The Book of Revelation: Amillennial/idealist Interpretive Method

[3 Resurrections]

They hold it differently ~ they hold to a post tribulation period after Christ comes for his saints and many other such things they have invented ~ per Scofield Reference Bible thy Bible of the modern day fundamentalist.

But they still propose a hypothetical "gap" before the 70th week is fulfilled, as you are also doing. Once a "gap" is proposed, that "gap" is up for grabs as to how long the person wants to extend it. Scripture never presents anything about "gaps" in the middle of prophesied periods of time.

 

[Red Baker]

But they still propose a hypothetical "gap" before the 70th week is fulfilled, as you are also doing. Once a "gap" is proposed, that "gap" is up for grabs as to how long the person wants to extend it. Scripture never presents anything about "gaps" in the middle of prophesied periods of time.

Christ's second coming is not revealed in the scriptures as to the day, year, etc....... We can only know the season, ( the little season of Revelation 20 ) which season could last a couple hundred years or so!

 

[3 Resurrections]

Christ's second coming is not revealed in the scriptures as to the day, year, etc....... We can only know the season, ( the little season of Revelation 20 ) which season could last a couple hundred years or so!

That is incorrect. Daniel 12 specifically gave a total of a 1,335-day countdown until the resurrection in which he himself would participate. That period of 1,335 days was going to begin when two very specific things happened in the same season of time. Those two things happened together back in the same season in AD 66, at which point the 1,335-day countdown started.

The first-century believers did not know the specific day and hour of Christ's return until those two things happened together in their lifetime. But they did know that some of them whom Christ had personally spoken to would not have died before His return, as Christ very clearly taught in Matthew 16:27-28.

 

[Red Baker]

The first-century believers did not know the specific day and hour of Christ's return

Are you hinting that you do?

until those two things happened together in their lifetime.

3 Resurrections~you are so wrong on your eschatology timeline events by laboring to rubber stamped just about everything in and around 70 A.D. J. R. C. had more influence on your eschatology than you realize, or, are willing to admit. That's the main reason him and I had to split and go our separate ways.

But they did know that some of them whom Christ had personally spoken to would not have died before His return, as Christ very clearly taught in Matthew 16:27-28.

The mount of transfiguration, was not a picture of Christ coming in 70 A. D. but what will take place when he comes the second time at the end of this world!

2nd Peter 1:11-17~"For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in remembrance of these things, though ye know them, and be established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; Knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath shewed me. Moreover I will endeavour that ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance. For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

Peter and all the apostles put off their earthly tabernacle, and so has every saint since them, though some at the end of the world will be living when Christ comes to gather them unto himself ~ this has never even come close of happening.

What Peter John and James witness was Christ's coming at the end of this world ~ when Christ comes the second time, and destroys his enemies, and usher in the everlasting lasting kingdom that will fill the new heaven and earth. All of the elect will sit down in that kingdom and meet the saints that have gone on before us. What a blessed reunion that will be, so blessed that it has truly never enter into our hearts the things God has prepared for them that love him. But there is one that I want to see above all others~the one that has a hole in his side and nail prints in his hands and feet. When I see him, then I will know him and embrace him!

 

[3 Resurrections]

Are you hinting that you do?

Anybody today can look back on the history of those first-century times and find when those two things happened together in real time back in AD 66. All they need do is count forward the 1,335 days from those two Daniel 12:11 events and they arrive at the day of Pentecost in AD 70 for Daniel's resurrection, along with the raising of all the righteous dead who had passed away up to that point in time.

3 Resurrections~you are so wrong on your eschatology timeline events by laboring to rubber stamped just about everything in and around 70 A.D. J. R. C. had more influence on your eschatology than you realize, or, are willing to admit. That's the main reason him and I had to split and go our separate ways.

It is CHRIST'S "rubber stamp", who said that the entire list of events found in Luke 21:8-35 - including His second coming - was "about to come to pass", and it would all happen in Christ's first-century generation before some of those who had heard Him speak to them personally had experienced death. It's pretty simple language in Matthew 16:27-28, Luke 9:27, and Mark 9:1, but it is most often disregarded or misinterpreted.

The mount of transfiguration, was not a picture of Christ coming in 70 A. D. but what will take place when he comes the second time at the end of this world!

What Peter John and James witness was Christ's coming at the end of this world ~ when Christ comes the second time, and destroys his enemies, and usher in the everlasting lasting kingdom that will fill the new heaven and earth.

This is completely off-track of the question. The mount of transfiguration has nothing to do with picturing the time of Christ's return with the angels, dispensing rewards to every man. The conversation between Christ, Moses, and Elijah on that mount had to do with His approaching crucifixion which He would accomplish at Jerusalem - not His return. You are being misled by the arbitrary chapter divisions by those who attempt to make Christ's predicted timing of His first-century return being mistakenly linked to the mount of transfiguration.

Peter and all the apostles put off their earthly tabernacle, and so has every saint since them, though some at the end of the world will be living when Christ comes to gather them unto himself ~ this has never even come close of happening.

You presume that anybody at all will survive Christ's return in our future. Nobody was ever promised an exit from this planet without dying first, and then being resurrected by Christ if they are one of the elect. All are appointed to die the one time - even God's elect. The cherished delusion of a translation type of change for our bodies into the immortal condition without physically dying is just that - a delusion.

 

[Red Baker]

You presume that anybody at all will survive Christ's return in our future. Nobody was ever promised an exit from this planet without dying first, and then being resurrected by Christ if they are one of the elect. All are appointed to die the one time - even God's elect. The cherished delusion of a translation type of change for our bodies into the immortal condition without physically dying is just that - a delusion.

Really? Are sure about about that? How sure?

Hebrews 11:5~"By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God."

You like on so many other point dealing with endtime events are just so wrong, this one verse will prove you wrong, but there's others.

I'm short on time, I'll come back maybe tomorrow, and address some of your delusions, the Lord willing.
Have you ever heard of man named Elijah? God send a chariot of fire and horse of fire horses after him and escorted him to paradise, and he paid the fare!

2nd Kings 2~"And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven."

Maybe you just conveniently forgot about Enoch and Elijah, like you folks do other scriptures, or I should say corrupt them.

 

[3 Resurrections]

You like on so many other point dealing with endtime events are just so wrong, this one verse will prove you wrong, but there's others.

I'm short on time, I'll come back maybe tomorrow, and address some of your delusions, the Lord willing.
Have you ever heard of man named Elijah? God send a chariot of fire and horse of fire horses after him and escorted him to paradise, and he paid the fare!

No RB, I have not forgotten either Enoch or Elijah. And Elijah we can certainly erase from consideration on this point, since Elijah was never taken into heaven and God's presence at the time of his whirlwind transport into the sky. We have scripture evidence that ten years or so after his whirlwind transport into the sky, Elijah was still on earth writing a letter to King Jehoram in 2 Chronicles 21:12-15, listing the king's sins and predicting the manner of his death. Elijah died as any other mortal man has done. As the LXX records for this event, Elijah was taken "as it were into heaven" - not that he actually did ascend to God's heaven.

We also have the testimony in John 3:13 that "no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven..." So that means Elijah never had gone into God's presence in heaven before that point. The atmospheric heaven with the clouds is one thing, but the third heaven with God's presence is quite another.

As for Enoch, you may remember a discussion of his identity before on GCF. I believe Enoch was the single, unique example of a translated individual who was given that lone distinction so that he could establish the superior, deathless high priest order of Melchizedek. The descriptions for both of these men in scripture leads me to understand that they are one and the same man. The translated Enoch was introduced to us later as the deathless high priest Melchizedek who had "no end of days", and was "made like unto the Son of God" in this respect.

God doesn't need multiplied millions of examples of translated individuals to establish the pattern of a deathless high priest. That would ruin the effect of the unique quality of Christ's deathless high priesthood. Enoch was the only individual in all of humanity who ever received this translation change of his physical body without dying. No saint (except Enoch) has ever gotten off this planet or will pass into eternity with Christ without physically dying first, as Hebrews 9:27 requires. The "rapture" text as commonly interpreted needs some serious revision to align with scripture's requirements of a one-time appointment with death for all mankind.

 

[Mr GLee]

I'm not writing about the current conditions that you and I live under. I am speaking only of the time span during Christ's ministry during that last 70th week from AD 30-37. Remember, when Christ first commissioned His twelve disciples to evangelize, He commanded them saying, "Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Matthew 10:5-7).

This was only a temporary restriction put upon them. As we know, later on they were directed to go into all the world to preach the gospel. But for the time being during Christ's ministry, that last 70th week of "confirming the covenant with many" of Daniel's people was going on.

Hi thanks.

Interesting parable

God is no respecter of persons. He is not served by the dying hands of mankind . He informs us if any man has not the Holy Spirit of Christ then they simply do not belong to God .

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

Seeing the word Israel and Christian the new name the father named her in Acts . . both represent the same bride the church.

The lost sheep are the born again gentiles.

Remember Jesus said in John 6 His dying flesh profits for nothing .It's the unseen Holy Spirit that pours out his labor of love in jeopardy of His own spirit that alone can bring new born again spirit life.

A good example not to confuse the spiritual understanding hid in parable is shown in Luke 9:42-55.. . bringing parable with no gospel understanding one right after on top of another in a series to emphasize the doctrine of parables .

There the father prophecies through Jesus the apostle and brings one parable hiding the spiritual understanding from the apostles over and over .. . to try and teach them how to walk by faith (the unseen eternal things of God .

On one occasion in there confusion Jesus standing right in front they must of thought he went off the deep end and started a electoral vote who is the greatest apostle, prophet

Luke 9: 45-46 But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying.

Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.

The last parable before he rebuked all of the apostles . They thought he was going toward Jerusalem to what they thought was the lost sheep of Israel (looking at the outward flesh) But rather he entered into the village of Samaritans.

They again having no spiritual understanding of the parable as a figure of speech demanded He bring down fire and destroy all gentiles

Then he revealed to them they knew not what manner of spirit they were off. One that did not rightly divide the parables, again needed to teach us how to walk by faith. The unseen eternal things of God .not after the temporal dying mankind

Luke 9 :51-55 And it came to pass, when the time was come that he should be received up, he stedfastly set his face to go to Jerusalem,
And sent messengers before his face: and they went, and entered into a village of the Samaritans, to make ready for him. And they did not receive him, because his face was as though he would go to Jerusalem. And when his disciples James and John saw this, they said, Lord, wilt thou that we command fire to come down from heaven, and consume them, even as Elias did? But he turned, and rebuked them, and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of.

They did eventaily learn how to rightly divide the parables (how to walk by faith)

 

[Mr GLee]

No RB, I have not forgotten either Enoch or Elijah. And Elijah we can certainly erase from consideration on this point, since Elijah was never taken into heaven and God's presence at the time of his whirlwind transport into the sky. We have scripture evidence that ten years or so after his whirlwind transport into the sky, Elijah was still on earth writing a letter to King Jehoram in 2 Chronicles 21:12-15, listing the king's sins and predicting the manner of his death. Elijah died as any other mortal man has done. As the LXX records for this event, Elijah was taken "as it were into heaven" - not that he actually did ascend to God's heaven.

We also have the testimony in John 3:13 that "no man hath ascended up to heaven but he that came down from heaven..." So that means Elijah never had gone into God's presence in heaven before that point. The atmospheric heaven with the clouds is one thing, but the third heaven with God's presence is quite another.

As for Enoch, you may remember a discussion of his identity before on GCF. I believe Enoch was the single, unique example of a translated individual who was given that lone distinction so that he could establish the superior, deathless high priest order of Melchizedek. The descriptions for both of these men in scripture leads me to understand that they are one and the same man. The translated Enoch was introduced to us later as the deathless high priest Melchizedek who had "no end of days", and was "made like unto the Son of God" in this respect.

God doesn't need multiplied millions of examples of translated individuals to establish the pattern of a deathless high priest. That would ruin the effect of the unique quality of Christ's deathless high priesthood. Enoch was the only individual in all of humanity who ever received this translation change of his physical body without dying. No saint (except Enoch) has ever gotten off this planet or will pass into eternity with Christ without physically dying first, as Hebrews 9:27 requires. The "rapture" text as commonly interpreted needs some serious revision to align with scripture's requirements of a one-time appointment with death for all mankind.

I would agree with most but his body returned to the dust like all .It was a parable. Just like the body of the Son of man Jesus it disappeared .

No man has received the promised of a new incorruptible body. . . all will on the last day under the Sun.

Some did know Christ who worked in the Son of man, Jesus (not as I will father with no power but you Holy Father the one with power to raise dying mankind from the dead .

2 Corinthians 4:16 Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.

 

[Rufus]

I did not have time to post this earlier but the Historic, Amillennial and Postmillennial positions are ones reached by methods. They are not themselves a method. Dispensationalism is a method. Its position is premillennial.

Dispensationalism is a construct. Covenantalism is a construct. Dispensationalism OVERTLY asserts a specific hermeneutic by which it overtly tells readers how to read. Before the book is opened Dispensationalism assumes the scriptures should always be read literally (when what they mean is literalistically, not literally). It is a priori assumed there are discontinuous dispensations, there are two groups of people (not one) for whom God has two completely different plans (not one). These three tenets make up the Dispensational hermeneutic and because of that method the conclusion reached is a different premillennialism than the Historicists reach. Idealism, less egregiously but no less eisegetically assumes as an a priori condition the belief the Bible can and should be read allegorically and the stories therein (whether real and true or not) are indicative of patterns or cycles in history that repeat and will repeat in different ways until the end comes.


One more thought that proves to be important when discussing comparative eschatology. Because the KJV mistranslates "synteleia tou aionos" (Mt. 13:49) as "end of the world," instead of "end of the age" several hundred years of Christian eschatology was concerned with a literal end of the world and not a mere end of an age which the world survives. Nowhere does the Bible explicitly state the world will come to an end where it ceases to physically exist in its entirety.

As a fellow adherent to Classical Preterism, there is some truth what you say about "Covenantalism". Classical Covenant Theology is about as convoluted and complex as Dispensationalism because both views are extreme. This is why I hold to biblical convenatalism, i.e. New Covenant Theology which basically sees only two great [redemptive] covenant periods in history, as scripture does -- The Old (First) and New (Second) Covenants. It is through the lens of this biblical construct of two redemptive covenants, most especially the eternal New Covenant of this Gospel Age, that I interpret all scripture.

 

[Josheb]

As a fellow adherent to Classical Preterism, there is some truth what you say about "Covenantalism". Classical Covenant Theology is about as convoluted and complex as Dispensationalism because both views are extreme. This is why I hold to biblical convenatalism, i.e. New Covenant Theology which basically sees only two great [redemptive] covenant periods in history, as scripture does -- The Old (First) and New (Second) Covenants. It is through the lens of this biblical construct of two redemptive covenants, most especially the eternal New Covenant of this Gospel Age, that I interpret all scripture.

Let me add a few words here and there to better clarify my pov and perhaps find agreement.

• I'm a classic [partial-]preterist. That's important because many opposing preterism do not discriminate between partial- and full- and they argue against the latter as if that minority view is applicable to all prets. It is not.
• I would not use the word "extreme" with Covenant Theology simply because I can actually open my Bible and find the word "covenant" punctuating scripture almost from beginning to end but I cannot do the same with Dispensationalism. The one thing in CT that I cannot find in the Bible is "covenant of grace." That's not to say such a thing does not exist only that it is an addition to scripture unnecessary for understanding scripture.
• A better alternative, imo, is what is now called "progreessive covenantalism," or the belief the covenants all speak to one single overarching covenant between the Father and the Son that is progressively revealed in various ways with each mention of "covenant" found in scripture.
• I reject any premise of "two covenantal periods in history." The covenant spoken to Abraham was also spoken to Jesus (according to Galatians 3) and throughout both old and new revelations God ties His mention of "covenant" back to that covenant. All mentionsof "covenant" should be understood in the context of those verses and passages that reveal conditions existing prior to creation. 1 Peter 1:20 would be an example. Everything in scripture should be read in light of, in the context of Christ being foreknown before the foundation of the world.
• I am also reluctant to accept terms about "ages," like "Church Age, or "Gospel Age," simply because it's best to stick to scripture plainly read as written and properly exegeted. Where scripture defines an age explicitly that should be the label used and where scripture is silent labeling an age we should be cautious adding any label.

When it comes to the book of Revelation, those are some of the interpretive approaches, methods, tools that should be applied, and anyone can use them, but the Dispensationalist is always going to be the most challenged to do so simply because Dispensationalism is vastly different in presupposition and method that it cannot apply the above without first abandoning some or all of its precepts.

 

[Rufus]

I do not believe that this method has been put forth in these threads. I may have missed it.

There are four basic interpretive approaches to this book: Preterism including partial preterism, futurism, historicism, and idealism.

Attached to these are the categories of premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism. Add to that the two basic interpretive tools, dispensationalism and covenant, and we have yet more divergences in methods and categories.

Just to be clear, neither dispensationalism or covenant are doctrines in and of themselves. Doctrines do come from them, but they are the framework around which interpretation comes. Just as in building a house, the framework determines the shape and size of the house, but is not the house. Everything put together in the finished product is the house. And just as in building a house, if the whole is not integrated, if the foundation and the framework are off as to plumb, the house will not stand true in all its parts. There are many branches of dispensationalism, some believing this, some that, but at its core it views God's relating to humans through dispensations--ages, in which He did this one way for a time, and a different way at a different time. That is my understanding of it.

Covenant theology on the other hand has the premise that God relates to and is in relationship with humans and creation through covenant. The amillennial/idealist method of viewing Revelation is covenantal. Without going into a detailed interpretation of Revelation, I will give an overview of the method.

First of all it interprets the book according to the type of literature it is, which is apocalyptic prophecy as is much of the writings in the prophets of the OT. Just as in the OT, Revelation makes use of highly symbolic and figurative language. As in Rev 1:1 John himself states, "The revelation of Jesus Christ. which God gave Him to show to His servants things which must shortly take place and He sent and signified (sermaino) by His angel---

Amillennialism in this method understands the millennium to be a picture of the present reign of Christ and the saints in heaven. This was initiated by the binding of Satan (Matt 12:29) resulting in him no longer being able to deceive the nations. (Matt 4:14-16; Acts 17:30-31). Satan was bound through Christ's triumph in the crucifiction and His resurrection. The believer is no longer condemned by sin as they have His righteousness imputed to them, and death can no longer hold them any more than it could hold Jesus. The believer is sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit and no one and nothing can take them out of His hand. Through the believer the gospel goes to all nations which Satan is bound from stopping, until he is released from those chains for a short time. So the millennium in this view is the time period from His resurrection to His second coming. A long undesignated period of time as the number 1000 signifies in other places of the Bible.

The idealist view says the visions of Revelation represent trends and forces, often spiritual and invisible. They are engaged in an ongoing warfare between the kingdom of God and the devil's kingdom of darkness. The visions do not depict specific events but ongoing and repeated patterns in this spiritual war. These principals operate through all of the church age and may have repeated embodiments. The visions provide complementary perspectives of the church age rather than a chronological, successive calendar of events. The book is also not pertaining only to future events but in the visions we also see an overview of the the entire historical accounts we have from the Exodus forward, from the perspective of the spiritual realm, and the correlation to the OT shadowing of Christ, His fist coming, and the time between that and His second coming. What was, what is, and what is to come.

My biggest concern with the Idealism approach is that it seems to be a unique, unprecedented way of fulfilling the prophetic portions of Revelation. And I'm very reluctant to accept any view or doctrine that lacks biblical precedent. There's an old judicial principle that runs throughout the bible that has also served me very well as a sound hermeneutical principle. The principle basically says that "every fact must be established by at least two or three witnesses" (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15; Mat 18:16; Jn 8:17-18; 2Cor 13:1; 1Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28). The fact that this principle is stated so often throughout both Testaments, tells me that this is an extremely important one to obey. So, unless someone can show me that this Idealism approach has been used in other prophecies outside of Revelation, I must retain a healthy skepticism.

Having said all that, I'm also keenly aware, as a New Covenant Theology (NCT) student and and an adherent to classical preterism, that the period between the Cross and 70 A.D. was itself a one-time, unique transitional period between the Two Great Covenants. The Cross at once ratified the New Covenant in Christ's blood while also inaugurating the beginning of the end to the Old Covenant, and that 70 A.D. consummated the end of the Old Covenant. The Cross ushered in the Gospel Age of Grace and Truth that came by Christ's ministry (Jn 1:17), while simultaneously inaugurating the obsolescence of the Old Covenant of Law that came by Moses' ministry. But even so...this one-time, unique, distinct period in history is acknowledged in the NT, especially in Hebrews.

 

[Josheb]

My biggest concern with the Idealism approach is that it seems to be a unique, unprecedented way of fulfilling the prophetic portions of Revelation.

See Post #193. Idealism as an eschatological position does not see the book of Revelation as prophetic.

And I'm very reluctant to accept any view or doctrine that lacks biblical precedent. There's an old judicial principle that runs throughout the bible that has also served me very well as a sound hermeneutical principle. The principle basically says that "every fact must be established by at least two or three witnesses" (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15; Mat 18:16; Jn 8:17-18; 2Cor 13:1; 1Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28). The fact that this principle is stated so often throughout both Testaments, tells me that this is an extremely important one to obey.

Idealists wholly agree.

So, unless someone can show me that this Idealism approach has been used in other prophecies outside of Revelation, I must retain a healthy skepticism.

Then pick up the book I cited in Post 193. Hamstra asserts Idealism is the most scripturally consistent view.

Having said all that, I'm also keenly aware, as a New Covenant Theology (NCT) student and an adherent to classical preterism, that the period between the Cross and 70 A.D. was itself a one-time, unique transitional period between the Two Great Covenants. The Cross at once ratified the New Covenant in Christ's blood while also inaugurating the beginning of the end to the Old Covenant, and that 70 A.D. consummated the end of the Old Covenant. The Cross ushered in the Gospel Age of Grace and Truth that came by Christ's ministry (Jn 1:17), while simultaneously inaugurating the obsolescence of the Old Covenant of Law that came by Moses' ministry. But even so...this one-time, unique, distinct period in history is acknowledged in the NT, especially in Hebrews.

"that" or "this"? You spoke of the the period cited as a "that" and a "this" but if the "this" includes us then the "that did not end in 70 AD. Do you mean "...that one-time, unique, distinct period...."?

Can you clarify that?

....I'm very reluctant to accept any view or doctrine that lacks biblical precedent.

Can you show me where the scripture explicitly states things like, the period of time between the cross and 70 AD was unique? a one-time transition period"? How about the phrase "Two Great Covenants"? Where can I find that phrase in my Bible? Where in scripture did you get your view of ratification? Where in scripture might I find the statement 70 AD consummated the end of the old covenant and what would be the scriptural precedent? Are you an early dater? If so, then what would be the scriptural precedent for an event happening after the canon of scripture is closed ending a covenant? Where can I find the ages of grace and truth labeled in scripture. John 1:17 states nothing about a "ministry." Are you aware the word "history" does not exist in the Bible?

For a guy claiming a reluctance to accept anything without Biblical precedent it looks like a lot is being added to the scriptures. Can you clarify any of that? Take it one question at a time.

 

[Arial]

My biggest concern with the Idealism approach is that it seems to be a unique, unprecedented way of fulfilling the prophetic portions of Revelation. And I'm very reluctant to accept any view or doctrine that lacks biblical precedent. There's an old judicial principle that runs throughout the bible that has also served me very well as a sound hermeneutical principle. The principle basically says that "every fact must be established by at least two or three witnesses" (Num 35:30; Deut 17:6; 19:15; Mat 18:16; Jn 8:17-18; 2Cor 13:1; 1Tim 5:19; Heb 10:28). The fact that this principle is stated so often throughout both Testaments, tells me that this is an extremely important one to obey. So, unless someone can show me that this Idealism approach has been used in other prophecies outside of Revelation, I must retain a healthy skepticism.

Healthy skepticism is always good. I try and maintain it myself. And though I do not know all the interpretations Idealists give to Revelation, most of what I do see/know do base it on prophecies and similar words and number on how they are used in the OT. I may not always agree or at least maintain that skepticism, knowing the no one and no means of interpreting has everything right all the time. A lot is still a mystery in Revelation but the message is clear. I only started the thread because that view had been neglected. There is probably some truth all the approaches, and some error.

Having said all that, I'm also keenly aware, as a New Covenant Theology (NCT) student and and an adherent to classical preterism, that the period between the Cross and 70 A.D. was itself a one-time, unique transitional period between the Two Great Covenants. The Cross at once ratified the New Covenant in Christ's blood while also inaugurating the beginning of the end to the Old Covenant, and that 70 A.D. consummated the end of the Old Covenant. The Cross ushered in the Gospel Age of Grace and Truth that came by Christ's ministry (Jn 1:17), while simultaneously inaugurating the obsolescence of the Old Covenant of Law that came by Moses' ministry. But even so...this one-time, unique, distinct period in history is acknowledged in the NT, especially in Hebrews.

I agree with that. The destruction of the temple in 70 a.d. and with it the priesthood line as being traced, made it impossible for the old covenant to remain.

 

[Rufus]

Let me add a few words here and there to better clarify my pov and perhaps find agreement.

• I'm a classic [partial-]preterist. That's important because many opposing preterism do not discriminate between partial- and full- and they argue against the latter as if that minority view is applicable to all prets. It is not.
• I would not use the word "extreme" with Covenant Theology simply because I can actually open my Bible and find the word "covenant" punctuating scripture almost from beginning to end but I cannot do the same with Dispensationalism. The one thing in CT that I cannot find in the Bible is "covenant of grace." That's not to say such a thing does not exist only that it is an addition to scripture unnecessary for understanding scripture.
• A better alternative, imo, is what is now called "progreessive covenantalism," or the belief the covenants all speak to one single overarching covenant between the Father and the Son that is progressively revealed in various ways with each mention of "covenant" found in scripture.
• I reject any premise of "two covenantal periods in history." The covenant spoken to Abraham was also spoken to Jesus (according to Galatians 3) and throughout both old and new revelations God ties His mention of "covenant" back to that covenant. All mentionsof "covenant" should be understood in the context of those verses and passages that reveal conditions existing prior to creation. 1 Peter 1:20 would be an example. Everything in scripture should be read in light of, in the context of Christ being foreknown before the foundation of the world.
• I am also reluctant to accept terms about "ages," like "Church Age, or "Gospel Age," simply because it's best to stick to scripture plainly read as written and properly exegeted. Where scripture defines an age explicitly that should be the label used and where scripture is silent labeling an age we should be cautious adding any label.

When it comes to the book of Revelation, those are some of the interpretive approaches, methods, tools that should be applied, and anyone can use them, but the Dispensationalist is always going to be the most challenged to do so simply because Dispensationalism is vastly different in presupposition and method that it cannot apply the above without first abandoning some or all of its precepts.

 

[Rufus]

Josheb:

See Post #193. Idealism as an eschatological position does not see the book of Revelation as prophetic.

Well, that's a problem coming right out the starting gate, isn't it? What do Idealists do with Rev 1:3; 19:20; 22:7, 10, 18, 19)? Of course, Revelation is also apocalyptic and epistlatory in nature -- a 3 in 1 book, if you will.

Idealists wholly agree.

Okay...if you say so.

Then pick up the book I cited in Post 193. Hamstra asserts Idealism is the most scripturally consistent view.

Can you not provide 2 or 3 examples from prophecies outside Revelation? I happen to believe that classical (partial) preterism is quite consistent with scripture, most especially with Daniel 9 and the Mount Olivet Discourse.

"that" or "this"? You spoke of the the period cited as a "that" and a "this" but if the "this" includes us then the "that did not end in 70 AD. Do you mean "...that one-time, unique, distinct period...."?

Hmm...very good. You play the game of Got Ya very well <g>. Yes..."that" period was a unique, one-time period.

Can you clarify that?

Do you doubt that Jesus ratified the New Covenant (NC), that he instituted at the Last Supper, when he shed his blood on the Cross? I'll assume you don't, in which case the Cross marked the inauguration of the NC. (But be sure to let me know if you do doubt this truth.) But in addition to this fact, when Jesus died, scripture tells us that the large, heavy thick curtain that separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies was rent in two from top to bottom (Mat 27:51; Mk 15:38). As you might know, God's Presence, in the form of the Shekinah Glory, was concealed in the Holy of Holies. And only the high priest on the Day of Atonement could enter that inner room of His Holy Presence. This supernatural act of tearing that curtain signified that God departed from that inner room! It signified that there is a NEW way into His Presence through the veil of Christ's body (2Cor 3:13-16). Therefore, our Lord's death also inaugurated the END of the Old Covenant (OC). So...two great spiritual events took place simultaneously upon the death of Christ. One new era started, while the other began to wither and die on the vine -- or to put this in more biblical language -- was getting ready to disappear and become obsolete (Heb 8:13). It's obvious (at least to me) that the writer of Hebrews clearly knew that he was in that transition period and that the OC was nearing its demise.

And when did this OC demise take place? 70 A.D. Scripture is silent on how the Jewish religious establishment dealt with the supernatural act of God in the Holy of Holies. I suspect there was a great cover-up, and that the high priest and others kept silent. The religious leadershsip could not have this kind of horrendous news leaking out to the masses. BUT...there was one thing that the religious establishment could not hide: The destruction of the temple! The temple, unlike that thick curtain hidden between the two inner rooms, was in plain view of all...until one day it wasn't any longer! The destruction of the temple had huge theological ramifications for the Jews -- chief among them is that God no longer dwelt in the Promised Land with his OC people! God sovereignly removed himself from the Land and his people. 70 A.D. signified God's divorce from the harlot nation Israel (Jer 3:8ff). From the moment God redeemed his people from their slavery in Egypt, his Presence was with his people in one form or another. Therefore, the destruction of the temple had profoundly horrendous religious, personal, social and even political implications to the Jews. The Jewish temple was God's house wherein he lived with his people -- until he irrefutably moved out!

Can you show me where the scripture explicitly states things like, the period of time between the cross and 70 AD was unique? a one-time transition period"? How about the phrase "Two Great Covenants"? Where can I find that phrase in my Bible? Where in scripture did you get your view of ratification? Where in scripture might I find the statement 70 AD consummated the end of the old covenant and what would be the scriptural precedent? Are you an early dater? If so, then what would be the scriptural precedent for an event happening after the canon of scripture is closed ending a covenant? Where can I find the ages of grace and truth labeled in scripture. John 1:17 states nothing about a "ministry." Are you aware the word "history" does not exist in the Bible?

Regarding the first question: I just did. Logical inference plus the writer of Hebrews certainly seemed to understand that he was in the middle of this transiston period as cited above.

Re the "two great covenants", see Heb 8:7-13; 10:9; 12:27-28. First and Second covenants? Really? Didn't the writer of Hebrews know that the OC was not God's "first" covenant, and since this is a literal fact, then how in the world could the New be only the "second" covenant? Oh wait...maybe we have a situation here that is similar to Adam and Last Adam -- or Adam and the Second Man? I mean...what IF the OC was but a shadow of the NC? How's that for a novel idea?

Literalism (or "letterism") is a killer! Scripture says so, in fact (2Cor 3:6). And this is a principle that runs across all genre of scripture -- not just the Law. Scripture is spiritual truth and, therefore, can only be understood rightly by the Spirit and in our spirit. Jesus' words that he spoke are spirit and life (Jn 6:63). I mean...if you take your "literalism" to the extreme, how in the world do you believe in the Trinity? Where's the word "trinity" in the bible? Or what about a doctrine like the "impeccability" of Christ? This term isn't found in the bible either. Or what about the doctrines of "infralapsarianism" or "supralaspsarianism"? We won't find these terms in scripture either. But in all these cases, we do find the concepts for each of these doctrines.

For a guy claiming a reluctance to accept anything without Biblical precedent it looks like a lot is being added to the scriptures. Can you clarify any of that? Take it one question at a time.

At the same time, I'm also a guy who realizes I'm made in God's image, and he gave me a brain to be used for his glory. So...yeah...I have my hermeneutical boundaries that I use in conjunction with my God-given critical thinking skills. I'm neither narrow-minded or broad-minded; for either of these can be fatal! Rather, I'm critical-minded. At least I strive to be.

 

[Rufus]

Healthy skepticism is always good. I try and maintain it myself. And though I do not know all the interpretations Idealists give to Revelation, most of what I do see/know do base it on prophecies and similar words and number on how they are used in the OT. I may not always agree or at least maintain that skepticism, knowing the no one and no means of interpreting has everything right all the time. A lot is still a mystery in Revelation but the message is clear. I only started the thread because that view had been neglected. There is probably some truth all the approaches, and some error.

I agree with that. The destruction of the temple in 70 a.d. and with it the priesthood line as being traced, made it impossible for the old covenant to remain.

Exactly right! In fact, when the temple was destroyed so was the OC God-ordained religion of Judaism. With Judaism out of the way, born again believers over the centuries achieved their own distinct identity as "Christians" -- free of judaistic associations.

 

[Rufus]

Let me add a few words here and there to better clarify my pov and perhaps find agreement.

• ]I'm a classic [partial-]preterist. That's important because many opposing preterism do not discriminate between partial- and full- and they argue against the latter as if that minority view is applicable to all prets. It is not.

Break out the bubbly. We have some common ground.

• I would not use the word "extreme" with Covenant Theology simply because I can actually open my Bible and find the word "covenant" punctuating scripture almost from beginning to end but I cannot do the same with Dispensationalism. The one thing in CT that I cannot find in the Bible is "covenant of grace." That's not to say such a thing does not exist only that it is an addition to scripture unnecessary for understanding scripture.

I would use the word "extreme", having first hand knowledge and experience with Reformed Baptists who, for the most part, are steeped in CT. I have no qualms with the term "covenant" or "covenants" -- only with the all the presuppositional baggage many in Reformed circles bring to the covenants. The baggage is heavy and legion...and seriously theologically flawed in many instances. Adamic Covenant? Talk about eisegesis! Or Gen 2:2-3 was a creation mandate for the sabbath? Since when do indicative verses equate with imperatives? Or the supposed tripartite division in the Law (moral, ceremonial, civil)? Or Calvin's three-fold use of the Law -- with the most offensive and grievous of those uses being that the Law sanctifies believers!? And I say all this as a staunch believer in the Five Doctrines of Grace!

• A better alternative, imo, is what is now called "progreessive covenantalism," or the belief the covenants all speak to one single overarching covenant between the Father and the Son that is progressively revealed in various ways with each mention of "covenant" found in scripture.

Another serious CT error -- that seeks to emphasize the continuity between all the covenants, especially the two redemptive covenants. And this is really ironic because scripture emphasizes the discontinuity between the Old and New covenants (Jer 31:32). In fact, the Old and New are so unlike, they are, in fact, different in kind. So, we're talking about some serious differences -- and lots of 'em!

To be sure there is some continuity between the Old and New, but the emphasis in scripture between the two are the numerous differences.

And there was certainly a covenant made among all the members of the Godhead in eternity whereby God promised before the beginning of time to bring the his word to light to a dark and forlorn world through the preaching of the Gospel (Tit 1:1-3). And, yes, all three persons of the Godhead were involved in this covenant. God the Father purposed redemption; Christ accomplished (purchased) that Redemption; and the Holy Spirit applies that redemption to all the Father's elect. Therefore, all the temporal, earthly, administrative covenants of God have been working out in time and space to achieve God's eternal plan and fulfillment of his promises. It's no wonder the NC is the only covenant in scripture that is actually referred to as the ETERNAL covenant on multiple levels (Heb 13:20; Isa 42:6, etc.), since this covenant ultimately fulfills all the administrative covenants. and the eternal Christ himself is the embodiment of this covenant.

• I reject any premise of "two covenantal periods in history." The covenant spoken to Abraham was also spoken to Jesus (according to Galatians 3) and throughout both old and new revelations God ties His mention of "covenant" back to that covenant. All mentionsof "covenant" should be understood in the context of those verses and passages that reveal conditions existing prior to creation. 1 Peter 1:20 would be an example. Everything in scripture should be read in light of, in the context of Christ being foreknown before the foundation of the world.

Then we have to agree to disagree. I will stand with the writer of Hebrews who thought in terms of two great redemptive covenants in two disctinct ages -- the OC instituted and ratified Before Christ, and the NC instituted and ratified by Christ himself at the Cross. The Cross divided the two great ages.

• I am also reluctant to accept terms about "ages," like "Church Age, or "Gospel Age," simply because it's best to stick to scripture plainly read as written and properly exegeted. Where scripture defines an age explicitly that should be the label used and where scripture is silent labeling an age we should be cautious adding any label.

As long as any concept is found in scripture, I don't see any problem in making distinctions between the ages and giving them appropriate labels.

When it comes to the book of Revelation, those are some of the interpretive approaches, methods, tools that should be applied, and anyone can use them, but the Dispensationalist is always going to be the most challenged to do so simply because Dispensationalism is vastly different in presupposition and method that it cannot apply the above without first abandoning some or all of its precepts.

The only other eschatological system known to me that rivals the chaos, confusion and mayhem to Dispensationalism is Covenant Theology.

 

[Josheb]

Josheb:


Well, that's a problem coming right out the starting gate, isn't it? What do Idealists do with Rev 1:3; 19:20; 22:7, 10, 18, 19)? Of course, Revelation is also apocalyptic and epistlatory in nature -- a 3 in 1 book, if you will.

Read the book! Hamstra makes the case for the Idealist pov. Keep in mind the op is Amillennial idealist, not Idealist that is amillennial.

Okay...if you say so.

I'm just pointing to the Idealist's claims about Idealism.

Can you not provide 2 or 3 examples from prophecies outside Revelation? I happen to believe that classical (partial) preterism is quite consistent with scripture, most especially with Daniel 9 and the Mount Olivet Discourse.

Read the book. It's worth a read because partial-preterist Ken Gentry writes the apologetic for the preterist view.

 

[Josheb]

Another serious CT error -- that seeks to emphasize the continuity between all the covenants, especially the two redemptive covenants.

Let's discuss this. Would you mind starting a new and separate op summarizing your view on the continuity/discontinuity and @ me at the end so I know it's up? I don't want Arial's op to be hijacked to discuss the subject here. Thx