News

Maybe burned at the stake, but not for being a heretic--more for being a believer (joking...I hope). Ed, I have now had a chance to watch all the way through the video you referenced. I found it highly engaging and thought provoking. Thank you for passing that on. While there is much in there that I can agree with, there were a few points that I am not ready to fully embrace. I didn't take notes, so I'm doing this from recall. First, the idea that there is no prophecy in which there is a partial first fulfillment and a later fuller fulfillment, this is problematic for me. Isa 7:14 comes to mind: Isaiah prophecized a child being born to a "virgin". Not bringing up the debates over the understanding of "virgin", this prophecy was certainly fulfilled in Isaiah's day. But Matthew tells us of a fulfillment with Mary and Jesus. Second, the views presented take little or no account of the "already, but not yet" understanding of many ideas in the New Testament. The idea that the kingdom is already here is clearly understood, but it also clear that it is not here in its complete fullness. So while agree with the presentation that those who see the kingdom as future misunderstand the Scriptural references, so do those who limit the kingdom to a spiritual-only kingdom. "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face." Third, the idea that Revelation was written before AD 70 is difficult to sustain for the reasons I have stated before. I really do recommend finding a copy of Mark Hitchcock's dissertation--available through an Internet search and download. The witness of those close to the author John does not bear out an early date of writing. There is one point that was raised that I have thought about before and not come to a resolution yet. There are a large number of reference to the coming of Christ that are sourced in Daniel 7--the coming of the Son of Man on the clouds. It is popularly applied--including in this video--to Jesus coming to earth, whether as a future return or as in the video, a past return in judgment. However, reading Daniel 7 it is very clear that the coming of the Son of Man was not a coming to earth, but to the throne of God. I have not put together a good understanding of to where we should take all of the references to the "coming". Matthew 26:64 is one such reference: "Jesus said to him, 'You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.'" To where is he "coming"? Why do we presume it is to earth? This is the current leg of my journey in understanding prophetic Scripture. Ed, I welcome you to this journey of understanding. My word of advice as one who has spent 50 years walking through the maze is to not be hesitant to open new doors, explore new paths, and always hold what you "know" with a mind open to the Spirit's leading. I mentioned before that my former pastor is semi-preterist. It was interesting to me that during the 10 years I sat under his teaching that my eschatology greatly changed--not because he persuaded my about preterism, but because in examining his position my understanding of prophecy was exposed to different ways of understanding Scripture. Blessings.

Oh no, Ed, I've put my sticks and matches away long ago! ;) I'd echo Raymond, as I've been exposed to other perspectives of eschatology, it has softened me in my own perspective, not that I've changed, I just wouldn't be as dogmatic. I think reading other perspectives does make you more sensitive to see that other believers, just as well-meaning and Jesus-loving as you are, have seen the exact same Scriptures in a very different way than you have seen them. It reminds me that my lens is definitely not perfect or even potentially accurate. So, I'm no one's judge on this - there's only one judge. I'm thrilled when any believer is driven to study the word and understand it to the best of their ability, even if their conclusions are very different than mine. For what it's worth, I do think N.T. Wright (though I doubt he would identify himself as one) would fit the partial preterism camp. I do not think he would be full on preterist. Again, I don't know that he would use those labels, but his writings do lend to that view and have been used by those in that camp to bolster their arguments. Anyway, the interactions have been enjoyable. Raymond, thanks so much for all you've added. Ed, thanks for engaging and starting the discussion. It's been enjoyable. Hope you both have a blessed day! grace, dave

I really am not a fanatic of siding with one view and discarding the rest, My retired pastor is also a semi preterist, he follows Luther on HeavenBook...LOL he does believe there will be a third coming... I do understand that Matthew 24 referred to time and audience relevant information that Jesus talked about to the 1st generation Jews... The time is at hand... this generation will not pass away till all these things... and others. RC Sproul is also a partial preterist... Thank you Raymond and David... for reaching out and exchanging points of views.... Blessings!

I'm currently working through the book myself. I've found several commentaries to be helpful, more or less helpful from time to time. Wright's is one of them. I'd add a couple others: first, one of the most interesting and helpful to me has been Aaron Sherwood's Commentary, written for Lexham Press, it is good and has unique perspectives that are excellent. He also wrote a book entitled: The Word has not Failed: Paul's use of the Old Testament in Romans 9. This one was very interesting and helpful as well. For the original languages, Harvey has two editions on Romans and both are helpful and not a regurgitation of one another: A Commentary on Romans by Kregel and Romans in the EGGNT. I'd also recommend both Longenecker (NIGNT) and Bird (The Story of the Bible Commentary). Thielman has a fairly new commentary in the ZECNT series, it is also excellent. One more, Peterson has done a recent commentary in the EBTC (Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary) again by Lexham Press. Each of these has been helpful to me in my study of this amazing book. Enjoy!

Raymond and David, I thank you for the kindness of taking the time to respond. I have purchased several of your recommendations and thank God for the wisdom He has blessed you with.

I've greatly appreciated Tom Wright's contributions to our world and remain forever grateful for his invaluable insights. Recently, I've discovered Tom Holland, a contemporary of Wright's, and his stance on Corporate Election view. His work on Romans, "Hope for the Nations," is a valuable read. Some may perceive it as opposing Wright in certain aspects, and indeed, Holland critiques Wright in some aspects. However, for the discerning reader, there is immense value personally and for the church in approaching Romans with both commentaries in hand.

I always thought God did it because, he is able to break into and to overshadow any religion, astrology or "heathen" nation, and without affirming it. But - abit like Paul on Areopagos. He breaks into the unknown. And abit like John 3,16: He is for the whole world. He can command every false prophet to speak right. He break into any false astrology system, and use their system for them selves, as a way to abolish it: Who needs astrology after Jesus have come with Peace for the Whole Earth ? And lastly: the heathen was invited at his birth, because he was king of all the nations. And yes - I think you are right. Nobody else was willing to go, that is especially true of these times, and probably also then.

Yes, and all that He does is centered out of His love. So while hypothetically He could break into and overshadow, His love would lead Him to not coerce. Romans 8:28, He works all things together, or synergy. Not addition rather multiplication in harmonizing even the bad and the sinful to bring the best. “Looking for the jewel. amongst the rubbish”

 thank you for this insight!

@Fred Sprinkle Thank you for inserting the author’s clarification. I read it together with the preceding paragraph I insert below: “Second, I have frequently used ‘god’ instead of ‘God’. This is not a printer’s error, nor is it a deliberate irreverence; rather the opposite, in fact. The modern usage, without the article and with a capital, seems to me actually dangerous. This usage, which sometimes amounts to regarding ‘God’ as the proper name of the Deity, rather than as essentially a common noun, implies that all users of the word are monotheists and, within that, that all monotheists believe in the same god. Both these propositions seem to me self-evidently untrue. It may or may not be true that any worship of any god is translated by some mysterious grace into worship of one god who actually exists, and who happens to be the only god. That is believed by some students of religion. It is not, however, believed by very many practitioners of the mainline monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) or of the non-monotheistic ones (Hinduism, Buddhism and their cognates). Certainly the Jews and Christians of the first century did not believe it. They believed that pagans worshipped idols, or even demons. (The question as to how Jews and Christians regarded each other’s beliefs on this topic will be addressed in Part V of the present volume.) ”  n.t.wright: “The early Christians used the phrase ‘the god’ (ho theos) of this god, and this was (I believe) somewhat polemical, making an essentially Jewish-monotheistic point over against polytheism. In a world where there were many suns, one would not say ‘the sun’.” I checked in the Greek grammars. I translate from German: „The article before θεός doesn't mean in NT “the God” (a certain, well known one among many others), but simply ‘God’ (the only One). Why is the article in NT there while we omit it? The people in the ancient world believed in many gods. Through the article used, the only God stood from them out. In the West influenced by the Christendom, thinking of God, we think of the only and true God. That is why we leave the article out.” (W. Stoy, K. Haag and W. Haubeck, “Bibel Griechisch leicht gemacht“, p. 33). This is an excerpt from an English book: „John 3:10 ὁ διδάσκαλος τοῦ ᾽Ισραήλ - the teacher of Israel  There were many teachers of Israel, but Nicodemus was either well known or, if the article is par excellence, the number one professor on the Gallup poll! Often ‘the gospel’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) and ‘the Lord’ (ὁ κύριος) employ articles par excellence. In other words, there was only one gospel and one Lord worth mentioning as far as the early Christians were concerned.” And in the footnote he writes: “ὁ θεός also may be regarded as par excellence rather than monadic in many contexts. This is not to say that to the NT writers there were many gods, but that there were many entities and beings called θεός. Only one truly deserved the name.” (Daniel B. Wallace, “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”, p. 223) @Terry Wildman We have to remember that the first manuscripts until 9th century were uncial. “About the beginning of the 9th cent. a new style of script was introduced (known as ‘minuscule’)” (Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (Eds.). (2005). In “The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church” (3rd ed. rev., p. 1037). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.). “Uncial” this means that all the letters were capital. Only from the beginning of the 9th century the manuscripts were minuscule – in small letters.

@Placyd Thanks for the correction, however the effect is the same. It is interesting that the definite article might be the designator, but I am not sure that is always the case.

He's a more better writer than I thought.  My most bestest book

Thank you!

He seems to focus more on bearing the "image of God" than of Jesus specifically. But he says this in his book "Paul: Fresh Perspectives" in a the section on 1 Corinthians 15: "The end result is the creation of a new type of human beings, once more in the image of God but now, more specifically, in the image of the risen Messiah: as we have born the image of the earthly human being, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly one."

That is very helpful.  Thanks!