The Preterists and Matthew 24:34

[Jerry Shugart]

JerryS,
the promise was made to the Seed, which is Christ. That is the NT superceding what the OT said.

So even though the LORD promised that all the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would receive the forgiveness of sins but the promise will never be given to them?

That is ridiculous because if the LORD promises something then He will honor that promise.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

No one argued that is all circumstances that all of the physical descendants of Abraham will be counted as true sons. On the other hand, it is a fact that some of the physical descendants are counted as true sons.

It is also a fact that those who will receive the promise of the New Covenant at Jeremiah 31:31-34 are either the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or Gentile converts to Judaism who have been circumcised. There has never been a time when every single one of those people have had their sins forgiven.

I'm struggling a bit to understand what you are saying and believing.

What are the criteria for which sons of Abraham are considered true sons?

Yes, at Jeremiah 31:34 we can see that all of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are Abraham's true children because they have all had their sins forgiven.

Are you saying that the true sons of Abraham are known by which physical lineage they are from? IE: Isaac instead of Ishmael; Jacob instead of Esau?

 

[Interplanner]

JerryS is trying to keep two programs in the Bible intact. He doesn't realize that one was a temporary picture or shadow of the other. In order for the Bible to be consistent, he thinks that some of the physical descendants of Abraham have to have a promise kept to them on the basis of being that--physical lineage.

Instead, the NT says it doesn't matter any more. You have Paul saying in Rom 4, 9 and Gal 4 that Isaac's conception wasn't the ordinary kind. But more important, you have Gal 3:29: If you belong to Christ (by faith in the Gospel), you are Abraham's seed, and heirs to the promise. That line summarizes huge sections of Romans and Galatians.

Jerry is also concerned that the physical or Judean elements of the promise be kept intact. But again the NT doesn't care. There is nothing in the NT where the land per se, or the worship system per se, needs to function again. See the sermon in Acts 13: the resurrection of Christ is what fulfilled all that God had promised to the fathers and provided a mission that would bless all the world. Or see the end of Eph 2. The fact that many among the nations had faith was building a new, living "temple." God was advancing his mission all along and it burst into action on the day of Pentecost and that week when those people returned home all over the Roman world.

Judaism, on the eve of Christ's coming as Jesus of Nazareth, was starting a mission effort, but there was no Gospel to it. It was to compel the nations to keep God's law including the ceremonial aspects. For some of them, that's all that mattered. Jesus had quite a sharp evaluation of that effort, Mt 23. Paul was in the middle of all this, a leader in imposing torah all around his district of the empire, when God seized him. Thus his declaration in Eph 3:6 is the most radical: the promises and membership and citizenship of Israel are realized in the Gospel. They are not accessed in the old way anymore.

 

[rainee]

Although I do not agree with anyone, ever, apparently, I do agree with who ever (whomever?) would say that certain promises should be seen as for the sake of the fathers that Paul refers to in Romans.

If you can see David in your minds eye and picture him being talked to then I would hope you can see he wouldn't be totally consoled with just a bunch of Gentiles being brought in. No insult intended since I am Gentile.

 

[Interplanner]

Rainee,
did you mean "seen as fulfilled..." but forgot to say fulfilled? Are you familiar with the sermon in Acts 13? It is the punchline.

Actually in the middle of dedicating the 1st temple David broke into a prayer that all nations would come and believe in God. But the theme about the nations being blessed in Israel's destiny goes clear back to Abraham's first promises, which in turn is a bridge back to the first promise of the Gospel in Genesis 3 (Genesis 1-11 being about history before 'Israel.').

 

[Interplanner]

So even though the LORD promised that all the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob would receive the forgiveness of sins but the promise will never be given to them?

That is ridiculous because if the LORD promises something then He will honor that promise.

Check Rom 4 for yourself. The land of Israel does not matter. Abraham told he would inherit the whole earth; I understand that to mean the NHNE for all who believe. So God does fulfill. But, as G. MacDonald would warn, people tend to want the blessings of God rather than the God who blesses. Are we supposed to yearn for things?

 

[rainee]

Rainee,
did you mean "seen as fulfilled..." but forgot to say fulfilled? Are you familiar with the sermon in Acts 13? It is the punchline.

Actually in the middle of dedicating the 1st temple David broke into a prayer that all nations would come and believe in God. But the theme about the nations being blessed in Israel's destiny goes clear back to Abraham's first promises, which in turn is a bridge back to the first promise of the Gospel in Genesis 3 (Genesis 1-11 being about history before 'Israel.').

I do believe The Lord intended to always save from all the world. So I do agree with what you write above about the nations, and what you say about David.
However, I do not think I forgot any word like "fulfilled" in what I tried to quote?
I referred to this below though I use The NIV, if that is acceptable you or would you prefer KJ only?
Romans 11:28
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers

I hold that God will indeed do things because of the above and because He desires to do that everyone has to maintain who they are and where they came from.

I believe it is a wonderful testimony that I, from Godless Gentiles living in darkness, have been made alive, adopted, and translated.

But the "for the sake of the fathers" will not be satisfied by me, I think. And you?

 

[Interplanner]

I do believe The Lord intended to always save from all the world. So I do agree with what you write above about the nations, and what you say about David.
However, I do not think I forgot any word like "fulfilled" in what I tried to quote?
I referred to this below though I use The NIV, if that is acceptable you or would you prefer KJ only?
Romans 11:28
28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers

I hold that God will indeed do things because of the above and because He desires to do that everyone has to maintain who they are and where they came from.

I believe it is a wonderful testimony that I, from Godless Gentiles living in darkness, have been made alive, adopted, and translated.

But the "for the sake of the fathers" will not be satisfied by me, I think. And you?

OK, just checking.

In that case, you are starting toward 2P2P (two peoples, two programs that don't match, share, unify) in the Bible. Sometimes not even saved the same way, acc. to some; sometimes "saved" does not mean the same thing, either!

I think Rom 11:30 is the most informative here because it comes AFTER all claims about regarding the fathers or certain things for the fathers, and says that God has one way of doing things now. Don't forget that this is followed by:

"To whom does God owe anything, as though he was in debt to them?" in the closing doxology. Is he in debt? No.

So when we read the concluding thoughts of Rom 11, we must find the unifying things and the shared truth, not the differences and disparity because "there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, for he is one God and Lord of all." The quote from Isaiah is about the new form of 'Israel' that Paul has been mentioning. It is not dwelling on differences but on historic things already accomplished which Jew and Gentile share. Otherwise we have to toss the letter to Ephesians, etc.

If you think through v28 it is not that different from v30. In one sense, there is an enmity, but in another sense there is a shared salvation for all. In one sense, it seems like so many more of them should believe. But they don't because now God wants them (also) to relate to him through the mediator Christ Jesus, not direct through other agreements, contracts, covenants.

 

[rainee]

OK, just checking.

In that case, you are starting toward 2P2P (two peoples, two programs that don't match, share, unify) in the Bible. Sometimes not even saved the same way, acc. to some; sometimes "saved" does not mean the same thing, either!

I think Rom 11:30 is the most informative here because it comes AFTER all claims about regarding the fathers or certain things for the fathers, and says that God has one way of doing things now. Don't forget that this is followed by:

"To whom does God owe anything, as though he was in debt to them?" in the closing doxology. Is he in debt? No.

So when we read the concluding thoughts of Rom 11, we must find the unifying things and the shared truth, not the differences and disparity because "there is no distinction between Jew and Gentile, for he is one God and Lord of all." The quote from Isaiah is about the new form of 'Israel' that Paul has been mentioning. It is not dwelling on differences but on historic things already accomplished which Jew and Gentile share. Otherwise we have to toss the letter to Ephesians, etc.

If you think through v28 it is not that different from v30. In one sense, there is an enmity, but in another sense there is a shared salvation for all. In one sense, it seems like so many more of them should believe. But they don't because now God wants them (also) to relate to him through the mediator Christ Jesus, not direct through other agreements, contracts, covenants.

Sir, I'm sorry to take so long answering you. I have to be careful now because I may have been a bit too cavalier when I first read you...

How cone you don't give more info about yourself on your personal page?

Are you "partial preterist" as Danoh said you were?
I'm in fl but will try to look up the book you mentioned about a guy in CA...
You are in CA?

And last but not least, I hope, that -no - I will not head toward two different gospels or plans or "saves".
But I hesitate to tell you what I do think...
First I must go back and follow the thoughts you gave to go with that section - I look forward to seeing, so thanks. So far I think I agree with your points, totally. Which worries me...
So last I will take you up on mentioning Ephesians - you are correct we must not do anything to undermine it!
Know where it says the law was our school master?
I think Paul is talking to...Jews. Ephesian Jews side by side with Ephesian Gentiles... Are you ready for that to happen again? Could you stand strong next to a believing Jew loved for the sake of the fathers?

 

[Zeke]

Sir, I'm sorry to take so long answering you. I have to be careful now because I may have been a bit too cavalier when I first read you...

How cone you don't give more info about yourself on your personal page?

Are you "partial preterist" as Danoh said you were?
I'm in fl but will try to look up the book you mentioned about a guy in CA...
You are in CA?

And last but not least, I hope, that -no - I will not head toward two different gospels or plans or "saves".
But I hesitate to tell you what I do think...
First I must go back and follow the thoughts you gave to go with that section - I look forward to seeing, so thanks. So far I think I agree with your points, totally. Which worries me...
So last I will take you up on mentioning Ephesians - you are correct we must not do anything to undermine it!
Know where it says the law was our school master?
I think Paul is talking to...Jews. Ephesian Jews side by side with Ephesian Gentiles... Are you ready for that to happen again? Could you stand strong next to a believing Jew loved for the sake of the fathers?

Yet you say you are a gentile, but there is neither Jew or Gentile in Christ conscience, When symbolic stories (Galatians 4:24) are animated into history, they make for an observable veil one can't see past Luke 17:20-21, Jacob becoming Israel is a metaphoric change within not a historical fact except in religious fictions and fables chasing their dogma tails in circles.

 

[Interplanner]

The schoolmaster analogy is in Gal 4.

The belief that Christ's righteousness is for all, no matter race, tribe, sect, gender, country, education is an objective reality in the NT; the believers include all those people types as time goes on.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

JerryS is trying to keep two programs in the Bible intact. He doesn't realize that one was a temporary picture or shadow of the other. In order for the Bible to be consistent, he thinks that some of the physical descendants of Abraham have to have a promise kept to them on the basis of being that--physical lineage.

That seems like what he is saying. I just wanted to hear it from his own lips that he thinks the true sons of Abraham are according to physical lineage.

I haven't seen him address Galatians 4.

Yet, he is fond of saying we deny what Paul teaches in Romans or Jeremiah.

I say you must apply what Paul teaches in Galatians to Jeremiah and the Romans verses.

 

[George Affleck]

That seems like what he is saying. I just wanted to hear it from his own lips that he thinks the true sons of Abraham are according to physical lineage.

I haven't seen him address Galatians 4.

Yet, he is fond of saying we deny what Paul teaches in Romans or Jeremiah.

I say you must apply what Paul teaches in Galatians to Jeremiah and the Romans verses.

Aaron,

The main item that is missed is that, as of 70 AD (or, if you prefer, as a result of the cross), all nations, peoples, tribes, regardless of who they are, including Jews, are on the same level and without privilege. All must come to God through Jesus Christ and Him alone. Jews are without standing before God and are as the Gentiles are, dead in sin until they make Jesus their sacrifice.

John 4:23KJV, Matt 23:39KJV

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Are you saying that the true sons of Abraham are known by which physical lineage they are from?

I have already proved that this verse is speaking about the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but for some reason you cannot even understand this simple thing:

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).​

There has never been a time when all of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob plus all of the Gentile converts to Judaism had their sins forgiven.

This has has never happened and the preterists have no place for its fulfllment in the future.

The message is clear that certain literal physical sons of Abraham will not be counted as true sons - yet certain non-related people will be counted as true sons.

No one argued that is all circumstances that all of the physical descendants of Abraham will be counted as true sons. On the other hand, it is a fact that some of the physical descendants are counted as true sons.

It is also a fact that those who will receive the promise of the New Covenant at Jeremiah 31:31-34 are either the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or Gentile converts to Judaism who have been circumcised. There has never been a time when every single one of those people have had their sins forgiven.

Apply this clear teaching to the Jeremiah prophecy and you will see how ALL of Abraham's true children have had all their sins forgiven.

The fathers of those who will receive the promises under the New Covenant are described this way:

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer.31:32).​

Not only are the "fathers" of those who will receive the blessings of the New Covenant the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but it is clear by their actions that they couldn't be described as a so-called "spiritual Israel":

"They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (Ex.32:8).​

Now it is time for you to dig in and actually try to understand what I have said and to look at the evidence I gave to support what I said.

Then I will ask you a question. Do you see that those of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah were all the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (except for the Gentile converts to Judaism)?

I haven't seen him address Galatians 4.

Quote whichever passage from that chapter that you want and then give me your interpretation of it. I will be more than happy to address it. But in the meantime answer my question.

Thanks!

 

[Cons&Spires]

Let's be clear: it is a historical fact that the entire notion of preterism altogether was due to the divergent's notion that the Church was the seat of the Anti-Christ via the Reformation.

Therefore, I see no authenticity in the theology altogether- it is a notion of convenience, that didn't exist in the thousand years before it.

 

[Danoh]

Let's be clear: it is a historical fact that the entire notion of preterism altogether was due to the divergent's notion that the Church was the seat of the Anti-Christ via the Reformation.

Therefore, I see no authenticity in the theology altogether- it is a notion of convenience, that didn't exist in the thousand years before it.

But, an interpretation of history is also what they base a part of their own assertion on.

Together also, with their own "tradition" argument, and their assertion that they hold their view because it makes sense to them.

Those three, then; cannot be relied on for a counter argument. Doing so can only result in more of their counter from those three in return, once more.

What's needed is to go meta, or higher, then those three points of reference, for an answer, to begin with.

It is from such a meta level of observation that their use of those three is proven the falsehood that it is.

Fact is, that when Scripture alone is consulted, they have no valid argument.

Without Josephus and company, these guys are not only up an extremely oily river without oars, but with The Three Stooges adding more and more holes to their canoe.

 

[Cons&Spires]

But, an interpretation history is also what they base a part of their own assertion on.

Together also, with their own "tradition" argument as well as that the view makes sense to them.

Those three, then; can not be relied on for a counter argument. Doing so can inky result in more of their counter from those three as well.

What's needing is to go meta, or higher, then those three for an answer.

There is where their use of those three is proven the falsehood that it is.

Fact is, that when Scripture alone is consulted, they have no valid argument.

Without Josephus and company, these guys are not only up an extremely oily river, and with out oars, but with The Three Stooges adding more and more holes to their canoe.

Despite the fact that I don't believe the Roman Church is the Anti-Christ, there is overwhelming evidence that she, in fact, is the Idolatress of Babylon

Which doesn't do any justice for her at all, it's what started the historical rebellion to begin with; anyone so close to perdition should just be avoided altogether if you ask me, one does not need the pope to be saved.

 

[George Affleck]

But, an interpretation of history is also what they base a part of their own assertion on.

Together also, with their own "tradition" argument, and their assertion that they hold their view because it makes sense to them.

Those three, then; cannot be relied on for a counter argument. Doing so can only result in more of their counter from those three in return, once more.

What's needed is to go meta, or higher, then those three points of reference, for an answer, to begin with.

It is from such a meta level of observation that their use of those three is proven the falsehood that it is.

Fact is, that when Scripture alone is consulted, they have no valid argument.

Without Josephus and company, these guys are not only up an extremely oily river without oars, but with The Three Stooges adding more and more holes to their canoe.

Can you give specifics for this?

 

[Cons&Spires]

But, an interpretation of history is also what they base a part of their own assertion on.

Together also, with their own "tradition" argument, and their assertion that they hold their view because it makes sense to them.

Those three, then; cannot be relied on for a counter argument. Doing so can only result in more of their counter from those three in return, once more.

What's needed is to go meta, or higher, then those three points of reference, for an answer, to begin with.

It is from such a meta level of observation that their use of those three is proven the falsehood that it is.

Fact is, that when Scripture alone is consulted, they have no valid argument.

Without Josephus and company, these guys are not only up an extremely oily river without oars, but with The Three Stooges adding more and more holes to their canoe.

The Church is well versed in backtracking, I'l give it that- their notion of Preterism is impressive, but nonetheless it is fictitious and no tradition beforehand can truly back it.

 

[Aaron the Tall]

I have already proved that this verse is speaking about the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but for some reason you cannot even understand this simple thing:

"Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more" (Jer.31:31-34).​

There has never been a time when all of the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob plus all of the Gentile converts to Judaism had their sins forgiven.

This has has never happened and the preterists have no place for its fulfllment in the future.



No one argued that is all circumstances that all of the physical descendants of Abraham will be counted as true sons. On the other hand, it is a fact that some of the physical descendants are counted as true sons.

It is also a fact that those who will receive the promise of the New Covenant at Jeremiah 31:31-34 are either the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or Gentile converts to Judaism who have been circumcised. There has never been a time when every single one of those people have had their sins forgiven.



The fathers of those who will receive the promises under the New Covenant are described this way:

"Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt" (Jer.31:32).​

Not only are the "fathers" of those who will receive the blessings of the New Covenant the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob but it is clear by their actions that they couldn't be described as a so-called "spiritual Israel":

"They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt" (Ex.32:8).​

Now it is time for you to dig in and actually try to understand what I have said and to look at the evidence I gave to support what I said.

Then I will ask you a question. Do you see that those of the house of Israel and of the house of Judah were all the physical descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (except for the Gentile converts to Judaism)?



Quote whichever passage from that chapter that you want and then give me your interpretation of it. I will be more than happy to address it. But in the meantime answer my question.

Thanks!

I'm still a bit fuzzy on what you are saying in regards to that passage. You say that it applies to the physical descendants - but you also agree that it applies to the gentile converts.

If the "house of Israel" and the "house of Judah" includes gentile converts - then physical lineage is not the deciding factor in who the new covenant applies to. Correct?

You said that not all of the physical descendants of Abraham will be counted as true sons. In what circumstances will some of Abraham's children not be counted as true sons?

Was is possible that some of Abraham's physical descendants living in Israel were not "true sons" when Jeremiah gave this prophecy?

One of the main verse in Galatians I would like you to address is 4:30 where it says the sons of Hagar (Jews who continue to cling to the Law instead of Christ) will not share in the inheritance.

Isn't this a clear teaching that some of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's physical descendants won't be counted as true sons?