 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|  Website Color Key |
Matthew 26:64 is NOT a "Preterist Time Indicator" Pointing to AD70 "In short, the usage of "Apo Arti" in Matthew 26:64 [Apo ("from" - Strongs 575) and Arti ("now on" - Strong's 737)] is highly suggestive of the themes that have been previously offered at this blog ; that is, a series of revelatory recognitions of the power and glory of Jesus Christ's dominance by friend and foe alike. Though the typically pret-friendly Weymouth translation would like to make Jesus say "later on, you will see.." this is not really honest. I would rather say that it was simply a mistake, but I find it impossible to believe that neither Richard Francis Weymouth ("If this belief ever obtains general acceptance the earlier date of the Apocalypse will also be regarded as fully established. For it will then be seen that the book describes beforehand events which took place in 70 A.D.") nor Earnest Hampden-Cook (co-editor and author of "The Christ Has Come") were aware of how important (ironically) a futurist spin on this passage is to uphold their Preterist assumptions. However, not only is there no sense of futurity in this very emphatic Greek phrase, but rather we see quite the opposite.
|
|
Dr. John F. Walvoord PREMILLENIAL DISPENSATIONALIST
"Such a temple will be rebuilt and these prophecies literally fulfilled. If upon this revival of their sacrificial system such a future temple is suddenly desecrated, it would constitute a sign to the nation of Israel of the coming time of great trouble just preceding the second coming."
"A more respected approach is known as the preterist view.." "He was dean of all twentieth-century prophecy scholars. As president and chancellor of Dallas Theological Seminary for over 50 years, he inspired and trained more ministers, teachers, and Christian college and seminary professors to teach the truth about prophecy than any other person. His voluminous writings on prophetic subjects were always true to Scripture and easily understandable by all. Through his writings he leaves able defenses of dispensationalism, the literal interpretation of prophecy, the rapture of the church before the Tribulation, and the differences between Israel and the church past, present and future, for future generations. The church of Jesus Christ enjoys a growing expectancy for our Savior's return because of John Walvoord's life. He was a giant among men; physically, spiritually, and intellectually he "finished his course, he kept the faith," and was an example to all as a Christian, a loving husband, and a beloved father and grandfather. Consequently, there is laid up for him in heaven a crown of righteousness which the Lord will give him in that day for he "loved His appearance" and did everything he could to help others share that love and anticipation. We are honored to call him friend and mentor." - Dr. Tim LaHaye, Dr. Thomas Ice, and all the contributors to (End Times Controversy) (On
Revelation) "Because of its unusual character, Revelation has been approached from a number of interpretive principles, some of which raise serious questions concerning its value as divine authoritative revelation. The allegorical or nonliteral approach. This form of interpretation was offered by the Alexandrian school of theology in the third and fourth centuries. It regards the entire Bible as an extensive allegory to be interpreted in a nonliteral sense. The allegorical interpretation of the Bible was later restricted largely to prophecy about the Millennium by Augustine (354-430), who interpreted Revelation as a chronicle of the spiritual conflict between God and Satan being fulfilled in the present Church Age. A liberal variation of this in modern times considers Revelation simply as a symbolic presentation of the concept of God’s ultimate victory. The preterist approach. A more respected approach is known as the preterist view which regards Revelation as a symbolic picture of early church conflicts which have been fulfilled. This view denies the future predictive quality of most of the Book of Revelation. In varying degrees this view combines the allegorical and symbolic interpretation with the concept that Revelation does not deal with specific future events. Still another variation of the preterist view regards Revelation as setting forth principles of divine dealings with man, without presenting specific events. The historical approach. A popular view stemming from the Middle Ages is the historical approach which views Revelation as a symbolic picture of the total church history of the present Age between Christ’s first and second comings. This view was advanced by Luther, Isaac Newton, Elliott, and many expositors of the postmillennial school of interpretation and has attained respectability in recent centuries. Its principal problem is that seldom do two interpreters interpret a given passage as referring to the same event. Each interpreter tends to find its fulfillment in his generation. Many have combined the historical interpretation with aspects of other forms of interpretation in order to bring out a devotional or spiritual teaching from the book. The preceding methods of interpretation tend to deny a literal future Millennium and also literal future events in the Book of Revelation. The futuristic approach. The futuristic approach has been adopted by conservative scholars, usually premillenarians, who state that chapters 4-22 deal with events that are yet future today. The content of Revelation 4-18 describes the last seven years preceding the second coming of Christ and particularly emphasizes the Great Tribulation, occurring in the last three and one-half years before His coming. Objections to this view usually stem from theological positions opposed to premillennialism. The charge is often made that the Book of Revelation would not have been a comfort to early Christians or understood by them if it were largely futuristic. Adherents of the futuristic school of interpretation insist, on the contrary, that future events described in Revelation bring comfort and reassurance to Christians who in the nature of their faith regard their ultimate victory as future. The futuristic interpretation, however, is demanding of the expositor as it requires him to reduce to tangible prophetic events the symbolic presentations which characterize the book." (The Book of Revelation) (On Daniel 9:24,27)
(On a The Thousand Year Day) "Today we see precisely this setup: Russia about to move on the Middle East; Israel in its place, regathered; the wealth, the spoil of the nations there; the need for possessing the Middle East perfectly obvious to Russia; and the only thing deterring her the fear of our military might." (Moody Monthly, 1959)
(On the Olivet Discouse - Preterist Interpretation "unjustified") WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID Dr. Ben Witherington (1992) Send an email with your comments to todd @ preteristarchive.com Be sure to include the article name. They will be posted shortly upon receipt
CommentsI have several friends that went to Dallas seminary. They no longer hold to dispensationalism. They also told me that Walvoord said to them that there is no new testament passage that can prove or defend the pre-trib rature of the church. dliswanson
Commentsthis website is great! my friends and i have been researching revelation and comparing it to todays world, some stories in Genesis can also be parables comparing to revelation, anyway...in light of whats going on in our world today, do you think the time is as close as it seems. 'cause that is how it seems to me. "This world is not my home, I'm just a-passin through, we wont always be here" :-) thanks, sam
CommentsABRAHAM WAS OT CALLED OUT OF UR OF THE CHALDEES Dr. Walvoord writes: "Abraham had been called to leave his home and relatives in Ur of the Chaldeans and go to a land that God would show him" (Major Bible Prophecies, p 40). That is not biblically correct. Abraham was not called out of Ur, he was BROUGHT out. Later he was CALLED out of Haran, some 500 miles North of Ur. Verse 4 of Genesis 12 indicates that Abraham obeyed God immediately. Dr. Walvoord made another mistake. He wrote, "The fact that Abraham and his father started out for the promised land is evidence that though they may have participated in the worship of pagan deities of the time, at this important juncture in their life they recognized the true God and hencforth obeyed and worshiped him" (Major Bible Propheices, p 40). If that were true, it would well serve to reinforce the dispensational teaching that Abraham was in "partial disobedience" when God called him, and God withheld the promises to Abraham until he finally decided to obey (in like manner, it is expected that God will fulfill the covenants to "temporarily disobedient Israel" when they eventually decide to obey God). But not once does the Bible say that Abraham's father ever worshiped the true God, nor does it say that Abraham ever worshiped pagan deities. Dr. Walvoord either misread the Bible, or else deliberately protrayed conjecture as truth. Mac www.biblebits.com/abraham.htm
CommentsDr. Walvoord, On Daniel 9:24,27, in his book, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 35: "The usefulness of this passage is enhanced by the fact that Christ draws from it in His Olivet Discourse (cf. Matt. 24:15) which is clearly related to the A.D. 70 destruction of the Temple (cf. Matt. 24:1-2)." Dr. Walvoord is correct in that Matt.24:15 is related to the A.D.70 destruction of the Temple, but Jesus did not draw on Daniel 9:24-27 in His Olivet discourse. Verse 27 has the word "abomination," and this is how Dan. 9:27 reads: "And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make [it] desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate." Here Daniel predicts that Jesus would confirm God's covenant with Israel for seven years, but half way through that period He was crucified. Then Daniel jumps ahead some forty years to A.D.70, predicting the desolation that would come upon the house of David BECAUSE of the overspreading abominations being committed by the holy people throughout the holy land. These "abominations" were, I believe, committed by the people in rejecting God's covenent, thus were an ongoing thing. The "abomination that maketh desolate," on the other hand, was the sudden appearance of something abominable, such as the heathen Roman Army, setting itself up in or near the temple grounds, preparing to invade the city. It's just a thought..... Mac Machovsky..... www.biblebits.com //all over the here Jesus told His people to escape quickly when they see the abomination that maketh desolate stand in the holy place. That is not the abomination Jesus was speaking of.
CommentsI have read and hold Dr. John F. Walvoord's book, "Major Bible Prophecies." On the publication page there are five well stated words, 'Formost Interpreter of Biblical Prophecy.' I cannot say it any better than this. Dr. Walvoord wrote the introduction to another great book called, "Things To Come" by Dr. J. Dwight Pentecost, which I highly recommend as answering all the questions about eschatology. I have always greatly admired Dr. John F. Walvoord; thank the Lord for his book on how to rightly divide the Word of truth especially as to future prophetic events in the Lord God's calendar of time. Thank you Lord for this mighty man of God! Dr. I. Ray Berrian, Th.D. {rab3@Lehigh.edu}
CommentsWalvoord writes regarding the historicist approach to interpreting Revelation, "Its principal problem is that seldom do two interpreters interpret a given passage as referring to the same event." I think his premillenial approach has similar problem. In fact, from one decade to the next, any given premillenialist will often not interpret a given passage as referring to the same event!
CommentsTo the comment by dliswanson, I would like opinion of the passage in Genesis 5:24 regarding the taking of Enoch by God. Enoch did not die a physical death, and if you read the account of Elijah, as he was taken to Heaven in a flaming chariot, it should be seen that he did not die physically either. All of that to say this, consider 1 Thess. 4:13-18, and 1 Corinth. 15:51-58, and I think that there is enough evidence therein to support the Rapture of the true believers(the Bride of Christ Jesus). I submit all of this before the Tribulation preceeding The Second Coming of our Lord Jesus.
CommentsALL YOU RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS WITH YOUR FOGGY BOTTOM NOTIONS HAVE CAUSED NOTHING BUT CONFUSION MISUNDERSTANDING AND TERRIBLE STRIFE AMONG MODERATE MEN OF GOOD WILL..JESUS CHRISTS MISSION ON EARTH WAS FOR JEWS, BY JEWS AND TO JEWS..THE CHOSEN PEOPLE.IF NOT FOR PAUL, WHO LAID THE ACTUAL FRAMEWORK AND IDEOLOGY OF CHRISTIANITY..NO ONE WOULD HAVE EVER KNOWN OF JESUS CHRIST..... Date: 29 Jul 2005 Time: 13:28:17 Comments: "...the preterist view which regards Revelation as a symbolic picture of early church conflicts which have been fulfilled..." I just reread Revelations. Find it hard (from Rev. 4 on) to see that Rev. was fulfilled as preterists apparently claim. Where are the massive, Star Wars like cosmic worldwide deaths, locustlike creatures, 4 horsemen, etc? Even WWII was a minor scuffle compared with Rev.... Date: 01 Mar 2006 Date: 07 Jun 2006 Date: 28 Jan 2007 Date: 06 Feb 2007 |
|
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996 |
