|
|
Once we start studying the Old Testament and how it is quoted in the New Testament, we begin to see that our generalized ignorance has done it to us again in trying to understand the last days. This collection of questions and essays shares some of the information that has been helpful to me in my personal study. This FAQ page will continue to grow as I continue to study this subject even more, so check back often.~ Samuel G. Dawson
Check Out the Answers to These Questions*
1. How did your beliefs on these issues arise?2. Where are some of your online essays on hell and last days?
3. Is it really important for Christians to study the Old Testament?
4. What should our attitude be towards studying controversial subjects?
5. How should we treat brethren we disagree with on this subject and others?
6. What is "Covenant Eschatology"?
7. Is there a glossary of terms that arise in this study?
8. Do you have a reading list for people just starting to study about last days?
9. What is your understanding of "no marrying and giving in marriage"?
11. What was the age to come that Jesus spoke of?
19. Does the Bible warn about an apostasy concerning the last times?
20. What about your Comprehensive Index on Realized Eschatology that I've heard about?
21. Are there any online debates on this subject?
22. Is your book The Faithless Foundation of Dispensational Premillennialism related to eschatology?
24. What are some links to more information?
*Some answers adapted from the following materials from GospelThemes.com:
- The Teaching of Jesus
A Faithful Rabbi Urgently Warns Rebellious Israel- How to Study the Bible
A Practical Guide to Independent Bible Study- Fellowship: With God and His People
The Way of Christ Without Denominationalism
Personal Background My first full-time preaching work included eight years of live, call-in radio programs. As most young preachers do, I thought that I didn't dare admit I was ignorant of anything, so I read large books of answers to Bible questions. Later on, I was less concerned about admitting my ignorance and more concerned about the quality of the answers I was giving. As I questioned the teaching of various denominations, I was asking others to be open-minded and critical of their own beliefs. Consistency required that I bind myself, as well, to be open-minded about everything I believed. We all know the word for someone who demands something of others he's not willing to do himself.
I quickly found that some of my own beliefs did not stand up to careful examination. In some cases, the arguments needed to be made better. In others, the belief had to be abandoned entirely. This dedication to questioning and my background in physics and mathematics has helped me boil many controversies down to core issues and then to refine them into an easily understood form.
One elder told me, “I really like the way you put the grain down on the ground so us chickens can get at it and digest it.”
Most of you know that I take all of Matthew 24-25 as fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (since 1968). After many years, I finally came around to the early date on Revelation (since 1984), then began to suspect that I and II Peter were also discussing the coming judgment on Jerusalem as well (since 1990). All this work was done before I even realized there was a system of doctrine called preterism, realized eschatology, or covenant eschatology, which I became familiar with in 1989 or so.
Because of this, several of my articles on these subjects made their way to preterist Web sites (not at my instigation), where I am referred to as a partial-preterist, although partial-preterist scholar Kenneth Gentry thinks it necessary to refer to me as a hyper-preterist because of my view on Gehenna in my essay "Jesus' Teaching on Hell."
Because of terms like "the end," "the last day," etc., in I Corinthians 15, I've entertained suspicions that from the time element, it too might well be fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, but I'd not seen anything that convinced me. Partly, this is because preterists are divided themselves on the chapter, what the body is, body vs bodies, etc. I've asked full preterists to go through the chapter with me, and while I could follow their argumentation, it always seemed that there were so many hoops to jump through that I could never outline the arguments or make them my own. I've long known that anything I can't outline, I can't buy or think about teaching others.
In 2005, gospel preacher Don Preston of Ardmore, Oklahoma (age 55), whose booklet on II Peter 3 I had read maybe 20 years ago, e-mailed me, and we began corresponding. I looked over his Web site at www.eschatology.org and found a lot of well-written material. He's a full preterist, is politely militant, that is, he's as tough as a boot, but you can't get him to impugn your motives, misrepresent you, or in anyway misbehave. He's done a lot of debating on this, and is plenty ready to do much more.
I traveled to Ardmore to study with Don. We spent eight hours together, and he gave the most logical, straightforward presentation of I Corinthians 15 I'd ever seen, by far. He begins by pointing out that you can't separate the resurrection from the Hope of Israel, as in Paul's preaching. He then covers the quotations in the chapter from Hosea and Isaiah. I've never run across anyone that knew the prophets like Don, especially the messianic passages.
To make a long story short, it appears that we've done the same thing with I Corinthians 15 that many do with Matthew 24, II Peter 3, etc.--our lack of foundation in the Old Testament prophets gets us all in trouble.
Online Essays on Hell and Last Days Matthew 24-25: Destruction of Jerusalem vs. Final Judgment
Matthew 24-25 is one of the most difficult, perplexing, abused, and misapplied passages in the Bible. It suffers the most speculative interpretations and many false doctrines about a final return of Christ rest upon it. For example, the Worldwide Church of God and Jehovah's Witnesses use Matthew 24-25 to substantiate their false teachings. It is also the basis for Hal Lindsay's popular Late Great Planet Earth. (Chapter 10 from the book The Teaching of Jesus: From Mount Sinai to Gehenna: A Faithful Rabbi Urgently Warns Rebellious Israel)Jesus' Teaching on Hell (Revised May 2004)
"Don't you know that hell is just something the Catholic Church invented to scare people into obedience?" When Sam Dawson heard these words on a live call-in radio program years ago, he was righteously indignant at the caller's haphazard use of Scripture. However, after years of study, he discovered that none of our traditional concepts of hell can be found in the teaching of Jesus Christ! We get indignant at the mention of purgatory; we know that is not in the Bible. Yet our popular concepts of hell come from the same place that purgatory did--Roman Catholicism! This essay explores the use of the word hell to see if our concepts come from the Bible. This study will cause you to re-examine current teaching on hell and urge you to further study on what happens to the wicked after death. (Chapter 11 from the book The Teaching of Jesus: From Mount Sinai to Gehenna: A Faithful Rabbi Urgently Warns Rebellious Israel)II Peter 3: Destruction of Jerusalem or Destruction of the Universe?
A verse-by-verse study of II Peter 3 shows how our ignorance of the Old Testament often causes us to jump to false conclusions about this important chapter. While many people believe this chapter deals with the destruction of the universe, the author proves that it prophesies about the destruction of Jerusalem.
This essay examines the Old Covenant background of Israel's hope of the resurrection in Paul's gospel, and which also he wrote of in I Corinthians 15. Many don't realize Paul quoted Isaiah 25 and Hosea 13 in the most informative passage in the New Testament on the resurrection, as fulfillment of the Old Covenant doctrine of the resurrection of Israel.
Christians' Relationship to the Old Testament The Importance of the Old Testament to New Testament Christians
Many claiming to be New Testament Christians are woefully weak in their knowledge of the Old Testament. Thus, they are severely limited in their knowledge of the New Testament itself, for the New Testament is based squarely upon the Old. This leads to mistaken assumptions which result in doctrinal misinterpretations in the New. In addition, New Testament Christians were foretold in the Old Testament. Perhaps worst of all, ignorance of the Old Testament violates plain commands in the New Testament that instruct Christians to be serious students of the Old. (Chapter 6 from the book How to Study the Bible: A Practical Guide to Independent Bible Study.)Old Testament Passages Quoted in the New Testament
The New Testament quotes or alludes to 300 Old Testament passages. Jesus and his apostles frequently quoted from the Old Testament. Those New Testament quotes provide some of the most valuable and interesting verses in all the Bible, for two reasons. The New Testament quotes give God-approved commentaries on the Old Testament. Likewise, the Old Testament passages shed light on the meanings of difficult New Testament verses. This chapter tells where all the Old Testament passages are found in the New Testament and offers a procedure for making it easy to recognize them. (Appendix 1 from the book How to Study the Bible: A Practical Guide to Independent Bible Study.)
A Plea for an Open Mind Often, without honest and open study of controversial subjects, many Christians clamor for breaks in fellowship. While Christians say they believe in the independence of local churches; usually, a handful of preachers will try to stifle spiritual growth, which leads to denominational splits among churches.
While the author's present understandings may not be flawless, they result from nearly thirty years of careful study on many subjects from both the Old and New Testaments. Undoubtedly, his efforts will aid other serious students in their quest for truth and open up new avenues for study.
Click here to read:
- A Plea for an Open Mind
- A Plea for Confidence in God's Word
- A Plea to Refrain from Maligning Motives
Dealing with Doctrinal Differences As previous chapters in Fellowship with God and His People have shown, Christians in a local congregation do not have to agree on everything in the Bible in order to be in fellowship with each other. Practically speaking, they never will, try as though they might. This chapter discusses how brethren should conduct themselves when their doctrinal differences come to the fore. In I Tim. 3.14-15, Paul instructs Timothy:
These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly; but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.This chapter deals with how Christians ought to behave themselves in God's family in view of doctrinal differences. We will not contemplate matters of sin, nor consider doctrinal differences with non-Christians, though many of the principles would also apply.
Indeed, doctrinal differences do occur, and many times our record has not been good at conducting ourselves properly in the midst of differences. Brethren divide from each other over doctrinal points, many times without serious study taking place before the division. Preachers, teachers, elders, and other teachers are sometimes abused over matters of private study and belief that they may not even have taught. Preachers and other Christians appreciate the need to stand for the truth and contend for the faith, for the Scriptures plainly teach such. However, sometimes preachers and other Christians mistake contentiousness (which is clearly condemned) for contending for the faith. This chapter explores the differences between the two, and proposes scriptural procedures for dealing with brethren we differ with.
Click here to read this important material.
Covenant Eschatology Defined Covenant Eschatology: This term refers to the idea that the Bible story of eschatology has to do with the last days of the Old Covenant World of Israel that came to an end in A.D. 70 with the fall of Jerusalem. Most views of eschatology (those listed in the following glossary), believe that Biblical eschatology is the end of human history as we know it. In other words, Historical Eschatology, the end of history. Covenant Eschatology, on the other hand, believes that Biblical eschatology deals with the end of the Covenant History of Israel, i.e., Covenant Eschatology, and not the end of the physical world.
Please see the next section for the definitions of some of the most common terms used in studying the various aspects of end times.
Glossary of Terms Amillennialism: The word amillennialism is a compound word, “a” meaning no, and millennium meaning 1000. Actually, it's a poorly defined term. Thus the amillennial view is essentially a negative that denies that there is a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth. The entire church age is defined as the “millennium.” The amillennial view of the “last things” is that Christ will come at the end of the current Christian age, and put an end to human history. The earth will be burned up, or perhaps totally renovated (a minority view among amillennialists).
Apocalyptic Language: This is a term that is used to describe “de-creation” language. In other words, the language, taken literally, would demand that the very fabric of creation would/will be destroyed. However, apocalyptic language is the hyperbolic (exaggerated) manner of expression by the prophets to describe God's intervention into history, not to end history. The language is not intended to be taken literally. See Psalms 18 as a good example, where David describes what God had done in the past to save him. If the language was taken literally, then literal heaven and earth was destroyed when God saved David!
Constituent Elements: This term means “The necessary elements that make up a whole, the various and different parts of the whole.” Thus, the story of the Bible and the Scheme of Redemption contain many constituent elements, the birth of Christ, his passion, his resurrection, his coming, to name a few of the more prominent elements. All of these are constituent elements of the story.
Covenant Eschatology: This term refers to the idea that the Bible story of eschatology has to do with the last days of the Old Covenant World of Israel that came to an end in A.D. 70 with the fall of Jerusalem. Most views of eschatology, (those listed in this glossary), believe that Biblical eschatology is the end of human history as we know it. In other words, Historical Eschatology, the end of history. Covenant Eschatology, on the other hand, believes that Biblical eschatology deals with the end of the Covenant History of Israel, i.e., Covenant Eschatology, and not the end of the physical world.
Dispensationalism: This is a broad word that encompasses what is known as premillennialism. For accuracy sake, it should be noted that not all premillennialists are dispensationalists. There are historical premillennialists, as well as dispensational premillennialists. The dispensational view is that of the popular Left Behind book series. As a rule, millennialists hold that are some point in the (near) future, there will be a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, from Jerusalem, as He sits on the literal throne of David. Dispensationalism, popularized by men such as Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, John Hagee, etc., holds that the nation of Israel remains the chosen people of God today, and that after the Rapture, Israel will be restored to her land, rebuild a literal temple, restore the priesthood, animal sacrifices, etc. Central to dispensationalism is the belief that the church is replaced by Israel in the millennium.
Eschatology: This is a compound Greek word formed from eschatos, meaning “last,” and the suffix, meaning “the study of.” Thus, eschatology is the study of the “last things” which normally includes the “Second Coming” of Christ, the Judgment and Resurrection. Most people today think of the “end of time” or “the end of human history as we know it” when they think of the term “the last days,”
Exegesis: This is another word taken from the Greek language. It means “to draw out.” Applied to interpretation, it means that when we study the Bible text, we “draw out” from the text what is actually there. We are not supposed to read into the text (eisegesis), ideas that are not contained therein. So, proper Biblical interpretation exercises exegesis, the art of drawing out what is actually in the text and context. Eisegesis is the reading into the text things that are foreign to the actual text and context.
Hermeneutic: This is the word for the science of literary interpretation. The normal process of determining what a piece of literature means, no matter if it is the local newspaper, Shakespeare, the Odyssey, or the Bible. Proper interpretation demands that we ask the Who? What? When? Where? Why? questions of what we are seeking to interpret. Failure to use good hermeneutic invariably leads to wrong interpretation.
Parousia: The speakers may often use the word parousia. This is the Greek word that is normally, but incorrectly, translated as “coming.” In reality, the word parousia would be better translated presence, instead of coming. It is a noun, not a verb. This is a “technical” word of the first century world, being used in religious practices to speak of the “manifestation” of the god or goddess through the sacrifices and services of their religion, or, the word is also used to speak of the visitation of royalty, either personally, or through his chosen representative.
Postmillennialism: This view of eschatology is popular especially in the Reformed community. It is the belief, like amillennialism, that the entire Christian Age is the millennium referred to in Revelation 20. The postmillennialists believe, contrary to the amillennialists, that due to evangelism, the world will continually get better and better, until a “utopia” of sorts, is created. Near the end of this indefinite, but extended period of time, the Jews, as a people are converted, and then Christ returns to put an end to human history. Both the amillennial and postmillennial views share the belief that 1.) The current Christian Age is the millennium, and 2.) Christ's “Second Coming” occurs at the end of the Christian Age.
Preterist/Preterism: This word is actually from the Latin word meaning past. The idea, when applied to eschatology, is that all prophecy has been fulfilled in the past. Thus, in opposition to the other views of eschatology that place the parousia and judgment in the future, preterism places it in the past, in the lifetime of Jesus' first century generation (Matthew 16:27-28).
Soteriological: This term has to do with the things related to salvation and redemption. Christ's parousia, his presence, would be to bring salvation (Hebrews 9:28). Thus, the study of eschatology, is in many ways a study of soteriology. These topics go hand in hand.
Temple Cultus: The term “cultus” especially refers to the rites, rituals and worship system of the Old Covenant Temple. It refers to the order of things in a given system. In modern terms “cultus” has taken on a derogatory meaning to many people, but that is only because they confuse it with the word “cult.” These are different ideas, and should not be confused. Cultus refers to a worship system and order. A cult, in modern usage, has to do with an aberrant religious group that exercises mind control and engages in practices that cannot be justified in scripture.
The Eschaton: Related to the study of eschatology, or last things, the word eschaton, is the noun form, and is used to describe the last days period when God's Scheme of Redemption was to be brought to its perfection.
The End of the Age: Most people today, when they hear this term, think of “the end of time,” or the end of the Christian Age. However, the Bible knows nothing of the end of time, and says specifically that the Christian Age has no end (Ephesians 3:20-21). On the other hand, the Old Covenant Age of Moses and the Law was to pass, and when the Bible predicted the end of the age, it was with the Old Covenant Age in view. When our speakers refer to the end of the age, they are using that term in the Biblical sense.
“The Law”: The speakers will probably refer to “the Law” many times. It is very important to understand that they are using the term in its technical sense as used in the Bible. Whenever the Bible uses the term “the law” without any kind of a qualifier, it is invariably a reference to the Old Covenant of Moses and Israel. The Hebrew term for the Law is “the Torah.” This is a word still used today.
The Scheme of Redemption: This is God's plan to bring man back into a relationship with Him. Man was alienated through sin, and “dead,” i.e., separated from God because of sin. From the very beginning, Jehovah had a plan to reconcile man to Himself.
These are just a few definitions of some of the terms the speakers will use. If there are other terms that you would like for us to add to this glossary, please let us know, and we will be happy to add them. We want to make this glossary as useful as possible.
Don K. Preston
Reading List Online in Recommended Order What Is the Preterist View?
Edward E. Stevens
Can God Tell Time?
Don K. Preston
The Time Element of Prophecy
William Bell
The Second Coming of Christ, the Resurrection, and the Judgment--Their Timing and Nature (A Brief Introduction)
Wayne Petty
Samuel G. Dawson
Passages Related to the Last Times
J. Stuart Russell
Passages Related to the Parousia in Chronological Order
Compiled by Samuel G. Dawson
Matthew 24-25:
Destruction of Jerusalem vs. Final Judgment
Samuel G. Dawson
II Peter 3:
Destruction of Jerusalem or Destruction of the Universe?
Samuel G. Dawson
Samuel G. Dawson
Samuel G. Dawson
No Marrying and Giving in Marriage Question: What is your understanding of "no marrying and giving in marriage"? Folks are still marrying; therefore, the resurrection cannot have occurred.
Answer: This is a good question and one that everyone who enters into a study of this subject seriously has to deal with, including me. The answer is surprisingly simple.
Lk. 20.34-35: And Jesus said unto them, The sons of this world (age--SGD) marry, and are given in marriage: but they that are accounted worthy to attain that world (age, the Christian age--SGD), and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:Taken by itself, it might seem like Jesus is speaking of marriage in general. In context, the discussion is about Levirate marriage. Due to the importance of family lineage under the Law of Moses, a brother had an important responsibility under the Law of Moses to produce children if his brother died childless, to preserve his right to an inheritance of land. Note the context of the type of marriage discussed in Lk. 20.27-33:
And there came to him certain of the Sadducees, they that say that there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, Teacher, Moses wrote unto us, that if a man's brother die, having a wife, and he be childless, his brother should take the wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died childless; and the second: and the third took her; and likewise the seven also left no children, and died. Afterward the woman also died. In the resurrection therefore whose wife of them shall she be? for the seven had her to wife.The Sadducees believed in no resurrection at all, regardless of its nature, or when it was to take place. We deal with the resurrection elsewhere. Here, we just answer the question relative to their question on marriage, which they think is an insuperable difficulty to any concept of the resurrection. In Dt. 25.5-10, we read Moses' teaching concerning Levirate marriage, where it is clearly seen that this is the very type of marriage the Sadducees question Jesus about:
5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no son, the wife of the dead shall not be married without unto a stranger: her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say, My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me.8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him: and if he stand, and say, I like not to take her;9 then shall his brother's wife come unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother's house.10 And his name shall be called in Israel, The house of him that hath his shoe loosed.This marrying and giving in marriage, commanded by Moses, and discussed by the Sadducees, was required to continue the brother's family line. Marriage was mandatory, not optional. However, in the new age (the church age), there is no such requirement to either marry, or give in marriage, to produce children of God.
The issue is that in Jesus' age, the Mosaic Age, sons of God were produced by physical birth, hence the extreme importance of marriage under the Law of Moses; thus, the Levirate vow required a man to go into his brother's widowed wife to produce offspring for his brother, etc. Eunuchs, for example, couldn't have children, so that they missed out completely in producing sons in Jesus' age, the Mosaic Age. However, in the succeeding Christian age, producing sons of God doesn't depend on such marrying and giving in marriage (the only kind of marrying and giving in marriage Jesus spoke of in Luke). Imagine the effect this would have had on the Ethiopian Eunuch. Under the Law of Moses, he couldn't have produced children of God, but now he could.
As a matter of fact, there are prophecies that in the age of the Messiah's rule, marriage would still be an active institution.
What Did Early Christians Believe? Question: Is there any evidence that early Christians thought that the coming of the Lord, the judgment, and the resurrection were to occur in the first century?
Answer: A great deal, actually. First, in light of all the "imminence passages," that is, statements of Christ and the apostles that the coming of the Lord was near, at hand, with the judge standing at the door, etc., no one seriously doubts that there was an abundant expectation that all those things were going to occur in Jesus' generation. Because of this expectation, atheists, skeptics, modernists, and dispensational premillennialists all deride those early expectations, saying even that Jesus was deluded, his apostles were mistaken, God was forced to change his plan because of the rejection of Christ by the Jews, etc. (For extensive documentation of this, please see my online book Faithless Foundation of Premillennialism, How Millions of Evangelicals and Fundamentalists Agree with Atheists, Skeptics, and Modernists that Jesus Was Mistaken on the Last Days at www.gospelthemes.com/ffpbk.htm.)
Thus, the teaching of imminence and the expectation was there before the destruction of Jerusalem. Further, I recommend an excellent book by Sam Frost called Misplaced Hope, in which he makes a substantial case that realized eschatology was the prevalent view in the early church until perhaps 140 A.D. When many Christians failed to see the significance of the destruction of Jerusalem, the passing and judgment of Old Covenant Israel, the destruction of the old heavens and earth (II Peter 3), and the Lord's Coming (in his generation as he foretold in Matthew 24), many of them wondered where they had missed out. Perhaps, they thought, they had misinterpreted, and this continued into the first quarter of the second century. Frost makes his case based on quotations from the so-called "church fathers," i.e., men or descendents of men who had known the apostles themselves.
Decades ago, I concluded that you could prove anything from the church fathers, both sides of any controversial issue (including preterism). Why not, they were just as susceptible to error as human beings are today. So quotes from such men cannot be used to substantiate the truth on any subject.
However, if a position was taken by one of them on some doctrine, it can serve to prove the issue existed at that time, but not whether it was right or wrong. On some point, one of the fathers was one of Jude's grandsons, and it was thought that surely he would take the same position as his old granddad. That has to be right, doesn't it? I agree with everything my granddad believed. What? You say you don't believe that?
Here's what Frost did for me:
1. He proved that as early as the 70s A.D., Barnabas (not necessarily Paul's companion) wrote on realized eschatology, knew of the destruction of Jerusalem, believed that the judgment, resurrection, and new heavens and new earth were to occur at the same time. However, mainly because there was no cosmic conflagration as he (and most of these men) thought from II Peter 3, he figured there had to be a small delay.2. The second witness is the Shepherd of Hermas, who lived from 85 A.D. to 145. Like Barnabas, he knew the basic facts of what was to happen at the destruction of Jerusalem. But since he hadn't seen the destruction of the planet and stars, and he lived somewhat later, he surmised the delay had to be somewhat longer.
3. These men weren't unanimous in their beliefs, by any means; but significantly, these two, along with others, understood the basic facts of preterism. Because of their misunderstanding of II Peter 3, they kept developing the idea of a delay.
4. The predominant idea went with what came to be Roman Catholicism, although many parts of their view of the fleshly resurrection and a final judgment at the end of time pretty much reflect the traditional view we see about us now.
5. However, Frost established beyond doubt that the preterist view was there in many, if not most of its details in the first decade or so after 70 A.D. It just wasn't the prevailing position.
6. Of course, premillennialists are still playing the "delay" game, and now the delay is 2000 years, but it now HAS to be right around the corner.
Conclusion: If Frost is right, and I believe his case is solid, then the "futurist" view of the coming of the Lord, the judgment, and the resurrection is the new doctrine, not the realized eschatology view.
What Was the Age to Come Jesus Spoke Of? In Mt. 12.31-32, Jesus said:
Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.The word translated “world” is aeon, which is literally “age.” Most recognize it immediately as the source of our English word aeon. When Jesus spoke of “this age,” since he lived in the Mosaic Age, “this age” was, without dispute, the Mosaic Age. The age to come would be the Christian age, the age in which we now live. We now briefly notice some uses of this same word in familiar passages.
In Mt. 28.19-20, Jesus spoke to his apostles, saying:
Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. [emphasis mine--SGD]Again, “world” comes from aeon, so Jesus was promising his apostles that he would be with them until the end of the age, the age in which they all lived, the Mosaic Age. As we'll see in another question, the Christian age has no end, so Jesus would not be speaking of it, the age in which we live.
Additionally, since this passage occurred after Jesus' crucifixion, the Mosaic Age did not end at the cross. It finally did when the city of Jerusalem was destroyed in A.D. 70.
In Mk. 10.29-30, Jesus said to his disciples:
Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or mother, or father, or children, or lands, for my sake, and for the gospel's sake, but he shall receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.Jesus contrasted his present age, the Mosaic Age, with the age to come, the Christian age. That this is not some future otherworldly age is shown by the fact that we in the “age to come” have house, brothers, sisters, etc.
In I Cor. 2.6-8, Paul said:
Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are passing away; but we speak God's wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory; the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord ofglory;... In the early 50s A.D., the church was established when this was written. So what age was Paul speaking of when he said “this age”? We have always been taught it was the “Christian age.” The rulers of “this age” are said to have failed to understand the hidden wisdom of God, for if they had understood, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
Who were the rulers who crucified Jesus? Of what age were they rulers? “This age” would still refer to the Mosaic Age, since the Mosaic Law was practiced in Jerusalem and throughout the Roman Empire for 40 years after Christ died. The “rulers of this age,” which were passing away as Paul spoke, were the religious leaders of the Jews, who had put Jesus to death.
The Mosaic Age was being phased out, to be sure, during this period of transition from the Old Covenant to the New. The destruction of Jerusalem completed that transition in A.D. 70, and the cessation of the Law of Moses took place. God gave that generation for the benefit of the Jews, to enable them to hear the gospel throughout the empire before the end came.
In Titus 2.12-13, Paul told Titus:
...instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, ChristLater in life, Paul still spoke of the age of transition from the Mosaic law to the cessation of its practice as “the present age,” which would last until the appearing or coming and glory of Christ. Jesus had said “the end of the ages” (Mt. 24.1-3) would occur in his generation (Mt. 24.34). When Titus was written, that coming in judgment and glory was just about on them all.Jesus;...
What Are the Last Days? There are three views of the last days. 1) Millennialists believe they are the days at the end of the Christian age, or the end of time. 2) Amillennialists believe they extend from Pentecost till the end of time, but concentrate on two time periods: a) briefly at Pentecost and b) the end of time. 3) The Bible teaches they last from the first coming of Christ (perhaps beginning at the coming of John the Baptist) till his second coming at the end of the Mosaic Age in A.D. 70.
The phrase “the end of time” doesn't occur in the entire Bible. It's just not there. The closest we find is in Daniel 12 where God spoke of the “time of the end” (Dan. 12.4), only in the NASV, and then only in this passage. A few minutes contemplation will show the difference in “the time of the end,” and the end of time. “The time of the end" in Daniel 12 refers to the end of the Mosaic Age, nothing like the end of time itself.
Second, the Christian age has no end, and the Bible specifically teaches it doesn't. In Dan. 2.44, Daniel prophesied the coming of the Messiah's kingdom, saying:
And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever [emphasis mine--SGD]Similarly, in Dan. 7.13-14, Daniel said:
I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.In Isa. 9.6-7, Isaiah prophesied the coming of the Messiah, saying:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this.In Lk. 1.33, Jesus quoted this very passage from Isaiah saying:
...and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. Certainly, if the kingdom or reign of Christ has no end, the last days cannot possibly refer to the last days of his age.Thus, just by the process of elimination, the last days refers to the last days of the Mosaic Age. However, we can also see that this is true from positive teaching on the use of the term.
Most of us are familiar with Peter's identification of the last days in Ac. 2.16-17 when, at the coming of the Holy Spirit, scoffers attributed the events to intoxication. Peter denied it by saying:
For these are not drunken, as ye suppose; seeing it is (but) the third hour of the day. But this is that which hath been spoken through the prophet Joel: And it shall be in the last days, saith God, I will pour forth of my Spirit upon all flesh: And your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, And your young men shall see visions, And your old men shall dreamdreams:... Thus, Peter disputed that the disciples were drunk and affirmed that what was happening was what Joel foretold (Joel. 2.28-30) when he prophesied of the last days. It follows that Pentecost was in the last days. Amillennialists generally think the last days began that very day. Premillennialists deny that, but there's no way you can make Peter's “this is that,” be “this is not that.”
However, in I Pet. 1.19-20, the same apostle Peter affirmed that Jesus was manifested “in these last days.” Realizing Jesus didn't live even one day on earth after Pentecost forces us to the conclusion that the last days could not have begun on Pentecost!
My opinion is that the last days began after the four hundred years of silence after the close of Malachi, and the coming of John the Baptist, whose work began six months before Jesus, and who introduced Jesus as the Messiah. Obviously. the last days of the Mosaic Age concluded with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
What Is the End of the Age? The end of the age Jesus and his apostles lived in and spoke of, the Mosaic Age, was the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman General Titus in A.D. 70. When his disciples asked Jesus when the end of the age would be (Mt. 24.3), his answer was “in this generation” (Mt. 24.34).
God's Blessing on the Jews in Gen. 12.3 Genesis 12.3 is often partially quoted to assert that we will be blessed if we (usually unconditionally) bless the modern political state of Israel, and cursed if we do not. For example, dispensational pundit John Hagee, in his introduction to his book In Defense of Israel, asserted:
Speaking of the Jewish people, the Word of God says, “I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse those who curse you.” (Gen. 12.3)Hagee ignored the context where the Jewish people didn't even exist at the time this promise was spoken, and wouldn't for several hundred more years. Likewise, the Jewish people or nation of Israel weren't even named in the passage. Had they been, the modern political state of Israel wasn't envisioned or spoken of, either. Yet Hagee used this as his principal passage in defense of our support for the modern political state of Israel.
Interestingly, this passage says exactly as much about the Arabs as it does about the Jews, for they came out of Abraham just as the Jews did. Is Hagee consistent in his use of the passage to argue that we should bless the Arabs too? Are those who speak badly of, bring in contempt, despise, and revile the Arabs, going to be accursed by God?
The promise Hagee and a multitude of others quote out of context was made to one person, Abram. Note:
And I will bless them that bless thee [sing.--Abram] and curse him that curseth thee [sing.--Abram]: and in thee [sing.--Abram] shall all families of the earth be blessed.The term “bless” in Gen. 12.3 means “to speak well of, praise, congratulate,” while “curse” means to “speak badly of, bring into contempt, despise, revile.” Thus, if Hagee and other dispensationalists are correct in reading the Jews, or Israel, or the modern political state of Israel into the passage, they must likewise read the Arabs into it, for both the Jews and Arabs were in Abram's loins the day he heard this promise.
Realizing this, we must ask, “Are the nearly two-dozen Orthodox Jewish anti-Zionist groups who oppose the Zionist state of Israel anti-Semitic?” Are they accursed according to Gen. 12.3? Hagee most likely would agree that they are. However, are Zionists who hold Arabs in contempt and speak badly of them, accursed of God according to Gen. 12.3?
Furthermore, if this passage is speaking of Jews, who cursed the Jews more than the Old Testament prophets, John the Baptist, and Jesus, especially in Matthew 23-24? Did Jesus speak well of, praise, and congratulate the Jews, or did he speak badly of, bring into contempt, despise, and revile them? Name someone who has reviled the Jews more than Jesus did! Does that mean God will curse Jesus, according to this out-of-context interpretation of God's promise to Abram?
Hagee and other dispensationalists believe in a now-approaching nuclear battle of Armageddon (something the Bible never speaks of--the location is spoken of, but not the battle). They say that two-thirds of the Jews will be killed. Is one really “blessing” Israel by goading the modern political state of Israel into such a conflict?
Last, if the promise of Gen. 12.3 applies to Abraham's descendants, Rom. 4.9 says that it applies not just to the Jews:
Does this blessedness then come upon the circumcised only, or upon the uncircumcised also?Paul implied that Gentiles were also included in the promise, as it was finally extended to all Abraham's descendants, though not in Gen. 12.3.
Does Realized Eschatology Destroy the Hope of Christians? Question: I've heard that covenant eschatology must be opposed because it destroys the "one hope" that Paul speaks of in Eph. 4.4. Is that right?
Answer: Not at all. The apostle Paul, who taught that there is one hope, told Governor Felix, in his defense in Ac. 24.14-15, that the hope he preached was the hope of Israel and based squarely on the teaching of Moses and the prophets. Likewise, in Ac. 26.6-8, Paul told King Agrippa:
And now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers; unto which promise our twelve tribes, earnestly serving God night and day, hope to attain. And concerning this hope I am accused by the Jews, O King! Why is it judged incredible with you, if God doth raise the dead?"Then, in vv21-23, Paul described his hope every more clearly:
Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand unto this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come; how that the Christ must suffer, and how that he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to the people and to the Gentiles.Now, when Paul preached the one hope of Israel's resurrection, do you suppose he was teaching the one hope of which he spoke in Ephesians, or another hope? Was he consistent with himself, or perhaps it is we who aren't consistent with Paul's concept of the one hope? If our hope is different from Paul's, shouldn't it be destroyed?
Since Paul's hope, the hope of Israel, the resurrection of Israel was realized at the Destruction of Jerusalem, that is not the hope of Christians after that event. Instead, the hope of the Christian became that stated in Rev. 14.13:
And I heard the voice from heaven saying, Write, Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labors; for their works follow with them.Here is my hope, that when I die, my reward will be blessedness or happiness, and rest, in the presence of Christ! My hope is in my death, not on the coming of Christ, which he fulfilled in his generation as he prophesied in Mt. 24.30, 34.
New Covenant Eschatology Question: You speak a great deal of Old Covenant eschatology. Why don't you talk more about New Testament eschatology?
Answer: Because there is no New Testament eschatology, at least that is different from Old Covenant eschatology. Jesus' eschatology was from the Old Testament, as was that of Paul, John, and Peter. If ours isn't, then we have to decide whose is the right eschatology: Ours, or that of Jesus, Peter, Paul, and John. This should be an easy choice.
What Is a Hyper-Preterist? Partial preterists are those who believe that some of the passages dealing with last things have been fulfilled. For many years, I believed that Matthew 24 and II Peter 3 were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, and folks interested in eschatology generally regarded me as a partial preterist.
When I began publishing my material on hell, Kenneth Gentry, author of several books on eschatology, and evidently the author of the term, pronounced me a hyper-preterist, the first time I had seen the term. Still later, when I understood I Corinthians 15 to speak of the resurrection of Israel, then I became a full preterist. Practically speaking, the term hyper-preterist is a purely prejudicial term with the practical meaning of “one who believes more prophecies have been fulfilled than I do.”
What Will Happen at the End of Time? The Bible nowhere speaks of the end of time, so there is no Biblical answer to this question. It's like, “What will happen when the last Volkswagen rolls off the assembly line?” The Bible simply doesn't address the subject. If there was ever a time to “be silent when the Bible is silent,” this appears to be it.
The phrase “the end of time” doesn't occur even once in the entire Bible. It's just not there. The closest we find is in Daniel 12 where God spoke of the “time of the end,” (Dan. 12.4), only in the NASV, and then only in this passage. A little contemplation shows the difference in “the time of the end” and the end of time. The time of the end in Daniel 12 referred to the end of the Mosaic Age, nothing like the end of time itself.
In addition, the Christian age has no end, and the Bible specifically teaches it doesn't. In Dan. 2.44, Daniel prophesied the coming of the Messiah's kingdom, saying:
And in the days of those kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed, nor shall the sovereignty thereof be left to another people; but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever [emphasis mine--SGD]Similarly, in Dan. 7.13-14, Daniel said:
I saw in the night-visions, and, behold, there came with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man, and he came even to the ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, and languages should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed. [emphasis mine--SGD]In Isa. 9.6-7, Isaiah prophesied the coming of the Messiah, saying:
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of Jehovah of hosts will perform this. [emphasis mine--SGD]In Lk. 1.33, Jesus quoted this very passage from Isaiah saying:
...and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. [emphasis mine--SGD]
Passages Relating to the Apostasy of the Last Times J. Stuart Russell, in his book The Parousia, A Study of the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord's Second Coming brings together an outline of verses to show that Jesus, Paul, Peter, Jude, and John all foretold an apostasy regarding the last times.
From a consideration and comparison of these passages, he said it will appear:
- That they all refer to the same great defection from the faith, designed by St. Paul “the apostasy.”
- That this apostasy was to be very general and widespread.
- That it was to be marked by an extreme depravity of morals, particularly by sins of the flesh.
- That it was to be accompanied by pretensions to miraculous power.
- That it was largely, if not chiefly, Jewish in its character.
- That it rejected the incarnation and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, i.e., was the predicted Antichrist.
- That it was to reach its full development in the “last times,” and was to be the precursor of the Parousia.
Click here to study these scriptures for yourself.
Comprehensive Indexes on Realized Eschatology In 1968 Sam Dawson noticed in his study of Matthew 24-25 that most authors jumped around all over the place and switched back and forth between viewing the chapters as teaching about the destruction of Jerusalem and a final destruction of the planet. He realized that wasn't consistent with the way that language was used in the Old Testament. He began to see that our generalized ignorance of the Old Testament obstructed our correct understanding of the passages.
This began a nearly 40-year focus on New Testament doctrines rooted in the Old Testament. Next came his studies on II Peter 3, Jesus' teaching on hell, and the uniform teaching of Moses, Jesus and Paul on marriage, divorce and remarriage. Now he is studying seriously realized eschatology.
To aid his own study and recognize consistencies, Sam took advantage of his background of indexing technical works at Microsoft and began creating scripture and topic indexes of Don K. Preston's five larger books on covenant eschatology. The response to the indexes was so enthusiastic that Sam has expanded it to include works by other authors. He tries to add new material to it twice a year.
Click here to read a list of the books that are indexed and to get your own online copy of the comprehensive indexes.
Online Debates
- This is a written debate on Covenant Eschatology between Don K. Preston and Buster Dobbs, both ministers in churches of Christ that took place from Spring 2006 to Spring 2007. Preston's proposition is: The Second (ultimate) Coming of Christ (afterward parousia, DKP), occurred at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Click here to read the debate.
The Faithless Foundation of Dispensational Premillennialism This short book exposes the fallacies of premillennialism, a system of doctrine which presumes that God and Christ made many serious mistakes in trying to bring about the Messianic kingdom. As a result, many prophetic pundits such as Hal Lindsay, Jerry Falwell, and Tim LaHaye charge that God now needs man's intervention to accomplish his will. In practice, these men assert that they know better than God did.
The arrogance of premillennialism and its endless speculations and updates of failed prophecies of the return of Christ continue to produce skepticism and unbelief in Christ. Multitudes, who don't recognize the foundation of assumed superiority over God, help spread its ignorance.
Religious fundamentalists, who profess belief in God and Christ, often fail to recognize the faithlessness of premillennialism. It's so widespread that it crosses denominational lines and affects many people's basic beliefs.
Countless books, publications, and movies teach the doctrine. Entire radio and television broadcasts preach it daily. The Left Behind series of books and movies by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins is setting such sales and audience records that many people read these fiction books as if they were proven doctrine. These authors now target children to distribute their false assertions even more.
The sheer popularity of the doctrine demands a closer look to see whether premillennialism is in accord with the Bible, or if it slanders God's character.
Most people who believe premillennialism are honest and profess greater respect and faith in God than the leaders of this movement do. Thus, I've written this small book to examine the facts with truth-seeking premillennialists so that together we might rejoice in a God of heaven who is powerful enough to keep his word and his promises made through the Old Testament prophets.
Click here to read this online book about the foundation of premillennialism.
The Teaching of Hymenaus and Philetus Question: How is your teaching any different from that of Hymenaeus and Philetus, who taught that the resurrection is past already?
II Tim. 2.17-18: ...and their word will eat as doth a gangrene: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some.Answer: It's a good question, as many people assume that Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching about the resurrection of physical bodies out of holes in the ground.
But think about it: Do we know anyone today stupid enough to believe that the physical resurrection of physical bodies has occurred already? Do we know anyone stupid enough to teach such? How hard would it be for us to refute such an absurd contention? It would have been so simple for Paul to have refuted it. He could have taken those fellows to a tomb and shown them the bones of the dead! If they couldn't have understood such a demonstration, they wouldn't even have had to be baptized, would they? They could have gotten in on the "kiddie ticket." End of debate! Don't you think Paul would have thought of that? Why did not Paul suggest that? Is not the answer inescapable that Paul was not teaching and expecting that kind of resurrection?
It's evident that Hymenaeus and Philetus believed in the resurrection as the hope of Israel as the gospel which Paul preached, but they were mistaken on the time element of it. Daniel prophesied of the coming resurrection of Israel (Dan. 12.2-3--which Jesus quoted as about to be fulfilled in Mt.13.43.) "when the power of the holy people" would be "completely shattered" (Dan. 12.7) at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (Dan. 9.26, 27--which Jesus quoted in Matthew 24 indicating it would "be fulfilled in his generation").
For a background study of this resurrection, see The Resurrection of Israel in I Corinthians 15 www.gospelthemes.com/res.htm.
When Paul wrote Timothy of Hymenaeus and Philetus, the temple and the city of Jerusalem had not been destroyed; thus, their timing was off. As a result, they were "overthrowing the faith" of others.
On the other hand, suppose Daniel and Paul were right in teaching that the resurrection of Israel would occur when the temple and the city of Jerusalem were to be destroyed, and when the power of the holy people was completely shattered in A.D. 70. Then when we come along and teach that the resurrection HAS NOT occurred yet, how could our teaching be any more mistaken than that of Hymenaeus and Philetus?
Links for More Study Resources for books, CDs, and online articles:
- Ed Steven's International Preterist Association: (www.preterist.org) Where to order Russell's book, The Parousia
Don Preston's Preterist Research Institute: (www.eschatology.org)
- William Bell's All Things Fulfilled: (www.allthingsfulfilled.com)
Permission to Make Copies You are free to download the Last Things & Covenant Eschatology FAQ by Samuel G. Dawson for personal or class use, to make copies to share with others, or to mirror the FAQ on your local web site, with the following restrictions:
- All contents of the Last Things & Covenant Eschatology FAQ are copyright © 2007-2008 by Samuel G. Dawson and Patsy Rae Dawson, all rights reserved.
- The Last Things & Covenant Eschatology FAQ must remain intact and unmodified from the form supplied here, including header and footer and their graphics, copyright notice, the URL and postal addresses, and information about the resource materials.
- You may not charge to access the Last Things & Covenant Eschatology FAQ. If you have any questions about using this material, please contact the publisher at gtp@gospelthemes.com.
Independent Bible students will find that the following books will challenge them to rethink issues they've taken for granted:
Sam's New Book Is Here!
Read about How to Study the Bible: A Practical Guide to Independent Bible Study and see how it will open up the scriptures to you, highlight God's consistency and love for mankind, and help you learn independently of preachers and clergy.
Add How to Study the Bible for $18.95
to Shopping CartSpecial on Sam Dawson's latest 2 books
Get both for $32.90
(a $37.90 value--13% discount--save $5.00)
Add 2-Book Special for $32.90 to Shopping Cart Special on 3 of Sam Dawson's books!
Get all 3 for $41.50
(a $47.85 value--13% discount--save $6.35)
Add 3-Book Special for $41.50 to Shopping Cart
Special on all 6 of Sam Dawson's books for $89.35
($102.70 value--13% discount--save $13.35)
Add 6-Book Special for $89.35 to Shopping Cart
 |
gospelthemes.com |
