Question for Full Preterists

Hi mel.

I am not one of those who sugar coat everything with the concept of the love of God.

Love has another side.

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.​

I think in these debates, we have "rebuked" preterism sufficiently (even as they believe they have rebuked "futurism") and we will probably continue.​

But the common ground we have with them is the forgiveness of sins and eternal life through faith in the death, burial and resurrection of our Savior,
the God-man Jesus Christ.​

Nothing can break that bond of brotherhood.​

HankD​

 

HankD,
I am with you on the matter of the bond of brotherhood!
But I cannot disobey the injunction of the Apostle John!!
John is explicit about maintaining the Doctrine of Christ!!!
I John 4:6 and 2 John 9-10.

"He who is not of God does not listen to us"!
"By this we know the spirit of Truth"!!
"And the spirit of Error"!!!

"Anyone who does not abide in His Doctrine"
...that Jesus is coming in the flesh...is at
least guilty of participation in deception...!
There must be no denial that He is coming in the flesh!!
If this is not a true statement, I don't know what John means!!!
Mel

 

Mel, I agree we should shun those who claim to be Christs' but have not the doctrine of Christ.

I don't agree with your translation of 1 John 4:2-3 and therefore don't agree that preterist fall into the category of those not having the doctrine of Christ.

This passage is about His Incarnation, His First Coming in the flesh and not His future Second Coming.

1 John 4
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Is come In 1 John 4:2 This is a koine perfect participle: eleluthota.

If it were present indicative or future tense you might have a case.

A perfect participle does not ordinarily denote future action but better represents a state of being.

Here are some examples from other translations:

ASV 1 John 4:2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

NIV 1 John 4:2 This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

NAS 1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;

RSV 1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,


NKJ 1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,

Douay-Rheims 1 John 4:2 By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

RWB 1 John 4:2 By this ye know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ hath come in the flesh is from God:

DBY 1 John 4:2 Hereby ye know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ come in flesh is of God;

YLT 1 John 4:2 in this know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that doth confess Jesus Christ in the flesh having come, of God it is,

NAB 1 John 4:2 This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh be longs to God,

NLT 1 John 4:2 This is the way to find out if they have the Spirit of God: If a prophet acknowledges that Jesus Christ became a human being, that person has the Spirit of God.

NJB 1 John 4:2 This is the proof of the spirit of God: any spirit which acknowledges Jesus Christ, come in human nature, is from God,


Then in A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament, Dana and Mantey, pages 229- 230 The Tense of the Participle

Bolding is mine, italics the authors.

Antecedent Action – puts the emphasis on the present state of being conditioned by what has happened in the past.

The Word was made flesh, He became flesh, a human being born of a woman, true God and true man.

Revelation 1:8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

In this passage “is to come” while it is a present participle it is present middle or passive deponent and in a noun form with the definite article ho erchomenos or literally “the coming one”.

The 1 John 4:2 passage in question has to do with His Incarnation his having come in the flesh and not His Future Second Coming.

Preterists acknowledge the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.


However I agree wholeheartedly with you that Jesus Christ is coming again in glory, the same Jesus in the same flesh and bone body He left in almost 2000 years ago from the Mount of Olives.

Do you have any evidence other than your own translation that 1 John 4:2-3 refers to the Second Coming and not exclusively to His Incarnation?



HankD

 

Lastday

Hank,
Thank you for the info on the primary use of the Perfect Participle:

I see the "state of being" continuing in 2 John 7 where the Present
Participle can be translated "is coming". That recognizes the ongoing
state indicated by the Perfect Participle in I John 4:2.
You allowed:

The Present Participle carries an even stronger emphasis on what continues.
Since a perfect participle "better represents a state of being", why would
John limit the "error" to saying Jesus did NOT come in the flesh. You must
admit that, ordinarily, he should have used the Aorist Indicative (aylthen) to indicate His having come in the flesh prior to His resurrection.

Throughout Revelation John uses the Aorist tense, Indicative mood, to
refer to what "had come" (aylthen) on the Day of Wrath. Yet even with that, the results continue with actions that occur during the entire Day of Wrath.
That Day does not End simply because he uses the past tense. How much
more should the Present Participle refer to the "state of Christ's human nature" as continuing until He comes to change these bodies of corruption.

True, John is talking about the Incarnation; but that Incarnation continues
in the Flesh! To indicate otherwise is akin to denying His eternal state as
being Incarnate!! At the very least, the very nature of our future glorified
bodies is laid open to doubt in the many Scriptures which require the literal, physical descent of Christ in His glorified body of Flesh and Bones!!!
Mel

 

I would definitely agree that John in other passages especially in the Book of Revelation clearly reveals the Incarnation as on going:

for instance

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.​

He cometh - present indicative (or He is coming)
shall see him - future indicative.​

Every eye shall see Him - indicating a body which can be seen at His return​

they also which pierced Him - Jews.
all the kindreds of the earth - Gentiles,
shall wail. Not a happy sight for either Jews or Gentiles on the earth.​

Here of course is where I have to part company with full preterists.​

It is the same Jesus that went up bodily from the Mount of Olives who shall return in like manner. Not in a "figurative" way represented by Titus in AD70. ​

But bodily and visibly of which no one knows the day or he hour. ​

HankD​

 

Lastday

HankD,

To enlarge on what the world will behold at Christ's coming, it is possible to
translate the following verse a little differently:

This sounds as if those who pierced Him refers to the kindreds living on earth.
It could be:

This requires the physical, visible coming of Christ Himself...but also all the believers who pierced Him coming WITH Him. That would include Caiaphas if he became a believer before he died...thus removing the problem of how he would "see Jesus coming in the clouds"!
Mel

 

Very interesting mel.

Thank you.

HankD

Post Script: I wouldn't have a problem anyway. The Acts 1:11 passage has Him being received up into a cloud.
After His promised return descending into the lower atmosphere, He would break through the cloud(s) and appear in the air.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.​

 

Where did I say righteousness doesn't exist yet? I said, "an eternal punishment for the wicked and eternal peace for the righteous commencing at the same time." I said nothing there about righteousness, I referred to the righteous, the just, those to whom the righteousness of Christ has been imputed. I actually said righteousness now exists.

I didn't get my end times theology from a book written by man, but from God's book. Jesus brought in an everlasting righteousness during His first advent and this is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith. It is by this righteousness imputed by grace to the elect that they appear holy and without blame before God in love.

 

Interestingly you never did give me an answer on Rev 1:1. Since you believe it's symbolic could you tell us all what the symbolic meaning of "shortly" means.

So is the righteousness that Christ brought not the same righteousness found here:

2Pe 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Is the righteousness of 2 Peter 3:13 different from the righteousness found in Daniel's 70th week which you say is now here?

Dan 9:24 Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

If they are different, what is the difference?

 

"shortly" : Admitedly this is problematic to the futurist as every systematic theology including preterism has its areas of difficulty.

There is more than one apologetic.

This word has two closely but well defined meanings "soon" or "quickly".

This same word is used in the following passage (and others as well, this is an example)

Acts 12:7 And, behold, the angel of the Lord came upon him, and a light shined in the prison: and he smote Peter on the side, and raised him up, saying, Arise up quickly. And his chains fell off from his hands.​

In this definition of the word, it would mean that when the Day of the Lord does arrive then the prophecies in the Book of Revelation will happen quickly.

Another point of view is that "shortly" is a relative term depending upon God to define:​

Psalm 90:4 For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.​

I am inclined more towards the latter.​

HankD​

 

Sorry, but you violated RAdam's edict:

The only way you can overthrow those things is to monkey around with that clear language and try in vain to tell me that Paul and Peter and Jesus and John didn't intend me to read it the way it is written and take the simple intuitive meaning.

Try again.

 

There is IMO no "monkeying around" I stated a grammatical and then a figurative evidence for what I said.

I could have provided empirical lexicon proof but I didn't (apart from the translation of the word in its close but other meaning).

I believe you are sincere in your beliefs as well and that RAdam was perhaps expressing his frustration of the merry-go-round of views over and over again with no one able to hand over the gold ring of Scripture.

But as I said previously, it is not the best thing to do to make innuendo concerning our brothers in Christ and I am trying not to do that anymore.

it is at very least "counter productive".

I am stating my belief and the belief of other futurists who are admitedly not all in agreement as are many of our preterist brethren.

In the case of "last things', I really don't desire to have the "upperhand", but to give the futurists view(s) and let people decide on their own.


HankD

 

You cannot get away from the fact that Revelation is written in a symbolic fashion. That doesn't mean that every single word in Revelation is symbolic or that things aren't real because symbols are being used. Do you believe Jesus Christ is a literal physical lamb with seven horns coming out of His head? Of course not. The lamb with 7 horns is a symbol, a picture of a real being intended to communicate things to us. In that same passage the Lamb is worshipped. This was real worship. Not everything is a symbol.

Revelation 1:1 introduces the book. What does shortly mean? Well, it doesn't mean everything in Revelation has to be fulfilled in a few years. Some things have not been fulfilled, some have.

Here's a better question: when was Revelation written? I know your answer, but the truth is nobody knows for sure. There are decent arguments for before and after the destruction of Jerusalem. The fact that there is such doubt as to the time of authorship makes me wary to accept a stance on the book that is totally dependant on that time. It really doesn't make a single difference to my view when it was written, but to yours it would be fatal.

 

Lastday

Friends,

The word in Rev.1:1 is tachos (#5034} and can mean "swiftly or soon"!
In Rev.3:11; 22:7,12,20 it is tachu (#5035) and means "quickly, no delay"!!
Jesus uses the latter for His coming quickly when there is "no more delay"!!!

The end of that "delay" occurs with the deaths of the Two Prophets!
"God's Mystery was finished in the days when the 7th Trumpet sounds"!!
Christ is coming "as the lightning" within 3 or 4 days of their deaths!!!
Matt.24:27; Rev.10:7; Rev.11:7.
Mel

 

Here's one thing that was written in Revelation hasn't yet come to pass: "Behold he cometh with clouds, and every eye shall see him, they also which pierced him."

There are things written that have not yet come to pass, some things have. Preterist act as if because the Lord said He would reveal things to John that would shortly come to pass, the entire book must have been fulfilled within a few years of writing. That is a ridiculous notion.

If this book concerns the final great era of time and the things that would characterize this era, why must all of it be fulfilled within a few years of writing? And again, noone even knows for sure when it was written.