; thus allowing Holy Spirit to quote, define, interpret, and apply His own prophetic terminology; and in short, the hermeneutic of Realized Eschatology (RE) always allows the biblical texts to speak for themselves. The hermeneutic of RE can be, and is supported without the need to redefine nor alter any of the original terminology, as it elucidates what each respective text actually says, and says in context, and in light of what it meant to the original audiences as penned by the ancient writers.
Several other things will be demonstrated as well, such as: 1) Futurists invariably are guilty of projection; 2) Futurists lack the ability to recognize and comprehend the parabolic teachings of Jesus and His apostles; 3) every 'argument' offered against RE by the Futurist, when exegeted in context, will, without fail, refute the futurist's paradigm; 4) Futurists habitually dodge contextually-specific questions; 5) Futurists are inconsistent in their reasoning from one passage to another; 6) Futurists employ a number of logical fallacies, primarily the use of Straw Man arguments (as means of distraction), which occurs when Frank Futurist grossly distorts Phil Preterist's argument into some bizarre conjecture, then Frank attacks the newly-created conjecture to give the perception of defeating Phil's original argument, thus, giving a rebuttal to an argument that Phil didn't make. An example of this would be Phil stating that baptism is for remission of sins, and Frank responds by accusing of Phil of teaching that salvation lies solely in the water, then Frank refutes the idea that water remits sins.
I want to thank brother Andrews for his willingness to engage in this debate.
My proposition:
"The scriptures teach that the Second Coming of the Son of man was to occur during the first century AD."
Defining my proposition:
By "The Scriptures" I mean the 66 books of the Bible;
By "teach" I mean the scriptures clearly elucidate emphatic and unequivocal promises/prophecies;
By the "Second Coming" I mean Christ's only promised return of the Son of man coming in/with the clouds of heaven, with His angels, in His own glory, and in the glory of the Father, at the sound of the great trumpet, at the judgment and the resurrection of the just and unjust, bringing salvation with the creation of the New Heavens, New Earth, and New Jerusalem, when the first heavens, earth and old physical Jerusalem and the Jewish temple were destroyed in AD 70, when the first covenant/law of Moses and the prophets was completely fulfilled;
By "was to occur" I mean, was Divinely predicted and promised;
By "during the first century AD" I mean the time period of AD 1 – AD 100, primarily in/by the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, as opposed to yet in our future.
Proof of my proposition:
"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever," (Dan.2:44).
(Please read the entire chapter carefully)
When Daniel interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the giant image, he reveals that the image's divisions represented 4 great world empires. This inspired interpretation was a prophecy posited to culminate in the establishment of the everlasting Messianic Kingdom; this Kingdom was depicted as a Divinely-cut stone which smote and destroyed the image, then grew into a great mountain that filled the whole earth (Dan.2:35; cf. Isa 2:2-4). This would be the time when the image would be broken in pieces together (v.35), which would be fulfilled in the days of the 4th kingdom, i.e., the Roman Empire, during the 1st century AD.
“And four great beasts came up from the sea, diverse one from another...(v.3) After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. I beheld till the thrones were cast down, and the Ancient of daysdid sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened. I beheld then because of the voice of the great words which the horn spake: I beheld even till the beast was slain, and his body destroyed, and given to the burning flame. I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed,” (Dan 7:7-14).
(Please read the entire chapter carefully)
To say this a spectacular prophecy is an understatement. Since Daniel’s dream culminates in the establishment of the everlasting Messianic kingdom (Dan.2:14,22,27), then it’s inescapable that these are the same 4 great world empires as in Nebuchadnezzar's dream; however, we find here the added prediction of the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, with His angels, at the judgment when the books are opened; but, contrary to the traditional ‘end of time’ judgment theology, this is the time when the Son of man is given the everlasting kingdom: the same everlasting kingdom as in chapter 2, and this was also specifically posited during the days of the same 4th kingdom, i.e., the Roman Empire, during the 1st century AD.
What is studiously avoided by futurists, but absolutely critical to note is, this Danielic prophecy is the onlyprophecy of the Son of man coming with the clouds of heaven, with His angels, at the judgment; therefore, when Jesus speaks of the Son of man coming, He is quoting / citing from this one-and-only source text.
“For the Son of Man is about to come with His angels in the glory of His Father. And then ‘He will give reward to each according to his practice.’ Truly I say to you, There are some standing here who will not taste of death, not until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom,” (Mat 16:27-28, KJ3).
I should point out the double-negative here, which in the Greek, strengthens the force of what is being stated; therefore, not only does Jesus emphasize His statement that the Son of man is about to come by saying “Truly I say unto you...” He then reinforces it with a double-negative!
The typical futurist’s approach to this passage is to divorce these two verses in the attempt to apply verse 27 to their mythological ‘end of time’ judgment theology, and apply verse 28 to the Transfiguration, or, the Ascension, or, Pentecost, even in light of the fact that when Jesus is speaking on a topic, He never uses the phrase amēn legō humin (translated “Truly I say to you”) to introduce a new topic separated by thousands of years! This phrase ἀμήνλέγωὑμῖν found some 77 times in the Synoptics, is always used to emphasize what is already under discussion.
To demonstrate why this desperation-fueled eisegesis is bogus, I would first ask the question, on what exegetical basis is the Son of man coming of verse 27 a different coming than the Son of man coming of verse 28? I will prove beyond refute why these two verses can’t be exegetically separated. First, let’s consider Luke’s parallel:
“For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God,” (Luk.9:26-27).
Notice that Luke’s text, untouched, gives us the additional detail of the Son of man coming in His own glory which is parallel to Matthew 16:27. Now, consider this:
“Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom,” (Mat 20:20-21);
“And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, come unto him, saying, Master, we would that thou shouldest do for us whatsoever we shall desire. And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you? They said unto him, Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory,” (Mar 10:35-37).
Notice what these texts say, also untouched! These parallel texts demonstrate that the phrases in thy kingdom, and in thy glory are synonymous; therefore, when we compare them with Jesus’ statement to the multitudes from the towns of Caesarea Philippi (Mar 8:27,34), that the Son of man is about to come in His own glory, then says, some of that multitude standing there would live to see the Son of man coming in His kingdom, there is no exegetical nor linguistic basis to divorce these two verses.
Furthermore, when we include Mark’s parallel which says, “Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power” (9:1), the case is closed! Jesus, irrefutably, cites and posits the fulfillment of the Danielic prophecy of the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven during the lifetime of some standing in His audience. Since Daniel 7 is the only source of this prediction, and since Jesus Divinely interprets and applies its fulfillment during that first century generation of people to whom He was speaking, then I have already proven my proposition; however, Jesus quotes this Danielic prophecy again, in the Olivet Discourse (OD) when His disciples “asked Him, saying, Teacher, then when will these things be? And what will be the sign when these things are about to happen?” (Luk 21:7, KJ3).
The disciples asked Jesus when will these things be, and, after He elucidates a number of precursory signs, He says immediatelyafter the tribulation, “then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other...Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled,” (Mat 24:29-34).
To reiterate, Jesus quotes from this Danielic source-text, verbatim (LXX), clearly stating that its fulfillment would occur during His generation, i.e., the generation which would witness the demolition of the Jewish temple at the hands of the Roman Army (Luk 21:20-22), then He says, “when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand,” (Luk 21:31). There can be no exegetically-based aspersion to the fact that there was only one prediction of the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven, and that Jesus quotes, interprets and applies the fulfillment of that one prediction to the time frame of the siege and destruction of Jerusalem, and His coming in His own glory in the consummated kingdom.
Now, as we consider that the prophetic fountain of this synoptic trilogy (Mat 16:27-28 / Mar 8:38-Mar 9:1; Luk 9:26-27) is Daniel 7, and we marry this to the inescapable fact that Jesus’ predictions of the coming of the Son of man in the OD are from the same source, I will point out yet another inescapable contextual fact as we revisit Jesus’ words as recorded by Luke: “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God,” (Luk.9:26-27).
Notice the time statement of when the Son of man would come in His own glory as we look again at Jesus’ words in the OD:
“When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations...” (Mat 25:31-46).
When we look at what these texts say, unaltered, it demonstrates an irrefutable fact that Jesus’ application of the Danielic source-text in the Synoptic trilogy above is married to the OD, and what God has joined together, let not man put asunder! There is no escaping the fact that Jesus’ statement of the Son of man coming in His own glory of Luke 9:26 is synonymous with the Son of man coming in His own glory of Matthew 25:31.
Jesus’ introduction of the Son of man coming of Matthew 24:30 and His reiteration of the same statement in chapter 25 creates an inclusio, indicating that everything in between pertains to the same predictions posited in His generation, thus quashing the theory that the OD is divided.
My three questions for Patrick:
1) Were the children/sons of the kingdom cast out in the first century?
2) Was the great tribulation (Mat 24:21) fulfilled in the first century?
3) Since Peter is reminding his readers (the Diaspora) of what the holy prophets predicted as he quotes from the law of Moses, where does the LOM predict the end of time?