Endtime views-preterists and those who aren't

Hidden Manna said:

Zechariah 14 & the Coming of Christ

by Gary DeMaar

In the premillennial view of Bible prophecy, the events depicted in Zechariah 14 are most often interpreted as depicting the second coming of Christ when Jesus will descend from heaven and stand on the Mount of Olives and from there set up His millennial kingdom. The chronology outlined in Zechariah, however, does not fit this scenario. Events actually begin in chapter thirteen where it is prophesied that the Shepherd, Jesus, will be struck and the sheep will be scattered (Zech. 13:7). This was fulfilled when Jesus says, "'You will all fall away, because it is written, "I WILL STRIKE DOWN THE SHEPHERD, AND THE SHEEP SHALL BE SCATTERED"'" (Mark 14:27).

What follows describes events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. God will act as Judge of Jerusalem and its inhabitants. As the king, He will send "his armies" and destroy "those murderers, and set their city on fire" (Matt. 22:7).

I will gather all the nations [the Roman armies] against Jerusalem to battle, and the city will be captured, the houses plundered [Matt. 24:17], the women ravished [Luke 17:35], and half the city exiled [Matt. 24:16], but the rest of the people will not be cut off from the city" (Zech. 14:2).

This happened when the Roman armies, made up of soldiers from the nations it conquered, went to war against Jerusalem. Rome was an empire consisting of all the known nations of the world (see Luke 2:1). The Roman Empire "extended roughly two thousand miles from Scotland south to the headwaters of the Nile and about three thousand miles from the Pillars of Hercules eastward to the sands of Persia. Its citizens and subject peoples numbered perhaps eighty million."1 Rome was raised up, like Assyria, to be the "rod of [His] anger" (Isa. 10:5). "So completely shall the city be taken that the enemy shall sit down in the midst of her to divide the spoil. All nations (2), generally speaking were represented in the invading army, for Rome was the mistress of many lands."2 Thomas Scott, using supporting references from older commentators and cross references to other biblical books, writes that Zechariah is describing the events surrounding Jerusalem's destruction in A.D. 70.

The time when the Romans marched their armies, composed of many nations, to besiege Jerusalem, was "the day of the Lord" Jesus, on which he came to "destroy those that would not that he should reign over them" [Matt. 22:110; 24:3, 2335; Luke 19:1127, 4144]. When the Romans had taken the city, all the outrages were committed, and the miseries endured, which are here predicted [Luke 21:20-24]. A very large proportion of the inhabitants were destroyed, or taken captives, and sold for slaves; and multitudes were driven away to be pursued by various perils and miseries: numbers also, having been converted to Christianity, became citizens of "the heavenly Jerusalem" and thus were "not cut off from the city" of God [Gal 4:2131; Heb. 12:2225].3

Forcing these series of descriptive judgment to leap over the historical realities of Jerusalem's destruction in A.D. 70 so as to fit a future judgment scenario is contrived and unnecessary.

Then the LORD will go forth and fight against those nations, as when He fights on a day of battle (14:3).

After using Rome as His rod to smite Jerusalem, God turns on Rome in judgment. Once again, Assyria is the model: "I send it against a godless nation and commission it against the people of My fury to capture booty and to seize plunder, and to trample them down like mud in the streets . . . So it will be that when the Lord has completed all His work on Mount Zion and on Jerusalem, He will say, 'I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria and the pomp of his haughtiness'" (Isa. 10:56, 1213). "It is significant that the decline of the Roman Empire dates from the fall of Jerusalem."4 Thomas Scott concurs: "It is also observable, that the Romans after having been thus made the executioners of divine vengeance on the Jewish nation, never prospered as they had done before; but the Lord evidently fought against them, and all the nations which composed their overgrown empire; till at last it was subverted, and their fairest cities and provinces were ravaged by barbarous invaders."5

And in that day His feet will stand on the Mount of Olives, which is in front of Jerusalem on the east; and the Mount of Olives will be split in its middle from east to west by a very large valley, so that half of the mountain will move toward the north and the other half toward the south (Zech. 14:4).

It is this passage that dispensationalists use to support their view that Jesus will touch down on planet earth and set up His millennial kingdom. Numerous times in the Bible we read of Jehovah "coming down" to meet with His people. In most instances His coming is one of judgment; in no case was He physically present. Notice how many times God's coming is associated with mountains:

* "And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower which the sons of men had built. . . . Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech" (Gen. 11:5, 7).
* "So I have come down to deliver them from the power of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey. . . (Ex. 3:8).
* "Then Thou didst come down on Mount Sinai, and didst speak with them from heaven. . . (Neh. 9:13a).
* "Bow Thy heavens, O LORD, and come down; touch the mountains, that they may smoke" (Psalm 144:5).
* "For thus says the LORD to me, 'As the lion or the young lion growls over his prey, against which a band of shepherds is called out, will not be terrified at their voice, nor disturbed at their noise, so will the LORD of hosts come down to wage war on Mount Zion and on its hill'" (Isa. 31:4).
* "Oh, that Thou wouldst rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains might quake at Thy presence" (Isa. 64:1).
* "When Thou didst awesome things which we did not expect, Thou didst come down, the mountains quaked at Thy presence" (Isa. 64:3).

In Micah 1:3 we are told that God "is coming forth from His place" to " come down and tread on the high places of the earth." How is this descriptive language different from the Lord standing on the Mount of Olives with the result that it will split? Micah says "the mountains will melt under Him, and the valleys will be split , like wax before the fire, like water poured down a steep place" (1:4). "It was not uncommon for prophets to use figurative expressions about the Lord 'coming' down, mountains trembling, being scattered, and hills bowing (Hab. 3:6, 10); mountains flowing down at his presence (Isaiah 64:1, 3); or mountains and hills singing and the trees clapping their hands (Isaiah 55:12)."6

What is the Bible trying to teach us with this descriptive language of the Mount of Olives "split in its middle"? The earliest Christian writers applied Zechariah 14:4 to the work of Christ in His day. Tertullian (A.D. 145220) wrote: "'But at night He went out to the Mount of Olives.' For thus had Zechariah pointed out: 'And His feet shall stand in that day on the Mount of Olives' [Zech. xiv. 4]."7 Tertullian was alluding to the fact that the Olivet prophecy set the stage for the judgment-coming of Christ that would once for all break down the Jewish/Gentile division. Matthew Henry explains the theology behind the prophecy:

The partition-wall between Jew and Gentiles shall be taken away. The mountains about Jerusalem, and particularly this, signified it to be an enclosure, and that it stood in the way of those who would approach to it. Between the Gentiles and Jerusalem this mountain of Bether, of division, stood, Cant. ii. 17. But by the destruction of Jerusalem this mountain shall be made to cleave in the midst , and so the Jewish pale shall be taken down, and the church laid in common with the Gentiles, who were made one with the Jews by the breaking down of this middle wall of partition, Eph. ii. 14.8

You will notice that there is no mention of a thousand year reign. Yet, we are told that "the LORD will be king over all the earth" (14:9). So what is new about this language? "For the LORD Most High is to be feared, a great King over all the earth. He subdues peoples under us, and nations under our feet" (Psalm 47:2, 3). This is exactly what happened with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Paul told the Roman Christians that "the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet" (Rom. 16:20). The church's adversary (Satan) were those Jews who rejected Jesus as the Messiah and persecuted His Bride, the church (see John 16:2). Jesus calls them a "synagogue of Satan" (Rev. 3:9).

Click to expand...

raym said:

how do ou know the lord came in ad 70?

Click to expand...

blessedbe said:

this was taken from that site, Hidden Manna; I guess it depends on the person! I can see the apposing sides. The "continuation arguments" seem to make the best sense to me,personally. When I am taking communion, I am not thinking about any second coming anyway, it takes me back to what Jesus did for me, and keeps me thinking about His sacrifice....it's a way for me to remember it and keep it "fresh", almost like a renewing of faith for me....

OH, here's the link: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/green-david_p_07.html


QUESTION 75: What do preterists believe about the Lord's Supper? Do they still practice it today, or do they think it was abolished in A.D. 70?



ANSWER: Preterists are divided on this issue, although it seems that most preterists today hold to the continuation of the Lord's Supper. Below are the seven primary “Continuation-Versus-Cessation” arguments that are being discussed among preterists. (The first four are Cessation arguments with Continuation responses, and the last three are Continuation arguments with Cessation responses.)





1. “Until He Comes”



Cessation argument: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until He comes.” (I Cor. 11:26) The Lord came in A.D. 70. This means the Church is not commanded to proclaim the Lord's death by means of “the Lord's Supper” after A.D. 70.



Continuation response: The word “until” does not necessarily imply a termination. For example, Christ was to reign “until” He put all His enemies under His feet. (I Cor. 15:25; cf. I Tim. 4:13) “Until” cannot mean a termination in that verse because Christ reigns forever. (Dan. 7:14; Lk. 1:33; Heb. 1:8) “Until” in I Cor. 11:26 implies a culmination and establishment, not a termination.



2. “Until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”



Cessation argument: “For I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” (Lk. 22:16) The Lord's Supper was an unfulfilled ritual and sign. It foreshadowed “Christ in you.” Therefore it was “fulfilled” when Christ made His Dwelling in the Church in A.D. 70. (Jn. 14:23; Gal. 4:19; Eph. 2:21-22; 3:17; Col. 1:27; II Peter 1:19; Rev. 3:20; 21:2-3) Now we dine with Him in the Kingdom, and no longer through a symbolic, fleshly ordinance.



Continuation response: “Fulfilled” does not necessarily imply a change from material to non-material. The truth that the Lord's Supper represents was brought to fullness in Christ in A.D. 70, but that does not mean that the Lord's Supper itself was to cease. Christ partakes of the Lord's Supper with us now in the Spirit as we partake of it physically on Earth.



3. “Until that Day when I drink it new with you in My Father's Kingdom”



Cessation argument: “But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that Day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” (Matt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25; Lk. 22:16-18) We dine with Christ in a “new” way today, that is, in the New Covenant way. He partakes of the "new wine" of the Kingdom (“the Vine”) with us, not in the old covenant way, as He did in the "transition era"; not through a symbolic, fleshly ordinance, but in a non-ceremonial, spiritual way. The Last Days symbol of "Christ in you" ("the Lord's Supper") was made "new" (Rev. 21:5) by the A.D.-70 fulfillment of "Christ in you."



Continuation response: Since A.D. 70, Christ takes the Lord's Supper with us in a “new” way, i.e., with “new” meaning. The Lord's Supper is no longer a somber remembrance, but it is a celebration feast. Now He has Communion with us spiritually when we partake of the literal bread and wine.



4. Manna


The Manna that the Israelites ate and the drink that they drank in the wilderness represented the Lord's body and blood. (Jn. 6:31-56; I Cor. 10:3-4) The Lord's Supper also represented the Lord's body and blood. When the Israelites entered the Promised Land, the representative food and the representative drink ceased. Likewise, when the New Testament Church entered the spiritual Promised Land in A.D. 70, the representative food and drink ("the Lord's Supper") ceased.

Continuation response: The manna and the Lord's Supper are not likened to each other in Scripture. They are contrasted. In Jn. 6:31-56, the manna is contrasted with the Lord's Supper, i.e., with Christ's “flesh and blood.” The manna was temporary. The Lord's Supper (His “flesh and blood”) is an eternal New Covenant ordinance. Likewise in I Cor. 10:3-4, the manna and the water in the wilderness were temporary, but the Lord's Supper (of which Paul speaks in the same chapter) is eternal.



5. Passover


Continuation argument: The Israelites took the Passover while they awaited their redemption in Egypt. Then after they entered the Promised Land, they continued to observe the Passover throughout the entire old covenant age. The Lord's Supper is the fulfillment / antitype of the Passover. The New Covenant Church took the Lord's Supper while it awaited its redemption from the old covenant age. (Lk. 21:28; Rom. 8:23; Eph. 1:14; 4:30) Then after the Church entered the (spiritual) Promised Land (in A.D. 70), it was to continue taking the Lord's Supper throughout the entire New Covenant Age. Just like the Passover, the Lord's Supper is an age long Covenant-ordinance.

Cessation response: "The Lord's Supper" was not the fulfillment / antitype of the Passover. "The Lord's Supper" was the Passover. (Lk. 22:15-16) It was a continuation of and a redefinition of the Passover for the Last Days Church. Because "the Lord's Supper" was itself the Passover, "the Lord's Supper" was fulfilled at the same time the Passover was fulfilled: In A.D. 70. Christ Himself in us is the Fulfillment / Antitype of the Passover (I Cor. 5:7-8) and of "the Lord's Supper." (Lk. 22:16)



6. Given to Gentiles


Continuation argument: The Lord's Supper was given to Gentile believers. This proves that it was not an “old covenant ritual.” It is therefore a New Covenant ordinance and is to be observed forever.

Cessation response: The Lord's Supper was a “transition ritual,” just like the revelatory gifts (tongues and prophecy) were “transition gifts” that were given to both Jews and gentiles, until the gifts were fulfilled and done away in A.D. 70. “The Lord's Supper” was likewise a sign to the Jews, to "proclaim the Lord's death” in all nations until He came and destroyed the hand-made, old covenant temple. (I Cor. 11:26)



7. Signs and Seals


Continuation argument: God always gave "signs and seals" with His covenants. This is the pattern of Scripture. Circumcision was the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant. (Gen. 17:10-14; Rom. 4:11) Under the New Covenant, we now have two "signs and seals": Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Cessation response: The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant. The "sign" of that covenant (circumcision) was fulfilled and replaced with spiritual circumcision (i.e., "the circumcision of Christ" in Col. 2:11), not with "the Lord's Supper" and ritual baptism. Christ Himself came to dwell in us in A.D. 70 in fulfillment of all the "signs" and of all the fleshly ordinances. (including "the Lord's Supper") He Himself is now our Bread (flesh) and Wine (blood). The New Covenant is a covenant of substance and fulfillment, not a covenant of more "signs."

Click to expand...

blessedbe said:

and now, getting back to the topic at hand.....

this is a very interesting read. One thing I am noticing with you preterists, is how well you bring the OT into the NT and show how they still accentuate eachother and compliment eachother. Until I started studying with the preterists, I never really 'saw' the way the NT and OT compliment eachother so well.
The above article really makes a fabulous point about how the apocolyptic readings of the OT never actually 'literally' came true, yet we can see that they were definately fullfilled. I would think that we would expect to see Revelation similarly fullfilled...

My theory is that the early church was looking for a completely different kind of second coming, much like the Jews were looking for a completely different Savior, and that is why they did not accept Jesus when he came; and that is why people reject the view of the 70AD second coming!

after 200+ years of "no second coming", you would think we ALL would start trying to figure out what we missed, as apposed to trying to twist scripture to mean a still future event! I think all these end-times hypothosis' and the stupidity it causes in SOME christians(like those who are trying to hasten the second coming by getting the temple rebuilt, those who start those end-times cults, those who do nothing productive in this life because they believe that it will all be over soon anyway etc etc), makes christianity look pretty silly. Not all christians take such an extreme view on the end-times, in fact i know of many who don't pay any attention to it whatsoever, but those who are obsessed with it tend to do really stupid things!!!

just my humble opinion though, and the reason I'm leaning towards preterism. Maybe I'm just swinging the pendulum completely to the other extreme in response to pre-tribbers, I don't know. I'm still studying this!

Click to expand...

stauron said:

This last argument is the only one that I seriously part ways with the continuation side. But I don't agree with the cessation view totally either.

For me the symbolism and pattern of the passover is too strong to ignore. Jesus is our passover.

God comes down to free His people from bondage.
He warns them and tells them remember what happens.
He gives them a special feast to send them off before the final event.
They are to continue with the feast to remember.

I have some issues with baptism and communion being signs of the New Covenant and think the cessation arguement is right about that.

Communion is not about a wafer and wine. It is about communing with God and His people. It is a celebration. I believe that the "love feast", a common meal where everyone in Christ shared equally, is much more in line with biblical practice.

But I am willing to discuss...

Click to expand...

stauron said:

blessedbe,

You don't appear to be a pendulum swinger... But of course that is just because you are starting to agree with me...

Click to expand...

LOL

I do think that you are on the right track with this though. I think in general that it is kind of odd that many today agree more with Nicodemus (“How can these things be?”) then with Christ. The blind guides of the blind continually forced things back to what could be seen with eyes of flesh. Christ reserves His strongest censures and curses for them. And we still tend to follow their example... (we are dumb as sheep)

Click to expand...

dumb as sheep! you are right about that. A while back, our pastor was talking about that! He mentioned that Jesus know EXACTLY what He was talking about when He compared us to sheep!!! And it ain't the good attributes!
Dumb, helpless, easily scared, conformists, followers, the list goes on.....

One interesting passage I was reading in the other day, and I don't mean to continue talking this off topic...but it was in 1 corinthians 3:10-15. It speaks about building on the proper foundation, Jesus Christ, but that each man may build from the foundation bricks of gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw etc and each man's work will become evident, that that day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man's work. Now Paul goes on to say that if any man's work is burnt up(because the quality of his works was built upon misunderstanding), he will suffer loss, but will himself be saved, yet so as through fire.
Now I'm not sure, but I believe Paul is talking about the judgment before God, and it tells me(and I may be totally off base here) that there are many who may start out with a perfect foundation of Jesus, but may learn wrongly and build their relationship wrongly, yet not lose salvation, just not get the same rewards. So to me, the various views of eschtalogy does not change our basic state of salvation, but to build our relationship on the wrong views of eschtalogy will affect our "rewards". Does this make sense at all????
I'm not advocating levels of heaven or a reward based life, but it seems pretty clear that those who "get it" as far as a truer understanding of God's word, will be rewarded well. It's not just that passage that I'm talking about either. In 1James I believe, he speaks about teachers being judged more severely than others, and tells the congregation that not many should become teachers because of this...there are more passages elsewhere, but really I'm getting WAY off topic. sorry! ( I wish they had a 'sheepish' smiley! LOL)

I guess what I'm getting around to saying is that I want to get a firm belief on eschtalogy, but I'm not going to beat myself up over it, and if I do decide that preterism is closest to the right belief, I'm not going to go around condemning the other views...in my typical fashion, I'm trying to figure out more than one view--eschtalogy, the reformed view, and whether or not I should be worried about my in-laws salvation(jw's). I really should pick one thing and figure it out, but alas, my personality does not allow that sort of thing! lol

Click to expand...

Justme said:

Hi Forum,

One of the things the lady put forth in that eschatology thread was that she felt that at death she would go to Heaven and later at the future 'second coming' she who return to earth for the redemption of her body or some such thing.

I have asked for scripture to indicate anyone ever returns to earth from Heaven and I haven't seen anything that nailed it down....well, anything even close actually.

Can any of you who were once future-ists be able to help me with what verses they use?

Thanks

Justme

Click to expand...

Hidden Manna said:

Hi everyone,
This posting makes it clear about understanding resurrection. Check it out.

The key to understanding any passage of Scripture in the New Testament has always been a good grasp of the historical setting of what it fulfilled, in the Old Testament. <snip>

Click to expand...

stauron said:

Thanks Hidden, I have tried to explain it before but this is a great summary.

BTW the link is broke...

Click to expand...

Imblessed said:

This is BlessedBe, posting with another name; I'm at my parents and couldn't remember my password(it's been a while since I had to use it--and my e-mail address is outdated! LOL)

Hidden Manna,

That was a great post, it really really put things into perspective! I was reading 1Corenthians today and when I got to the part where Paul talks about the Ressurection and such, I actually was reading with some new understanding!! It was so AWESOME! To finally be able to read the bible and really know what's being said and understand it like they would have so long ago...

thanks again!!!

Click to expand...

Hidden Manna said:

With the return of Christ and the destruction of temple, the way into God presence was now opened (Hebrew 9:8). The Hadean realm was emptied, and the Old Covenant saints, who were the harvest were gathered in the general resurrection in A.D.70. This is the second resurrection that John mentioned in the first part of verse 5 of chapter 20.

Click to expand...

jenlu said:

With the return of Christ. What type of return are we talking about here? OT type or literal(spiritual body). I know there is more than one school of thought on this, but what do you think Manna?

Click to expand...