Preterism Examined

[Fellowservant]

Preterism Examined

by David Dunlap



Theology has long argued for a variety of Amillennial views concerning prophecy. However, since the 1970’s, a theologically dangerous viewpoint called Preterism has begun to gain influence and popularity in Reformed circles. Preterism, although first propounded by Roman Catholic scholars five hundred years ago, is experiencing a new wave of interest these days, due to the encouragement of popular radio personalities such as R.C. Sproul and Hank Hanegraaff.

Sproul openly admits he is a “partial Preterist” espousing his views in his book The Last Days According to Jesus. Hank Hanegraaff, host of the radio program “Bible Answer Man” and president of Christian Research Institute, has defended some Preterist positions on recent broadcasts. At the heart of the Preterist view is the notion that Jesus returned in A.D. 70 when the Roman army destroyed Jerusalem. What is Preterism?The term Preterist is the Latin word for “past.”

Preterists believe that all the major events of Bible prophecy have already occurred. Therefore, they view the major prophetic passages of Scripture, such as the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation, as being already fulfilled. Preterism is the exact opposite of Premillennialism, which views these prophecies as yet to be fulfilled in the future. Moderate Preterists, such as R.C. Sproul, claim they believe in a future second coming, but still insist on interpreting the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation as basically already fulfilled in the past.


As a result, they reject such basic concepts as: (1) the rapture of the Church; (2) a literal seven-year tribulation period; (3) a literal Antichrist; (4) the conversion of Israel; (5) the Battle of Armageddon; (6) a 1000-year millennium; (7) the future binding of Satan. In contrast to the basic beliefs of pre-tribulational Premillennialism, moderate Preterists believe that God is finished with biblical Israel.

They see no prophetic future for national Israel. The fact that the State of Israel exists today is blamed on “ignorant premillennialists” who supported the Balfour Declaration, which eventually led to the formation of the modern nation of Israel in 1948. While most Preterists would insist they are not anti-Semitic, their theology certainly leans in that direction.




The History of Preterism


This view was first developed in the late 1500’s by a Jesuit friar named Luis de Alcazar (1554-1613). His purpose was to defend the Catholic church against the attacks of the Protestant Reformers. He denied the Reformers’ charge that the book of Revelation was a prophecy about the apostasy of the Roman church. Instead, he argued that Revelation concerned itself with the Church’s struggles.

 

[Fellowservant]

during its early years. Chapters 4 through 11, he stated, were interpreted as depicting the church’s fight against Judaism, culminating in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Chapters 12 through 19 were viewed as the Church’s struggle against paganism, ending with the fall of Rome in A.D. 476. Chapters 20 through 22 were interpreted to be a symbolic description of the glories of papal Rome.


Using this clever approach, Alcazar was able to limit the range of Revelation’s prophecies to the first 500 years of church history. However, a more radical form of Preterism gained popularity in the latter part of the Twentieth century and is today the most widely-held version of this interpretive approach. This approach sees nearly all the prophecies of Revelation as fulfilled prior to A.D. 70 at the destruction of Jerusalem, except for the resurrection of believers and the second coming of Jesus Christ.


It assigns the tribulation to the fall of Israel, the great apostasy to the first-century church, and the last days to the period between Jesus’ ascension and the destruction of Jerusalem. The Beast is viewed as a symbol of Nero in particular and of the Roman Empire in general. The false prophet is equated with the leadership of apostate Israel. Needless to say, anti-Semitism is common among Preterists. Preterist Beliefs Moderate Preterists link their belief system to a Reformed view of prophecy in which the church becomes the new “Israel” and must bring in the Kingdom on earth in order to prepare the world for the return of Christ.


Most Preterists believe the following: 1. Nero was the Antichrist or Beast. There will be no future individual Antichrist. 2. The tribulation period is already past. It occurred when the Roman army besieged Jerusalem in A.D. 66-70. 3. Christ “returned” in the clouds in A.D. 70 to witness the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army.

4. God replaced Old Testament Israel with the church. Therefore, all the biblical promises to Israel belong to the church. 5. Armageddon already happened in A.D. 70. The fall of “Babylon” refers to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. 6. Satan is already bound in the abyss and cannot hinder the spread of the Gospel. Revelation 20 has already been fulfilled.


7. We are already in the millennium, but it is not literal. Some Preterists equate the entire church age to the millennium. The 1,000 years are not literal but figurative, even though they are mentioned 6 times in Revelation 20.


Preterist Assumptions Examined


The basic assumptions of Preterism rest on passages that refer to Christ coming “quickly”(ie., suddenly) (Rev. 1:1), or passages such as “this generation will not pass” (Matt. 24:34). They insist that, because of these passages, the Lord’s coming must be related to and limited to the first century. By contrast, Premillennialists believe that Christ’s coming is imminent and, therefore, could occur at any moment. Allow us to examine two passages which Preterists frequently marshall in support of their position: Matthew 24:34 and Matthew 16:28.Matthew 24:34 “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away.”

 

[Fellowservant]

The word generation should be interpreted in light of the phrase “all these things”. Careful Bible teachers have countered the Preterist view by observing that the generation which sees the Olivet birth pangs will be the same generation which sees the birth.


In looking at this verse in this way, the “generation” of which the Lord was speaking was a future, “last days” generation. Jesus was telling his disciples that the generation that sees the beginning of the these things, will also sees its end. When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for many generations. It will happen within a generation.


Matthew 16:28 “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”The disciples saw the very coming and glory of the Son of Man in his kingdom when He was transfigured (Matt. 17:1-8).


This was a preview of Christ in the glory of His future kingdom. However, we are permitted by Scripture to view the transfiguration of Christ as the coming kingdom in miniature? It seems that Peter understood it in this way, for he writes: “...the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory,...when we were with Him in the holy mount” (2 Pet. 1:16-18).


Bible commentator William MacDonald explains: Are we justified in looking upon Christ’s transfiguration as a pre-picture or miniature of His coming kingdom? Yes, we are. This is made abundantly clear in 2 Peter 1:16-18. There Peter is describing his experience with Christ on the mount. There can be no doubt that he is referring to the Mount of Transfiguration...the power and coming refer to His second advent.



1TWO HERMENEUTICAL PROBLEMS A. Date of the Book of Revelation For the prophecies of Revelation to fit into the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, it is necessary for the date of the writing of Revelation to have been prior to A.D. 70. The language of Revelation is predictive; therefore, its prophecies look forward to fulfillment, not backwards. Therefore, most scholars place the writing of Revelation at about A.D. 95.



Bible scholar Mark Hitchcock explains:While Preterism has many weaknesses, the Achilles’ heel of this view is the early date the proponents assign to the book of Revelation. The external evidence for a late date of Revelation (A.D. 95) is overwhelming...2B. Nero as the Antichrist? Hank Hanegraff writes: “Nero is rightly identified as the Beast of Revelation—the archetypal Antichrist—because of the unique and horrible quality of the “great tribulation” he ignited.

The horror of the great tribulation included not only the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, but the persecution of the apostles and prophets who penned the Scriptures and formed the foundation of the Christian Church.3Joining Hank Hanegraff, most Preterists go to great lengths to show that the Roman Emperor Nero was the antichrist of Revelation 13.

However, does Nero fulfill the many details given concerning the Beast throughout Scripture? A careful reading of Scripture shows that Nero falls far short of the biblical standard. Ignoring the rest of Scripture for the moment, the book of Revelation alone reveals the following aspects concerning the Beast: (1) Literally killed and resurrected (Rev. 13:3); (2) Globally rules over every tribe and nation (Rev. 13:7); (3) Has a high-profile accomplice who performs literal miracles (13:13




If Preterists are correct, some of the most astute students of Scripture and leaders of the early church, utterly missed the fulfillment of the very prophecy that Jesus indicated no one in the world would possibly be able to miss.“ John MacArthur—from The End Times Controversy ,Harvest House , 2003



God bless

 

[stephen]

Thanks for the expose on this matter dear brother.

"let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. 2 Thess 2 v 3

"that day" refers to the rapture of 1 The 4 v 13 - 18

The "falling away" (apostasia) equates to apostacy, defection, revolt. etc. Not a numerical falling away, but a defection from the truth of scripture as we witness in today's world.

This is what we see today...a falling away, the diluting of biblical truth, preparing the way for the latter superman, AntiChrist, who for a short time will deceive the world.

 

[allforihs]

The word generation should be interpreted in light of the phrase “all these things”. Careful Bible teachers have countered the Preterist view by observing that the generation which sees the Olivet birth pangs will be the same generation which sees the birth.

In looking at this verse in this way, the “generation” of which the Lord was speaking was a future, “last days” generation. Jesus was telling his disciples that the generation that sees the beginning of the these things, will also sees its end. When the signs come, they will proceed quickly; they will not drag on for many generations. It will happen within a generation.

Re: Matthew 24:34 Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.

If I tell you this generation will not pass before we see a woman president, you would think it right to understand that I'm not referring to the people living now, but I'm referring to some future generation? That's not careful, unless careful means self-deception.

Jesus said the temple would be destroyed in "this generation". Indeed, the Temple was was destroyed in "this generation" of Jesus. In 70AD.

Matthew 16:28 “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”The disciples saw the very coming and glory of the Son of Man in his kingdom when He was transfigured (Matt. 17:1-8).

When Jesus was transfigured (he glowed), it was a transfiguration, not a coming.

This was a preview of Christ in the glory of His future kingdom. However, we are permitted by Scripture to view the transfiguration of Christ as the coming kingdom in miniature? It seems that Peter understood it in this way, for he writes: “...the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory,...when we were with Him in the holy mount” (2 Pet. 1:16-18).

2Pet1:16 For we followed not deceivable fables, when we opened unto you the power, and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but with our eyes we saw his majesty;

When Peter says "coming", he means the first coming, the incarnation of Christ. He means that Jesus was not a fictional person or a powerless person.

The language of Revelation is predictive; therefore, its prophecies look forward to fulfillment, not backwards. Therefore, most scholars place the writing of Revelation at about A.D. 95.

The article's author doesn't explain how "predictive" language indicates a date of about 95AD. The language of Revelation implies a pre-70AD date. In Rev 11, John is told to measure the dimensions of the Temple. The Temple only stood before 70AD.

Bible scholar Mark Hitchcock explains:While Preterism has many weaknesses, the Achilles’ heel of this view is the early date the proponents assign to the book of Revelation. The external evidence for a late date of Revelation (A.D. 95) is overwhelming.

The article doesn't explain what this overwhelming external evidence is. But, whatever it may be, it takes a backseat to the internal evidence.

John MacArthur—from The End Times Controversy ,Harvest House , 2003

MacArthur is a man who insists Jesus never drank wine. I respect the man, but he has a serious problem trying to impose his religious beliefs on the Bible rather than trying to build his religious beliefs on the Bible.

 

[Fellowservant]

Hi allforihs, i don't agree with all the article, because men are fallible including me. But one thing i do agree on, is that i don't believe that Christ returned already...

God bless

 

[MightyAngel1]

1TWO HERMENEUTICAL PROBLEMS A. Date of the Book of Revelation For the prophecies of Revelation to fit into the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, it is necessary for the date of the writing of Revelation to have been prior to A.D. 70. The language of Revelation is predictive; therefore, its prophecies look forward to fulfillment, not backwards. Therefore, most scholars place the writing of Revelation at about A.D. 95.

Allforihs--The article's author doesn't explain how "predictive" language indicates a date of about 95AD. The language of Revelation implies a pre-70AD date. In Rev 11, John is told to measure the dimensions of the Temple. The Temple only stood before 70AD.

Howdy Allforhis!

I wanted to respond to what you said above. The Temple that stood before 70 AD was the Temple of Herod. Jesus Christ's Earthly ministry occurred under Herod's reign as King of Israel. See Matthew 2:1.

When you study the Book of Revelation Chapter 11, The Temple the Apostle John was told to measure is the Rebuilt Tabernacle of David. See Acts 15:16 and Revelation 11:1-2.

Before 70 AD, The Tabernacle of David lay in ruins. God says The Tabernacle of David lay in ruins in Acts 15:16 during the first Century and continued to lay in ruins to include 70 A.D..

Even during Christ's Earthly Ministry. Therefore, John did not measure the Temple of Herod. John instead measured the rebuilt Tabernacle of David as instructed.

God Bless You!

Dr. Mike

 

[MightyAngel1]

MacArthur is a man who insists Jesus never drank wine. I respect the man, but he has a serious problem trying to impose his religious beliefs on the Bible rather than trying to build his religious beliefs on the Bible.

Howdy Allforihs!

When you study the Law of Moses of which Jesus said He came to fulfill, see Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus NEVER did drink wine. I will show you what I am talking about so that you can read this Law of God for yourself...

Leviticus 10:8-10

8. And the Lord spake unto Aaron, saying,
9. Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation, lest ye die: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations.
10. And that ye may put difference between holy and unholy, and between clean and unclean.

Since Jesus Christ said that He came to fulfill the Law, that is the Law of Moses, Jesus Christ NEVER drank wine or strong drink during His Earthly Ministry here on this earth. Jesus Christ obeyed His Father's Commandment.

Had Jesus did drink wine or strong drink, The Father in Heaven would have had to kill Jesus for breaking this Commandment. Because, Jesus taught in the Synagogues on many occasions wherever He went.

God Bless You!

Dr. Mike

 

[allforihs]

When you study the Book of Revelation Chapter 11, The Temple the Apostle John was told to measure is the Rebuilt Tabernacle of David. See Acts 15:16 and Revelation 11:1-2.

Jesus accepted "Herod's Temple" as God's Temple when he called it "my house." Herod may have renovated it, but the Jews still considered the same temple that predated Herod. The only Temple or tabernacle that Peter could have measured in Rev 11 is the one that was destroyed in 70AD.

The tent/tabernacle of David represents Israel. When God destroyed the kingdom of Israel, he symbolically destroyed the tent of David. But, then he promised to rebuild it. James refers to this passage of scripture because the rebuilding of the tent would be done with Gentiles and James was addressing the issue of Gentiles. The tent of David was being restored, right there in Acts.

When you study the Law of Moses of which Jesus said He came to fulfill, see Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus NEVER did drink wine. I will show you what I am talking about so that you can read this Law of God for yourself...

Lev10:9a Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation.

Aaron could drink, just not when he was conducting a ceremony. Jesus was not a priest in the order of Aaron. And, Jesus said he drank. Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came... drinking, and they say, 'Behold,... a drunkard.'" (Jesus' accusers refused to distinguish between responsible drinking and being a drunkard.)

 

[MightyAngel1]

Jesus accepted "Herod's Temple" as God's Temple when he called it "my house." Herod may have renovated it, but the Jews still considered the same temple that predated Herod. The only Temple or tabernacle that Peter could have measured in Rev 11 is the one that was destroyed in 70AD.

Howdy allforihs!

First of all, Peter was not on the isle of patmos. The Apostle John was. Secondly, The measuring of the Temple in Revelation 11:1-2 took place in the spirit. Jesus calls the Apostle John up into heaven to show him things which must be hereafter. See Revelation 4:1-2.

The Things which must be hereafter refer to future events well beyond 70 AD. And, One of those future events is the rebuilding of the Tabernacle of David which has not taken place yet.

And, Revelation 11 is part of the things that must be hereafter. Because, Revelation 11 takes place after the close of the Church Age.

allforihs--The tent/tabernacle of David represents Israel. When God destroyed the kingdom of Israel, he symbolically destroyed the tent of David. But, then he promised to rebuild it. James refers to this passage of scripture because the rebuilding of the tent would be done with Gentiles and James was addressing the issue of Gentiles. The tent of David was being restored, right there in Acts.

Well, Would you mind telling me where this rebuilt Temple is now? Because, Right now, There is a Muslim Mosque in place where the Temple should be according to what you have said.

King Herod's Temple is the Temple that was destroyed in 70 AD. Not David's Temple. Because, Acts 15:16 is referring to a prophecy that was not fulfilled as you claim. This Prophecy of the Old Testament has not come to pass.

allforihs--Lev10:9a Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou, nor thy sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congregation.

Aaron could drink, just not when he was conducting a ceremony. Jesus was not a priest in the order of Aaron.

This point is where you go astray because you have not grasped the purity of the Command of Holiness. A Jewish Priest in the Old Testament was called by God to serve in the Tabernacle of the Congregation. These Jewish Priests came from the Tribe of Levi.

Since God called him to be a priest, He was not allowed to partake of anything or touch anything that was not Holy. This includes grape juice that had been fermented. Today, We know this drink to have an alcoholic content.

Jewish Priests in the Old Testament were not allowed to have any fermented drink either in the Tabernacle of the Congregation or outside of the same. Because, They were called by God to be Holy 24/7. Not on just an 8 hour shift as an example.

allforihs--And, Jesus said he drank. Matthew 11:19 "The Son of Man came... drinking, and they say, 'Behold,... a drunkard.'" (Jesus' accusers refused to distinguish between responsible drinking and being a drunkard.)

Because, under the Law of Moses, There was such a Law against drunkenness. Yes, The Jewish People had fermented drinks but the Priests were not allowed to partake.

And, If anyone became unruly because of drunkenness, Under the Law of Moses, They were required to be taken before elders where they lived and the elders would command this person to be stoned to death. See Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

Suffice it to say, Drunkenness in the Old Testament was a very serious offense and carried the death penalty. This is why the Jewish Priests of the Old Testament never drank wine nor strong drink. They were called by God to be Holy.

This is the reason why Jesus never drank fermented wine or any strong drink during His Earthly Ministry. He fulfilled a portion of the Law of Moses during His First Advent. Secondly, Jesus Christ fulfilled the Office of King, and according to Proverbs 31:4, it is not for kings to drink wine. Also, Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace, see Isaiah 9:6, and according to Proverbs 31:4, strong drink is not for princes.

Therefore, At the marriage in Cana of Galilee that Jesus was invited to, when He turned the water into wine, Jesus did not turn the water into fermented wine, instead, Jesus turned the water into the juice of the grape which had a very sweet taste. See John 2:10. Because, Jesus Christ lived a Holy Life under the Law of Moses.

God Bless You!

Dr. Mike

 

[allforihs]

First of all, Peter was not on the isle of patmos. The Apostle John was. Secondly, The measuring of the Temple in Revelation 11:1-2 took place in the spirit. Jesus calls the Apostle John up into heaven to show him things which must be hereafter. See Revelation 4:1-2.

"Measuring" the temple is symbolic, but there was only one Temple at the time, the building Jesus called His house, in spite of your instance that it is Herod's temple. The point of Rev 11 is to say something about the future based on the current temple. You don't make a statement about what's going to happen in the future by telling someone measure something from the future.

It makes no sense to call any future building the Temple of God.

Well, Would you mind telling me where this rebuilt Temple is now? Because, Right now, There is a Muslim Mosque in place where the Temple should be according to what you have said.

The tent of David is not a temple. Amos said the tent of David was destroyed when the kingdom of Israel was destroyed. The first temple, the one built by David and Solomon, was still standing. James quotes Amos because by bringing gentiles fully into God's church, they were restoring the tent of David, the Israel of God, just as Amos predicted.

It makes no sense to equate a Temple with the tent of David, when Amos said the tent was destroyed while first Temple was still standing. It makes no sense for James to invoke as relevant to his situation the prophesy from Amos if the prophecy applied to something else, much later.

Jesus is our Temple (Rev 21:22). God's people are Israel. Jesus rebuilt the tent of David and that is why what James said in Acts 15:16 was relevant to their situation. You must think James just randomly blurted out that comment?

Jewish Priests in the Old Testament were not allowed to have any fermented drink either in the Tabernacle of the Congregation or outside of the same. Because, They were called by God to be Holy 24/7. Not on just an 8 hour shift as an example.

The Jewish priests were not allowed to drink when they entered the inner court. This means the rest of the time, the rest of 24/7, they were allowed to drink. And, this is irrelevant to Jesus as he is not a priest of their order.

There is nothing unholy about drinking, per se. The point of a law prohibiting priests from drinking while in the inner court is to reduce the possibility of alcohol abuse there. When Jesus chased the merchants out of His yard, the Temple area, it wasn't because selling things is wrong, per se. It's because selling things at the Temple disrespects the Temple.

This is the reason why Jesus never drank fermented wine or any strong drink during His Earthly Ministry.

I just quoted the verse of Jesus saying he drank and the pharisees judging him for it (proving it was real alcohol). You must think Jesus just randomly blurted out that he drinks grape juice?

Jesus said he drank.

Jesus said he drank.

Jesus said he drank.

Therefore, At the marriage in Cana of Galilee that Jesus was invited to, when He turned the water into wine, Jesus did not turn the water into fermented wine, instead, Jesus turned the water into the juice of the grape which had a very sweet taste. See John 2:10. Because, Jesus Christ lived a Holy Life under the Law of Moses.

Everything about the account of the marriage in Cana said Jesus made alcohol. Jesus used a word that means to effervesce for the word wine. That means yeast have been doing their think and turning sugar into alcohol, creating CO2 bubbles. The Bible says the guests were "well drunk". This wasn't some modern kid's birthday party with grape Kool Aid. This was a celebration with adults in a culture were wine as a staple of life. If they weren't drinking alcohol, they would drank something like spiced tea, not grape juice. Who drinks grape juice at adult parties?

 

[MightyAngel1]

The Jewish priests were not allowed to drink when they entered the inner court. This means the rest of the time, the rest of 24/7, they were allowed to drink. And, this is irrelevant to Jesus as he is not a priest of their order.

Howdy allforihs!

An Alcoholic drink, whether this drink is wine or strong drink, IS NOT HOLY!! Wine is not for Kings and strong drink is not for princes. Proverbs 31:4.

Jesus is a Priest of a much superior order. This Superior Order is the Order of Melchisedec.

allforihs--There is nothing unholy about drinking, per se.

Yes, There is. Drinking alcoholic wine or strong drink carried the death penalty for the priest. This is why they did not drink.

allforihs--The point of a law prohibiting priests from drinking while in the inner court is to reduce the possibility of alcohol abuse there.

Nope! The Law was given so that the Priests would be Holy unto the Lord.

allforihs--When Jesus chased the merchants out of His yard, the Temple area, it wasn't because selling things is wrong, per se. It's because selling things at the Temple disrespects the Temple.

I agree. And, Since Jesus Christ had a Holy, Sinless Body (Temple), see 1 Corinthians 6:19, then, drinking alcoholic wine or strong drink which is unholy would have disrespected His Holy, Sinless Body (Temple).

Therefore, Jesus Christ never disrespected His Holy, Sinless Body (Temple). I am quite sure you would agree.

allforihs--I just quoted the verse of Jesus saying he drank and the pharisees judging him for it (proving it was real alcohol). You must think Jesus just randomly blurted out that he drinks grape juice?

Jesus said he drank.

Jesus said he drank.

Jesus said he drank.

No, Jesus did not say He was drinking wine or strong drink. Looking at Matthew 11:19 in part, Jesus says...But wisdom is justified of her children. Jesus was not saying that He drank alcoholic wine or strong drink.

Jesus specifically says, The Children who have wisdom know that He did not disrespect His Body nor did He break His Father's Commandments.

If Jesus Christ drank alcoholic wine or strong drink as the Son of Man and the Son of God, He would have been in violation of the Law of Presumptuous sin found in Numbers 15:30-31.

Numbers 15:30-31

30. But the soul that doeth ought presumptuously, whether he be born in the land, or a stranger, the same reproacheth the Lord: and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.
31. Because he hath despised the word of the Lord, and hath broken his commandment, that soul shall utterly be cut off: his iniquity shall be upon him.

During Jesus Christ's earthly ministry, He loved righteousness and hated iniquity. Jesus lived a perfect life with no iniquity found in Him. Peter acknowledges this fact referring to Jesus Christ, says...Who did no sin. 1 Peter 2:22 in part.

allforihs--Everything about the account of the marriage in Cana said Jesus made alcohol. Jesus used a word that means to effervesce for the word wine. That means yeast have been doing their think and turning sugar into alcohol, creating CO2 bubbles. The Bible says the guests were "well drunk".

Yes, The Bible says the guests were well drunk which comes from the Hebrew word yayin which has the meaning of intoxicated.

And, The very same verse says this as well in part...but thou has kept the good wine until now.

good wine in the Greek is...kalos oinos. kalos has several meanings, one of which is virtuous. Do you understand what virtuous wine is? Virtuous wine is non-alcoholic wine or Holy Wine. Holy Wine because the Holy Son of God made this wine. Since He is Holy, The Wine He made was Holy. Jesus never performed an unholy miracle. He always performed Holy Miracles. And, The Water turned into wine was a Holy Miracle. Not an unholy miracle.

allforihs--This wasn't some modern kid's birthday party with grape Kool Aid. This was a celebration with adults in a culture were wine as a staple of life. If they weren't drinking alcohol, they would drank something like spiced tea, not grape juice. Who drinks grape juice at adult parties?

I do. But, The Parties I attend are always in the Church where God is Glorified.

God Bless You!

Dr. Mike

 

[MightyAngel1]

"Measuring" the temple is symbolic,

Howdy allforihs

Nope! Measuring the Temple in Revelation 11 is literal. John, who is a literal person, and was shown the Future Tabernacle of David by Jesus Christ who is the Literal Son of God, measured this Temple in the Spirit and saw this Temple in the Future.

allforihs--but there was only one Temple at the time, the building Jesus called His house, in spite of your instance that it is Herod's temple.

According to Josephus, who witnessed the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD as prophesied by Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:2, wrote that the Book of Revelation was written after the Temple was destroyed in Jerusalem. Josephus dates the Book of Revelation around 90-95 AD.

allforihs--The point of Rev 11 is to say something about the future based on the current temple.

The Temple you refer to had already been destroyed when John wrote Revelation Chapter 11.

allforihs--You don't make a statement about what's going to happen in the future by telling someone measure something from the future.

God did.

allforihs--It makes no sense to call any future building the Temple of God.

God is not concerned about what makes sense to you or not. He just wants you to believe what He says.

allforihs--The tent of David is not a temple. Amos said the tent of David was destroyed when the kingdom of Israel was destroyed. The first temple, the one built by David and Solomon, was still standing. James quotes Amos because by bringing gentiles fully into God's church, they were restoring the tent of David, the Israel of God, just as Amos predicted.

God did not allow David to build the Temple. David's Son, Solomon, did build the Temple.

No, James did not quote Amos for the reason your stated. James quoted Amos because all of them were looking for Jesus to return quickly, deliver them from Roman Rule, and reestablish the Kingdom of David. See Acts 1:6-8.

allforihs--It makes no sense to equate a Temple with the tent of David, when Amos said the tent was destroyed while first Temple was still standing. It makes no sense for James to invoke as relevant to his situation the prophesy from Amos if the prophecy applied to something else, much later.

Acts 15:14-16 is a picture of the mindset of the Jewish believers in Jesus Christ the Messiah. They knew the Old Testament Prophets and what had been prophesied, but none of them understood God's plan for the Gentile.

This is why the Prophecy of Amos was quoted by James. Once again, They were looking for Christ to return quickly. But, All of us know that was not the case and therefore the Prophecy of Amos is still future.

allforihs--Jesus is our Temple (Rev 21:22). God's people are Israel. Jesus rebuilt the tent of David and that is why what James said in Acts 15:16 was relevant to their situation. You must think James just randomly blurted out that comment?

No, I do not think James just blurted out that comment. He did not understand what God was doing. Saul, who became Paul, was given this information earlier by Jesus Christ, that James did not understand. But, During the course of this intense moment of fellowship, The Light bulb came on in the head of James. Once again, They were looking for Christ to return quickly and reestablish the Kingdom of David.

God Bless You!

Dr. Mike

 

[allforihs]

An Alcoholic drink, whether this drink is wine or strong drink, IS NOT HOLY!! Wine is not for Kings and strong drink is not for princes. Proverbs 31:4.

You should read the whole passage. This is practical advice, just advice, for kings not to drink. But, it's okay for princes to drink, just not strong drink. The following two verses advises others to drink! Don't be a cafeteria Christian, picking and choosing only parts of the Bible to follow.

Jesus is a Priest of a much superior order. This Superior Order is the Order of Melchisedec.

Melchizedek drank wine. Genesis 14:18

Yes, There is. Drinking alcoholic wine or strong drink carried the death penalty for the priest. This is why they did not drink.

The only verse you've shown is that the priests were not to drink while performing ceremonies or are in the inner court. Jesus also forbid selling stuff on the temple grounds. THIS IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT DRINKING IS A SIN, else they would be instructed never to drink and the Bible would instruct all of God's people to avoid alcohol.

No, Jesus did not say He was drinking wine or strong drink. Looking at Matthew 11:19 in part, Jesus says...But wisdom is justified of her children. Jesus was not saying that He drank alcoholic wine or strong drink.

JESUS SAID HE DRANK. He did not say he was accused of drinking. He said he did drank! Jesus was accusing those who can't separate drinking from drunkenness of being childish. (v16, Jesus compares his generation to children, and then he gives the example of him being called a drunkard for drinking.)

Jesus didn't just drink himself. He instructed Christians to drink. (Communion.)

If Jesus Christ drank alcoholic wine or strong drink as the Son of Man and the Son of God, He would have been in violation of the Law of Presumptuous sin found in Numbers 15:30-31.

Drinking is not a presumptuous sin.

During Jesus Christ's earthly ministry, He loved righteousness and hated iniquity. Jesus lived a perfect life with no iniquity found in Him. Peter acknowledges this fact referring to Jesus Christ, says...Who did no sin. 1 Peter 2:22 in part.

Drinking is not a sin. It would not make Jesus less than absolutely pure to drink wine!

Yes, The Bible says the guests were well drunk which comes from the Hebrew word yayin which has the meaning of intoxicated.

And, The very same verse says this as well in part...but thou has kept the good wine until now.

good wine in the Greek is...kalos oinos. kalos has several meanings, one of which is virtuous. Do you understand what virtuous wine is? Virtuous wine is non-alcoholic wine or Holy Wine.

You have that completely backwards! Alcohol has a numbing effect on the tongue, so the typical practice is to serve good wine the first few rounds - or until the guests are well drunk - and then serve cheap wine. This way, money is saved and the guests don't care. If Jesus had served just grape juice, it would not have that numbing effect which means it would have been useless to prepare the guests for the cheap stuff later. And, the headwaiter would not have complimented the wine if it were just grape juice, even very good grape juice.

IT WAS ALCOHOL.

I do. But, The Parties I attend are always in the Church where God is Glorified.

They have grape juice at your church parties?!? :shade:

Okay, let me rephrase my question, who serves grape juice at adult parties aside from silly adults trying to copy something they misunderstand in the Bible. I go to an anti-drinking Baptist church, and I have never seen grape juice at any party or dinner. I don't recall ever seeing grape juice served at any gathering I have ever attended in my life, other than Communion or very rarely at breakfast. Why not? Because people don't like grape juice, other than a very small amount on rare occasion. And, the only reason grape juice is served at any church Communion is because it's the closest to wine these churches are willing to go - not because anyone wants to drink grape juice.

IT WAS ALCOHOL.

Jesus said he drank alcohol. Jesus made alcohol. Jesus instructed his followers to drink alcohol - and in the Bible, all of them did. Now, the evil pharisees, they would forbid people to drink. Mormons oppose drinking. I believe Islam forbids alcohol, too. But, for Christians, wine is a blessing from God (Psalm 104:15), at least for those of strong faith (Romans 14:2).

 

[allforihs]

Nope! Measuring the Temple in Revelation 11 is literal. John, who is a literal person, and was shown the Future Tabernacle of David by Jesus Christ who is the Literal Son of God, measured this Temple in the Spirit and saw this Temple in the Future.

Why would John need the literal measurements of the Temple? Was he to build a scale model while on the island of Patmos? Do you take also literally the following few verses that says God has olive trees that are his witnesses and these olive trees have mouths, and fire that comes out of their mouths and burns people up?

If you want to be literal, then take the Temple literally. The Temple that was destroyed in 70AD. No other temple is identified or suggested in Rev 11.

According to Josephus, who witnessed the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 AD as prophesied by Jesus Christ in Matthew 24:2, wrote that the Book of Revelation was written after the Temple was destroyed in Jerusalem. Josephus dates the Book of Revelation around 90-95 AD.

I'm very sure you have Josephus mixed up with someone else. There is much Josephus wrote that supports and earlier date for Revelation. And, nothing, absolutely nothing, to support a date as late as 95. In any case, I consider the Bible's authors to be inspired, but not 3rd parties.

God did not allow David to build the Temple. David's Son, Solomon, did build the Temple.

I called it David/Solomon's Temple. I'm well aware that Solomon actually built it. But, David laid the groundwork, including literally buying the ground for it.

What is your point in telling me that it's Solomon's Temple? It was the Temple God had built for Himself, and that is what matters. It makes no sense for you (YOU, not God's word) to deny that Solomon's Temple was also David's Temple if you believe that the Temple of David once stood as a literal temple. I'm the one insisting that the tent of David is was a literal temple. So, I can accept the first temple as purely Solomon's Temple.

Acts 15:14-16 is a picture of the mindset of the Jewish believers in Jesus Christ the Messiah. They knew the Old Testament Prophets and what had been prophesied, but none of them understood God's plan for the Gentile.

Let me put this in context for you: After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us." James added, "Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. The Prophets agree, with these words: 'After these things, I will return and rebuild the tent of David which has fallen so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all gentiles who are called by my name.'"

DO YOU SEE that God sharing his Spirit to Gentiles and making them His people equates with restoring the tent of David?

The prophet Amos is quoted: The eyes of God are on the sinful kingdom of Israel. I will destroy it from the face of the earth. I will shake the house of Israel among all nations. All the sinners there will die by the sword. [the Kingdom of Israel is destroyed] Later, I will After these things, I will return and rebuild the tent of David which has fallen so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all gentiles who are called by my name.

DO YOU SEE that the destruction of Israel is equated with the falling of David's tent? The Temple is not mentioned nor was it destroyed at that time.

You brought up Acts 1:6-8. Jesus' followers expect Israel to be restored quickly (why would they have such an idea, after spending years with Jesus?). Jesus refuses to say when, but - in the same sentence - he says they will receive power and be his witnesses to the world. Jesus is equating the restored Israel with Pentecost, just like James later equates the God sharing his Spirit with gentiles as the rebuilding of the tent of David, which represents Israel.

JESUS RESTORED DAVID'S KINGDOM. Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things for the churches I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright morning star." Jesus pointing out that he is the offspring of David legitimizes his claim to David's thrown, restoring the tent of David.

 

[MightyAngel1]

Originally Posted by MightyAngel1
Nope! Measuring the Temple in Revelation 11 is literal. John, who is a literal person, and was shown the Future Tabernacle of David by Jesus Christ who is the Literal Son of God, measured this Temple in the Spirit and saw this Temple in the Future.


Why would John need the literal measurements of the Temple?

Howdy allforihs

Because, The Temple in Revelation 11:1-2 has different dimensions. The Temple of Herod will look smaller compared to the Tabernacle of David once completed.

allforihs--Was he to build a scale model while on the island of Patmos?

No.

allforihs--Do you take also literally the following few verses that says God has olive trees that are his witnesses and these olive trees have mouths, and fire that comes out of their mouths and burns people up?

First of all, The Candlestick is a real piece of furniture of the Temple. And, The Olive Tree is one of many Trees that God created in Genesis Chapter 1. Also, The Olive Tree has always represented Israel in the Bible regarding End Time Bible Prophecy.

Therefore, God is using these real elements to symbolically describe what will happen in the future to the Seed of Jacob multiplied as the dust of the earth. Since, They are Jewish they would understand the meaning conveyed by God.

The 2 Olive Trees represent 2 members of Israel who are Enoch and Elijah. These 2 Witnesses are of the Lineage of Jesus Christ and will monitor the rebuilding of the Tabernacle of David during the first 3 1/2 years of the Tribulation period.

Also, These 2 Witnesses will reappear on this earth under the 7th Mountain Kingdom of Revelation 17:9-11. This Kingdom is the Revised Roman Empire which has 10 Kingdoms.

King Herod's Temple was destroyed under the 6th Mountain Kingdom of Revelation 17:9-11 which was the Roman Empire. This Empire was only 1 Kingdom.

allforihs--If you want to be literal, then take the Temple literally. The Temple that was destroyed in 70AD. No other temple is identified or suggested in Rev 11.

I do take the Temple literally in Revelation 11 because the Rebuilt Tabernacle of David will be in place under the Revised Roman Empire that will consist of 10 Kingdoms. Not 1 Kingdom.

God Bless You!

Dr. Mike

 

[MightyAngel1]

MA--Acts 15:14-16 is a picture of the mindset of the Jewish believers in Jesus Christ the Messiah. They knew the Old Testament Prophets and what had been prophesied, but none of them understood God's plan for the Gentile.

allforihs--Let me put this in context for you: After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, "Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us." James added, "Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. The Prophets agree, with these words: 'After these things, I will return and rebuild the tent of David which has fallen so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, and all gentiles who are called by my name.'"

DO YOU SEE that God sharing his Spirit to Gentiles and making them His people equates with restoring the tent of David?

No, Because David is of the Seed of Jacob multiplied as the dust of the earth. Genesis 28:14. This Prophecy of Restoration here refers to the Seed of Jacob multiplied as the dust of the earth in the future.

The Gentiles being added to God's Spiritual Kingdom here on earth is what the Jewish Believers in Jesus Christ as Messiah, i.e. the Seed of Isaac multiplied as the stars of the heaven, Genesis 26:4, did not fully understand. But, Paul did because Jesus Christ revealed this plan to him alone. Galatians 1:11-12 and Romans 16:25.

Secondly, The Gentiles are of the Seed of Abraham multiplied as the stars of the heaven. Galatians 3:7 and Genesis 15:4-5. So, The Gentiles are not part of the restoration of the Seed of Jacob multiplied as the dust of the earth according to the Seed Covenant of Abraham.

At this point in time, the Seed of Jacob multiplied as the dust of the earth are blinded by God to the Gospel of Un-Circumcision. Romans 11:8. Therefore, The Seed of Abraham multiplied as the stars of the heaven have no part in their restoration. Their Restoration is a God thing only. See Zechariah 13:8-9.

God Bless You!

Dr. Mike

 

[MightyAngel1]

MA--Yes, The Bible says the guests were well drunk which comes from the Hebrew word yayin which has the meaning of intoxicated.

And, The very same verse says this as well in part...but thou has kept the good wine until now.

good wine in the Greek is...kalos oinos. kalos has several meanings, one of which is virtuous. Do you understand what virtuous wine is? Virtuous wine is non-alcoholic wine or Holy Wine.

allforihs--You have that completely backwards!

Howdy allforihs

No, I do not have what I said backwards. I am following the verse in the order presented.

John 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when man have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Do you see that the Good wine that Jesus made was served last? Because in Verse 3, They had run out of wine. So, Jesus performed His First Holy Miracle which was turning the water into wine. That is Holy Wine. Non-Alcoholic wine.

allforihs--Alcohol has a numbing effect on the tongue, so the typical practice is to serve good wine the first few rounds - or until the guests are well drunk - and then serve cheap wine. This way, money is saved and the guests don't care.

Well, According to the text, This is what normally takes place. But, as the Text shows us, The Good wine that Jesus made was served last after they had run out of wine.

allforihs--If Jesus had served just grape juice, it would not have that numbing effect which means it would have been useless to prepare the guests for the cheap stuff later. And, the headwaiter would not have complimented the wine if it were just grape juice, even very good grape juice.

IT WAS ALCOHOL.

This Miracle by Jesus is what many Christians struggle to understand. Why? Because they do not recognize the Holiness of God nor the Holiness of this Miracle.

You said quote "Alcohol has a numbing effect on the tongue,"EOQ

I agree with you. And, A Numb tongue represents a "dead tongue". But, The question is...What happens when Holy Wine made by Jesus Christ touches the numb "dead" tongue of someone who is apparently intoxicated?

The Holiness of Jesus and the Miracle He performed was so powerful that the numb "dead" tongue of the governor was overcome by the Power of the Holiness of this Miracle.

Therefore, The numb "dead" tongue of the governor was healed so that he could taste the sweetness of the juice of the grape.

In other words, The Governor's numb "dead" tongue came alive, or was revived, in the presence of Holiness. Not only was the water turned into wine, but, there was a healing that took place to prove that Jesus did not turn water into alcohol.

Another point. You insist that Jesus made alcohol. Well, According to Proverbs 20:1, The Bible says...

Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

As I have said and shown in Scripture, Jesus Christ lived a Holy Life perfect without sin. Mockery is a sin against God. Therefore, It is not wise for a Christian to insist that Jesus mocked His Father.

God Bless You!

Dr. Mike

 

[allforihs]

Because, The Temple in Revelation 11:1-2 has different dimensions. The Temple of Herod will look smaller compared to the Tabernacle of David once completed.

What does it matter what the dimensions of the Temple are when John didn't actually measure anything?

I feel like you're ignoring the scripture I'm showing you to prove that David's tent is not a Temple, but is Israel, or David's thrown. Amos links the destruction of the kingdom of Israel with the fall of David's tent, and then Amos gives a prophecy about the tent be restored with gentiles. Then, James invokes Amos prophecy of about restoring David's tent with gentiles being brought into the church. It looks very simple and straight forward to me.

You also are ignoring that Jesus called "Herod's Temple" HIS HOUSE. There isn't the slightest indication that the Temple in Rev 11 is anything but THE TEMPLE that was destroyed in 70AD.

Later in Rev, John is speaking of his vision of New Jerusalem and he says there is no Temple it in. If the Temple had already been destroyed, John is totally oblivious to this momentous fact and acts as if it's still standing when he wrote Rev.

Therefore, God is using these real elements to symbolically describe what will happen in the future to the Seed of Jacob multiplied as the dust of the earth. Since, They are Jewish they would understand the meaning conveyed by God.

Gal 3:16, Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed He does not say, "And to seeds," as referring to many, but rather to one, "And to your seed," that is, Christ.

I believe you ignore these things because they don't fit into your theology.

 

[allforihs]

John 2:10 And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when man have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

Do you see that the Good wine that Jesus made was served last? Because in Verse 3, They had run out of wine. So, Jesus performed His First Holy Miracle which was turning the water into wine. That is Holy Wine. Non-Alcoholic wine.

The reason people save the cheap wine until after the guests are well drunk is because alcohol numbs the tongue. So, after the guests are well drunk, the host can serve the cheap stuff without offending anyone.

IT WAS ALCOHOL.

The wine would not have been complimented if it was just grape juice. People don't want to drink grape juice at parties. No one praises the quality of grape juice because it is expected to be "perfect" in the first place. Either it tastes like grape juice or it tastes like bad juice. But, making win is an art and the quality of wine varies greatly.

IT WAS ALCOHOL.

The Holiness of Jesus and the Miracle He performed was so powerful that the numb "dead" tongue of the governor was overcome by the Power of the Holiness of this Miracle.

Would you stop imposing on the Bible things that are not there? The Bible does not say anything about anyone's tongue being miraculously unnumbed. Such an assertion contradicts what was said, that normally the good stuff is served first. If Jesus's wine didn't also numb the tongue, it would be absurd for anyone to mention that normally it would have been served first, until the guests are well drunk. Because then it wouldn't prepare the guests for the cheap stuff.

Also, the PARTY guests would be ANGERED if they lost their warm fuzzies at a party after drinking Jesus' coffee-grape juice. They would't be praising the drink. Those guests who didn't want a buzz would have stuck to something like water in the first place.

A numb tongue is not a dead tongue or a sinful tongue. Drinking is not sinful. You have no justification to say such things.

JESUS SAID HE DRANK.

JESUS SAID HE DRANK.

JESUS SAID HE DRANK.

Proverbs 20:1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.

JESUS SAID HE DRANK.

Proverbs 20:1 says whoever is led astray ("deceived") is not wise. It is very possible to drink without being led astray. Jesus did it. All the NT saints did it. Okay, some of them not-so-saintly saints were getting drunk on the Communion wine... I would ask how you explain that, but you would ignore it or impose something totally unjustified to dismiss the fact that people were getting drunk on Communion wine because IT WAS ALCOHOL.

JESUS SAID HE DRANK.

IT WAS ALCOHOL.

AND, IT'S HEALTHY to drink in moderation.