Tag Archives: Bible

Preterism by any other name would be “Olivetian”….ism

Preterism by any other name would still be Olivetian

To what extent is every Christian Olivetian? To the extent that one attributes fulfillment of one kind or another to the Olivet Discourse. The so-called Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25 is often misunderstood by many Christians today. On the one hand, this is due to the heavy influence of dispensational theology; on the other hand, it is due to a lack of familiarity with the Bible. Dispen-sational theolgy has so infiltrated the evangelical church that many who would eschew much of the fallacious teachings are still affected by the residual fallout. For instance, ask yourself this: is there any chance of an imminent return by Jesus? Or this: does the Bible teach that Jesus could come back at any time to end the world as we know it? Many Christians believe so, but this is not biblical. The Bible teaches no such thing and yet many who would deny the main tennents of dispensationalism hold on to this one. Regardless of whether or not one is dispensational or reformed in one’s eschatology, there are certain occurrances in the first century which are fulfillments of Jesus’ words in this famous address and so to that extent, many do acknowledge first century fulfillments and are thus, Olivetian.

So, every Christian is somewhat Olivetian because there is something within the speech of Jesus in Matthew’s record that a person will see fulfilled within the first century. It might not be fulfillment in toto, but there is fulfillment to some degree. The basest fulfillment is the destruction of the temple and nearly everyone will concede to that: Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple and within the timeline he demarcated, it happened. What many do not realise is that the entirety of Jesus’ words in the discourse were also fulfilled within that same time frame and is given escathological meaning in the destruction of the temple. Everything Jesus promised in Matthew 24-25 has come to pass. If one does not acknowledge that, it is due to the two causes mentioned above. This essay will seek to establish that every thing after the Olivet Discourse is about the Olivet Discourse (OD).

The New Testament is not an isolated record of events that do not follow what has been anticipated by the Old. Now, that might seem a bit elementary to say, but there are many issues addressed in the New that must take the Olivet Discourse into account. And so, everything after the OD is about the OD. For instance, the four Gospels are followed by the Acts of the Apostles but how many who teach it see it as an expression and application of the Olivet Discourse?

Too many treat the NT as a new paradigm without any ties outside of the redemptive work of Christ. True, the NT does explain the death of Christ in terms of fulfilling the OT expectation, but then no one seems to give any heed to the parameters set by Jesus in the OD. Some generically do attribute and acknowledge that there are passages that must be taken as having first century relevance; consider, for instance, the book of Hebrews. Not only does this epistle elaborate on the finished work of Christ in surpassing the levitical system, but the ramifactions of this supercession find their meaning in the OD. This sheds light on the warnings in Hebrews against unbelief and reverting back to the Egypt that is the Old Covenant system. The OD has been uttered and therefore everything after it is coloured by its tenents. Everything.

The fundamental principle laid out in the OD is that of Jesus’ return to end the age and judge the temple. His presence as the King who rules the world is anticipated in every NT epistle and when those expectations are expressed, it is in terms of imminency. The book of Hebrews is a crucial epistle for the supremancy of Christ over all things “passing away” (Heb 8:13) and there are many ill treated passages wherein an exclusive first century intrepretation is traded for a generic trans-historical one.

So that, when we read, therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it. For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, while God also bore witness by signs and wonders and various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit distributed according to his will. For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come, of which we are speaking…

We are not hearing Paul give generic warnings against not listening to the gospel. It matters that the author uses the first person plural. One must ask, what does Paul mean when he says, how shall we escape if we neglect such a great deliverance? He is talking about the Olivet Discourse and the judgment coming upon the old world in the destruction of it in the Temple.Or take the last statement above. What is the world to come that is mentioned? It might help to know that the Greek is specific here, too. The language is more immediate than the ESV intimates. It is more akin to this: For it was not to angels that God subjected the oikumene about to come, of which we are speaking. Notice the “about to” nature of the statement. This happens in the NT epistles more than is translated.

Lastly, consider this well-known and quoted verse: And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. Again, this is not some generic proof text for having to go to church. The day drawing near is not the “final return of Christ” at any moment that many take this to be. The judgment day coming is the one Jesus presented in Matthew 24 and 25.

In the Acts of the Apostles there are many occurrences within its narrative that relate to the OD and yet many who preach through it do not emphasize its genetic dependence upon the Gospels in one crucial aspect. Luke does narrate what many denote as the “beginnings of the early church,” but they then go no further as if general principles of growing pains are all that are to be gleaned from story. Again, generalities are to be garnered appropriately, but if the radical influence of the OD is misunderstood and misapplied, the rest of the NT will be read with grievous consequences.

TO BE CONTINUED

Advertisements

PaedoFaith

Every child born to baptized members of a Christian church is bound to be baptized by order of covenant structures. There is so much theology behind why Christians do what they do that very often the ins-and-outs are not always thought through. That is, Christians very often do things for the right reasons without exactly knowing why. Conversely, many Christian parents fail to do certain things for the same reason: they know not what they “do not” do. Christians who do not baptize their children are in disobedience to their covenant King. But this negligence is no more a gross rebellion than Christian churches that exclude children from communion requiring first that they have a conversion experience.

Conversion for non-covenant members is not the same as that of covenant children; nor is it necessary to require the same of covenant children. In fact, it is antithetical to the nature of the covenant. Christian children of the covenant are only made to be such by baptism. It is not so that natural birth makes a child of the covenant; baptism and baptism alone does this. This has important implications for gross misunderstandings about the sign. First and foremost, what happens to a child born to Christian parents who dies in infancy or before faith can be lived? The Bible doesn’t answer this question, but everyone (including the Baptist) expects God to be merciful and save the child. But this has nothing to do with the sign in and of itself. One might think of Paul’s argument in Romans 4 about Abraham’s being the father of Jew and Gentile faith: one has the sign and the other doesn’t but both are saved. The sign of baptism (precisely like the sign of circumcision) is for entrance into the covenant as an ordained priest for Kingdom service.

Baptism is not salvific in the sense that 95% of Christianity intimates. Baptism is initiation into the covenant and that is all it is (now, to be sure, there are benefits to being a member). Baptism means what it means and its meaning is the same for the infant as it is for the adult. Whatever baptism means for a newly converted unbeliever, it means exactly the same for the baby of Christian parents. Baptism, then, is a new creation ordinance for Paul tells us that anyone who is in Christ is a new creation and baptism is entrance into that new world order. Faith is the only thing that saves, but baptism is the only way into covenant. Salvation is covenantal in nature and only intends to communicate salvation when the subject of baptism lives in accordance with and by faith. This does not exclude infants who cannot exhibit faith as an adult can for baptism is never essentially a man’s expression of faith in God; but rather and ultimately, it is the very act and word of God toward the subject receiving the sacrament. There are differences in the subjects, yes, but there is absolutely no difference in the message to either subject.

The message of the Gospel communicated in full to the subject is the very word of God depicted in the act of baptism and this message is two-fold; on the one hand, it is benediction while on the other hand it is malediction. Baptism holds out for the subject both the hope of resurrection and the threat of no resurrection. The determining factor for the outcome is faith. Will the subject live by faith or not? The call to Christian parents is to raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord. And yet, this discipleship is done with duplicity regardless of whether or not it is intentional. To be sure, it is not intentional. Nonetheless, it is done in duplicity when children are raised to believe and live by faith and yet are required to have a conversion experience like a pagan. Again, we have said it above in one way but we will say it in a new and startling way here: the conversion of a child happens when he is baptized.

New birth and its various synonyms are clearly declared by Jesus to depend upon two things from God: water and the Spirit. Baptism is not man’s word to God but God’s word to man.

Again, “On baptism 2”

Jesus’ great commission to his disciples for world wide conquest of the good news is ground breaking and establishes the means for such a conquest. First, it is ground breaking in that the sign of the covenant is applied to all the nations, not just Israel. Therefore, all are ordained to priestly service (or are “disciple-ized”) in the kingdom of God for the life of the world. Second, it establishes how this ordination takes place which is primarily baptism and teaching all that Jesus commanded naturally follows baptism; however, it is not the teaching wherein a disciple is made but the baptism. Without baptism there is no disciple. Baptism makes disciples and contextualizes the teaching.

Baptists want to contextualize this teaching immendiately following one’s being made a disciple and argues that this precludes paedobaptism precisely because infants cannot immediately learn or have “visible” faith. But this is too constricted an idea of discipleship. Paedobaptism presupposes faith and treats the baptized infant as a latent disciple who will receive proper tutelage in its time. In fact, practically speaking, the only thing that separates the Baptist from the Presbyterian is the absence of the sign. Both will discipline or evangelize the child of professing believers to believe in Christ. Both will teach and train in the disciplines of prayer, confession, repentance, and corporate worship. That is the irony: Baptists are truly closet-presbyterians.

I disagree with the Baptist estimation of the supremacy of the New Covenant. I affirm the exact opposite in that it is in every way of the same quality and it is precisely different quantitatively. The superiority of the New Covenant to the old can be likened to that of a cheque and gold. In the Old Covenant were written many checks and in the New those checks are cashed. Everything a believer had in the old covenant a believer has in the new but better because the check has been cashed so-to-speak.

The contrast between the Old and the New is not in not-having and having. That is, it is not that in the Old they did not have but in the New they do have. This is a possible interpretation of the Jeremian quote in Hebrews but it is not the only one. Here are the possible erroneous interpretations of what is better about the New Covenant:

  1. cannot be broken
  2. spiritual realities
    1. law into minds
    2. written on hearts
    3. God will be their God
    4. They will be his people
  3. Everyone will know the Lord
  4. God will be merciful to their iniquities
  5. God will not remember their sins

It is my contention that these are not new realities which did not exist in the Old Covenant. Here are a few of only numerous available proof texts:

a. Leviticus 4. 20 So the priest shall make a covering for them, and they will be forgiven.

b. Psalm 40.8: 8 I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart.

c. Deut. 4. 35, 39: “To you it was shown that you might know that the LORD, He is God; there is no other besides Him. 39 “Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that the LORD, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.

d. Psalm 85.2 You forgave the iniquity of Your people; You covered all their sin.

Again, quotes like these can be multiplied so the issue really is not whether these realities were experienced by OT believers but the issue is that which upon the realities were based. This then leads into my greatest disagreement with the interpretation that says the new covenant cannot be broken. But first, the author of Hebrews is not distinguishing between one covenant and another in this statement, they did not continue in my covenant but rather he is simply recounting what happened in the past. And what happened? They did not continue in God’s covenant. This is not a point of contrast between the two eras however as it is within the nature of “covenant” that it can be violated. This begs the question as to what is meant by broken.

Breaking the covenant from a human standpoint means that the covenant has been violated and that the curses of the covenant are enacted. Within the nature of the covenant lies the possibility of apostasy which is the greatest form of disobedience. Conversely, not every sin is a breaking of the covenant. In truth the greatest form of disobedience leading to apostasy is what the Bible calls disbelief. Ironically, Jamin’s desire to use the New Covenant’s nature as a proof text for its surety is found within the same book where the author has spent numerous chapters warning against this precise sin. Jamin very often says, The author assumes thus and such. The author of Hebrews assumes that the nature of the covenant has not changed and says to Christians in the New Covenant, “Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God.” That’s a direct quote. Contrary to New Covenant theology, even Christians can break the covenant and so, the covenant is made up of both elect and non-elect in the New Covenant.

If this is true; if it is true that the covenant is made up of believers who will persevere and those who might not, then it is my contention that infants not only are able to be covenant members but are made so, not by natural birth, but by the washing of regeneration which is being born from above by the Spirit and water, not by the will of man, but born of God. The reason this is so, is because baptism does not guarantee salvation but places the believer within the sphere of the covenant where she is called to persevere by faith.

What are words for?

What are words for?

Beginning Greek

Berea fancied himself a budding Bible student. He enjoyed listening to the technicalities of a deep expository sermon. He shared his hopes with his grandfather who, being an avid puzzle builder and Sudoku solver, asked him what he would need to begin this venture.

“Well, I would need a Greek New Testament and grammar book, a notebook and some flash cards for vocabulary words.”

“When you find what you need, just let me know and I will take care of the purchases.”

Berea recalled that he had come across a Greek New Testament in a used book store in town one day whilst perusing for Calvin and Hobbes tomes. Having returned to ensure it remained unsold, he told his grandfather who made good on his word and procured the United Bible Societies text with dictionary. Berea liked this one much more than the one he saw his pastor use whose book only had a paper binding. This one was had a plastic cover which gave him more a sense of nostalgia.

So, where to begin? He first memorized the Greek alphabet and to his amazement he learned that the English word alphabet was a contraction of the first two Greek letters alpha and beta. Word origins tickled his fancy, too. He was always curios about from where idioms and colloquialisms originated. As sometimes was the case when studying other subjects, Berea made himself a mnemonic diddy he thought quite clever:

Alpha, beta, gamma, delta; say that again and I’m gonna belt ya!

Epsilon, zeta, eta, theta; wouldn’t wanna meet Darth Veta!

Iota, kappa, lamda, mu; now you can sing along too!

Nu, xi, omicron, pi; you’re the apple of my eye!

Rho, sigma, tau, upsilon; I don’t know what rhymes with upsilon!

Phi, xi, psi, omega; learn this song and you’ll never be a begga!

Berea often visited one of his church’s members in the local nursing home about his endeavors. On his most recent visit Granny Smith told him of her interest in angels since she was a child and he told her he would make that his first word-study. It seemed to fall nicely in line with his etymological leanings as well. He soon discovered a new word for himself: transliteration. Angel it turns out is not an English word for the Greek aggelos, but simply an adapted phonetic spelling of the Greek into English. The double “gg” in Greek contract to form the sound “ng” rendering ἄγγελος (ahn-ge-loss) into “angel” (eighn-jel). Berea knew his Granny Smith would find this very interesting. (Which she did.)

You say angels, I say messengers

What Berea also found interesting was the conflict of interest he felt was at stake. Transliterating a word from Greek to English only seemed to add one more step to the process of exegesis.

“God bless you.”

“Huh? No, Granny, exegesis is the discipline of establishing what the Bible means by what it says.”

“I don’t understand.”

“Well, what the Bible says and what the Bible means by what it says are not the same thing.”

“Can you give me an example?”

“Sure. While I was studying the word ἄγγελος I looked up a number of verses that contained the word. Remember I told you that the word’s precise meaning is messenger? Well, that is the translation from Greek to English of the word; so, the English word for ἄγγελος is messenger. So, every time the Greek word ἄγγελος is translated, it ought to read messenger. For instance, Mark 1 quotes from the prophet Malachi where the expectation of a new messenger from God originates. When the Greek translates the Hebrew word messenger it uses ἄγγελος.

“That seems pretty straight-forward.”

“Sometimes, yes. But remember I also told you that in places where ἄγγελος is translated angel it is because the messenger is believed to be an actual “angel.” So, we’ve now moved from simple translation to interpretation.

“I don’t get it.”

“Ok. Think about Mary and Joseph’s finding out about Mary’s pregnancy. Who came to them and announced what God was doing?”
“Gabriel the angel.”

“Yes and no. Strictly speaking it was Gabriel the messenger. Instead of translating the Greek and allowing the reader to determine what kind of messenger Gabriel was, the translators interpreted for us what they think the Bible meant by ἄγγελος. Interpreting the Bible means the reader is supposed to determine what the Bible means by messenger, whether it is human or heavenly. In this passage the issue is not very dire. But the effect is that whenever one reads angel he doesn’t readily think of a human messenger, but a spirit being with wings and a halo.”

“So, is there a place where this translation has more weight to it?”
“Yes. There is a section of scripture where I think it is a mistake to translate ἄγγελος

as angel rather than messenger. In the first chapter of Revelation, we read

In his right hand he held seven stars….He placed his right hand on me and said, …the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches…

So, what do you think angels means here?”

“Well, like you said. When I hear the word angel I think of a spirit being.”

“Yes, and unfortunately, I think this is not the meaning of the passage. That’s where I get my turn-of-phrase all translation is interpretation. Instead of translating the word for us and allowing us to determine its meaning, the translators overstep their bounds and with their transliteration interpret for us what they think the word refers to. So, we end up talking about what it means for a church to have its own angel. We end up wondering, further, whether or not this is what it means for present-day churches as well.”

“So what you are saying is that in English from the Greek, the sentence ought to read the seven stars are the messengers of the seven churches? And that from there the reader is supposed to determine who the messengers are?”

“Right. So if our translations read messengers, of whom might you think?”

“Well, if there is a messenger of a church, I guess I would think it would be the one who speaks to the church.”

“Ok. So, you can see that the word can refer either to a human messenger or an “angelic” one and the context ought to lead the reader in the right direction. In this case, what I would like to see it this. ἄγγελος means messenger; that’s not it’s nuance or connotation, that is what it means. I’d like to see a translation where we read much of what the Bible itself says, with the reader being influenced by the context alone and regarding this word; messenger should be the translation in every place.

“And so we are back where we started when you said there is a difference between what the Bible says and what it means by what it says. You are saying that the way translations go, I have been programmed to interpret a passage not by the scriptures alone, but with a little help from my friends.

“Right. I am of the mind that much of what we believe the Bible to mean has been influenced by the translations we use. Now, that’s not to say that our translations are wrong; taking one language into another is a challenge and so there has to be a bit of nuance when choosing this way of speaking over that. I just happen to think that the reader is robbed of spiritual, mental, and biblical exercise when he is told what a passage means by the translation. And sometimes, I think the choice of translating a word or phrase a certain way can be entirely wrong.”

“Like “the angels of the churches?”

“Yes. I think it was a poor choice to transliterate the Greek there. But hold on, I just had an epiphone.”

“Gesundheit!”

“Thanks. No, really. I just thought of another word that I have come across that has given me pause to think. Am I boring you with this? We can stop if you’d like.”

“No. I don’t mind. In fact, I am interested in your next revelation.”

What in the world?

“Funny you should say that. I am fully convinced that translation is important; so much so, that I would say the authors of scripture chose their words intentionally and with great care. What I think this entails is the reality that if an author of scripture could say something one way and he chooses to say it another, then there is a reason for that choice and we need to understand it. So, my next word study involved the word world.

“Oh, I remember Pastor Meyers talking about that word once. He said the Greek word for world is where we get our word for cosmetics. I always found that interesting.”

“I guess the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, huh? And do you remember what the Greek word was?”

“I believe he said it was kos…something or other. He also said its where we get our word cosmic.

“That’s right. The Greek word is κόσμος and it basically means “harmonious arrangement” but its nuance can refer to the inhabitants of the world. So, what do you think of when you hear or come across that word in the Bible? Like John 3:16, “For God so loved the world…”

“Oh, that’s one of my favorites. Reminds me that God’s salvation is bigger than just me; that God loves everyone.”

“Well, we can discuss that one later, but notice how you are interpreting the word world. How did you interpret it? Did you interpret it literally? As in God loves the physical orb upon which we live? Because if we do that, then all it means is that God loves the ground, water, and molten magma at the earth’s core.”

“Oh! So you want me to see that the Bible says world, but what does that mean?”

“Exactly. So does world mean this physical orb or does it mean the “people” on it? And does that meaning carry over into every other time it is used?”

“Can you think of another place where the Bible uses the word world but does not mean any of the above?”

“I can. Does this sound familiar to you? Do not love the world nor the things of the world?

“Yes, that’s in I John.”

“Right. So let’s put our thinking caps on and ask What do most people think this passage means by world?”

“Well, if I am most people, I have always been taught that it means just, the world, the things of the world that are against God’s ways. Like it says in the next verse, for all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the father, but is from the world which is passing away…”

“Well, look who knows so much!”

“So are you going to tell me that world does not mean world there?”

“Yes. I could be wrong but I believe that to be consistent with the whole New Testament’s message, world in that context (and even in John 1) means the apostate nation of Israel.”

“What do you mean by John 1?”

“In John 1 we read this:

In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God; he was in the beginning with God and nothing came into being that has been… He was in the world and though the world was made through him it did not know him. He came to his own and his own did not receive him.

So, to make a long story short: there is a parallel idea here between world and “his own” so that they are the same reference. You might switch them up if you like: he was among his own and though he made his own they did not know him. He came to the world and the world did not receive him.

“Wow. That totally changes the meaning of the word! Which rocks my world! Ha! Get it?”

“Please don’t do that again, Granny. It’s weird. But yeah. So, here’s a bit more of my point. I believe the whole New Testament is about the end of the Old Covenant with Israel and the beginning of the New Covenant with the church (which is actually another word study I looked into). So, going back to I John, if the world is the apostate world of Judaism, that is the conflict about which John is writing. Most if not all the NT authors are arguing against Judaism and turning to Christianity and that is what John is talking about.”

But that’s only ½ of what I wanted to show you.”

“Oh? What’s the other half?”

“The word world that we looked at is what cosmos means and so I have no quibbles with that translation. But there is another Greek word that is translated world in certain places that ends up making interpretation confusing.”

“You said, ‘In certain places.’ “

“Yes. The word I am talking about is οἰκουμένη and it means “inhabited land.” When Jesus was born, in order to tax his empire, Caesar Augustus took a census of the οἰκουμένη and in my Bible it doesn’t say “world” it says inhabited earth. But in many other places it is translated world. I find this irresponsible and inexplicably unconscionable on the part of the translators because they are imposing their interpretation of the word and not simply translating it. I mean, why do that in Luke 4 but not in Matthew 24? I believe they do not do so because of their commitment to a theological system that has predisposed them to reading the Bible a certain way.”

“And you think I have been taught to read the Bible with the same view point because of how my pastor has taught me?”

“Well, in a way, yes I do.”

“Hmmmm. I am inclined to be persuaded by your argument and I’d like to hear more.”

All translation is interpretation

“Before we do that Granny Smith, let me restate a bit of my point. What I would like to see is this. Translations need to do less interpretation of texts and more straight translation. They need to expose the reader to what the words are, not what they are for. That is our job. They should give us a sentence (the what) without giving us the why (the meaning). Nuance and connotation are a part of interpretation rather than strictly translation. So, I say, give me the word and let me interpret its meaning.”

“So, what is our next stop, Captain Kirk of the Scripture Trekkies?”

“Hmmmmmm. Well, there is a word that I have come across that is not consistently translated in my opinion and the significance of this word is very great. Let me start by saying that in every concordance and lexicon I have consulted—even the dictionary in my Greek NT—the very first definition of the word is the same, but in every translation of the word, the nuance has been given to the reader and in many places it is not consistent. What this means is this. If I were a budding Bible student studying the Greek, I would be led by all the major study helps to conclude that the first meaning of the word is what the word itself means.

“The word in Greek is μέλλω and it is a verb. As far as I can tell its primary meaning is to be about to do something or by implication to intend to do something. So, if I am to stick by my guns and say that the responsibility of the translator is to give the meaning of the word and not its nuanced interpretation, then every time this word occurs…”

“It has to be about to.

“Right.”

“Ok, so? What’s the problem?”

“If I am right, everything we thought we knew about the New Testament is about to change. But let me ask you to assist me here. Let me show you demonstrably what I have found and you tell me what you think. To begin with, let’s say that I only have my UBS text and the Editrice Pontinfico Inistituto Biblico…

“Gesundheit!”

“Oh, you’re funny. So here we go! First is the UBS dictionary:

  1. Pg. 113 of the dictionary under the word μέλλω (following an infinitive)is

      1. Be going to

      2. Be about to

      3. Intend to

      4. Must

      5. Be destined

  2. Second, from the EPIB under List of words occurring more than 60 times in the NewTestament, pg xxxii, μέλλω with an infinitive

      1. Be about to

      2. Be destined to

      3. Intend to remain

      4. stay

Now, since I do not have access to anything else, I do some work on the web and find these lexical helps. First is

  1. Thayer

      1. Be about

      2. On the point of suffering

      3. To intend or have in mind

  2. Strong

to intend to, that is, be about to be, do, or suffer something (of persons or things, especially events; in the sense of purpose, duty, necessity, probability, possibility, or hesitation): – about, after that, be (almost), (that which is, things, + which was for) to come, intend, was to (be), mean, mind, be at the point, (be) ready, + return, shall (begin), (which, that) should (after, afterward, hereafter) tarry, which was for, will, would, be yet.

  1. Louw-Nida

(http://www.laparola.net/greco/parola.php?p=%CE%BC%E1%BD%B3%CE%BB%CE%BB%CF%89)

be about to

Free your mind

“So, what do you think?”

“Well, based on what you’ve said heretofore, I’d say you would want to hear this. A word has one primary meaning and it is that meaning which the translation ought to convey. Once we know what the word means however, we need to interpret it within the context of the passage. So, for instance: what does world in John 3:16 mean? What does inhabited earth in Luke 4:5 mean? Right?”

“So far, so good. What I would add is this. A word’s meaning is not necessarily also its nuance or denotation, or to say it another way, interpreting the intended nuance of the author’s intention is not necessarily synonymous with the word’s meaning.

“Ok. So, what’s so special about this word? You said everything would change. I am dying to know what would change.”

“Ok. Let me begin by asking you what you believe the Bible teaches about when Jesus will return.”

“Well, I’ve always been taught that Jesus could come back at any time and that when he does, all of the prophecies about the last judgement and the tribulation and the end of the world will be fulfilled. Does that sound right?”

“It doesn’t have to sound right; I just want to know what you believe about it all.”
“Well, I guess that’s what I believe.”

“Are you ready for this? I used to believe what you just described…”

“Used to? What do you mean?”

“What I mean is I no longer believe Jesus will return at any moment, but that his future return is perhaps 1000s of years in the future. What I mean is I no longer believe that the tribulation is future. What I mean is I no longer believe that what Jesus described as the sun, moon, and stars coming undone has anything whatsoever to do with our future. It has already happened.”

“So, you believe the resurrection has already happened and that Jesus is not coming back?”

“In a way, yes; and, in a way no. Now, I do not have all the answers to this new way of seeing things, but what I do have is just about as wild as if the Matrix were real. Everything is about to change. Freeing your mind from the misguided way of seeing the Bible will take some time and you will very often feel like Neo retching from the stress of understanding that what he thought was real is not.

“Now, most people are hesitant to go where I am going to show you, but I think it’s the right way. Let me now show you a bit more by putting together what we have seen above for you.”

Choosing the red pill or the blue

“The verb μέλλω means “about to” and within the New Testament it is linked with a coming judgement that many people think refers to something that is still future and sometimes that combination also happens with the Greek noun οἰκουμένη. Let me say it this way by quoting from what Luke records in the Acts. When Paul was preaching to the Athenians in the areopagus he said something profound. Let me quote from the New American Standard and then my translation.

“First, because he has fixed a day when he will judge the world in righteousness through a man whom he appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead.

Now mine, because he has fixed a day in which he is about to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom he appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising him from the dead. What is the difference between the two translations?”

“Well, the first one seems to imply what I believe will happen at the end of time and the second one, yours, seems to imply that the judgement is sooner, but I’m not sure what to understand by inhabited earth because it could still mean the whole world. But that’s not what you believe?”

“No, that’s not what I believe and it would take a really long time to show you why that is, but let me just say this. I believe οἰκουμένη is best understood within the first century’s context and that it ought to be interpreted as empire or that inhabited earth is meant to be understood that way because of its use in Luke 4 when Caesar Augustus taxed his οἰκουμένη. Remember, Luke could have used cosmos, but he didn’t. He chose a different word for a reason.”

“But what does it mean that God is about to judge the οἰκουμένη?”

“Remember that I said that it would take a long time to explain that? Let me say that the Old Testament is full of passages wherein God judges all the nations based upon their relationship to Israel—how they treated God’s people. The term οἰκουμένη has to be interpreted theologically and theologically this term refers to the system of government established by God during the exile. It is in the book of Daniel where God introduces a new world to his people—a world wherein they are under the rule of the nations. But it is a world wherein God’s people are housed much like they were when the temple was intact.”

“I am not following you.”

“Ok. Remember Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the statue?”

“Yes. Each portion of the statue referred to a different period of time when other nations would be in power, right?”

“Right. But how do you interpret what the Bible says about the parts of the statue? What does each element mean?”

“Hmmmmm. You are really trying my retention of the sermons I have heard about this, but from what I can recall I think that each element represents the quality of each government. One was gold; another was silver; another bronze and the other terracotta. I was always told that each was different because each is of a different value, so it moves from the best to the least. Am I right?”

“Yes. I was taught that as well.”

“But you don’t believe that anymore?”

“No. It seems best to me to be as theologically consistent as possible, so that the Bible uses symbols consistently leading the reader to understand one passage based on another.”

“Ok. I follow you.”

“So, can you think of anywhere in the Bible where we read about gold, silver, and bronze?

“Well, the only place I can recall that combination is in the tabernacle and temple.”

“Exactamundo! That is exactly where I think we ought to go when interpreting this dream. So, what now?”

“I’m not sure. Can’t you just say what you think and I’ll go from there?”

“Sure. The tabernacle was God’s presence with his people. It was proof that God dwelt in the midst of his people. The statue was made up of the same materials and each material represented a different kingdom in the future. God was telling his people that the new tabernacle would be the ruling nations. God would still be with his people even though they were out of the land and his presence would be with them even though they were under the control of Gentile nations. See, most people think that Rome was the enemy of Israel in the New Testament.”

“But it wasn’t?”

“No. Rome wasn ‘t the enemy. Israel was her own worst enemy because she was bucking the system that God established back in Daniel. And Jeremiah rebuked the leaders of Israel warning them to pray for the peace of the nation which ruled over them. He didn’t want them to rebel against Rome. Think about this. Whom did Rome persecute in the Acts?”

“Well, I want to say the church, but I can guess you would say no.”

“Right. Consistently in Acts we see Rome punishing the Jews who rejected Paul’s message. You see, God set up a newer version of the Abrahamic covenant in the exile. The Gospel message in the exile was: those who bless you I will bless; those who curse you I will curse. There were consecutive emperors who blessed Israel and there were some who cursed them. I believe Nebuchadnezzar, Darius (who was Esther’s husband, Ahasuerus, the Great King), and Cyrus were converted Gentiles. As long as the ruling empire favoured God’s people, all was well. When the new covenant comes along, so does a new people.”

“So, you don’t believe the Jews are God’s people any longer?”

“No, I don’t. And neither does the Bible.”

“But what about what Paul says when he says that someday the Jews will become jealous to the point of turning to the gospel?”

“I believe that already happened. When Paul wrote that he was still in the infant stage of the church and through his ministry he was looking to make the Jews jealous now to seek God through Jesus alone. Today’s Jews are nowhere near what the Jews were in the decades following Jesus and they are not jealous of us as they were in the beginning of the church. In fact, there is no longer Jew or Gentile. The new man is christian. There is too much at stake not to say this. To assert that the Jews will one day again be the people of God is to deny Christ himself. To assert that someday in the future the Jews will once again be God’s people is to completely deny the whole New Testament. Just read (at least) Hebrews, Galatians, and Revelation.”

“But isn’t Revelation about the end of the world?”

“It is, but not the end of the world as we know it. Consistently in Revelation, οἰκουμένη is used in relation to the war which the kings wage against the church (Rev. 16:14). And in the beginning of the Revelation, Jesus warns one of the churches about an about to coming hour of testing upon the whole οἰκουμένη. “

“So that leads me to a question.”

“Ok?”

“What does that mean? What does the οἰκουμένη have to do with being tested or judged?”

“Ah. Very good, young Skywalker. Ask the right question you have. Remember that the theology of the Bible is just as (if not more) important as the translation. The New Testament is not only about Jesus putting an end to the sacrificial system and dying for the sins of man. It’s also about the end of the οἰκουμένη and the end of old heavens and the earth. It’s also, then, about the new heavens and earth one in which there is a new world order with a new emperor on the throne. The old οἰκουμένη is judged by her response to the gospel (Matthew 25) and this is what Paul and Silas were singing in prison and what Paul preaches to Felix and to Festus and Agrippa .”

“But aren’t the new heavens and earth about eternity?”

“Most people think so, but the immediate reference is to the new world Jesus institutes. The original term “new heavens and earth” (which John uses in Revelation) is a reference to Israel from Isaiah 65, not a literal new heavens and earth. Here’s the passage the way I see it.

“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth; And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind. “But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem for rejoicing And her people for gladness.

There are many parallelisms in this passage. Note their symmetry here:

A Because the former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hidden from My sight!

B “For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth;

A’ And the former things will not be remembered or come to mind.

C “But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create;

B’ For behold, I create Jerusalem

C’ for rejoicing and her people for gladness.

Note primarily, what God creates: he says he creates a new heavens and earth. Is this literal? No. Why should the reader draw this conclusion? He must draw another conclusion based on the clear parallel God himself makes: God calls the city Jerusalem the new heavens and earth. The parallel is clear and not forced. God says, “I create new heavens and a new earth…be glad and rejoice I create Jerusalem for rejoicing…and gladness.” Israel is to expect a make over, a renewal by the grace of God. God’s calling Jerusalem “new heavens and earth” is a politically symbolic reference going all the way back to Genesis 1, 7-9, and 37.

This hermeneutic must not be rejected out of hand and yet that is what many indeed do. Many reject this interpretation for fear of its precluding a more full future fulfillment when Jesus returns at the close of the final festal age. But this need not be the case. It need not be the case that one reject this symbolic interpretation for fear that it means losing a future fulfillment at some remote time.

As was stated above, some reject this hermeneutic because of its application to the words of Jesus in the Revelation when he talks about the new heavens and earth in the latter part of the vision (ch.21). It is my presupposition that the Revelation is the judgement of God against Israel as a body politic for her adultery against her covenant Master and murder his Messiah (Psalm 2). Adultery because she rejected the new Bridegroom (Matt. 25) and murder because she persecuted the new Bride (Matt. 23-25; Acts; Hebrews; the Epistles). Further, when Jesus talks about the new heavens and earth, he is talking about a new body politic (Matt.28.18)—a new bride, a new city (Rev 21, 22).

Following the structure seen before in Isaiah, note the parallels here in Revelation:

Rev. 20:11

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.

Rev. 21:1

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer a sea.

The association to make here is connected to Isaiah. Jerusalem is the former heavens and earth which is fleeing from the presence of God and which passes away like an old garment (Psalm 102). The new heavens and earth which are created is seen in the following verses. Note the parallels made between the Bride and the City as they are one and the same. The Bride is the City and were Paul to have written a commentary here he would say and the City is the Body and who is the Body and Bride and City of Christ but his people, the Church, the New Israel.”

Whew! Now, that was a mouthful! You’ve given me enough to chew on for quite a while. And look at the time! It’s going to be a night of fits and starts. I’ll probably dream about this!”

Good night, Granny Smith. I look forward to our next get-together.”

You say world; I say inhabited earth

 

“So, something you said last time, Berea, came to my mind after we said good-bye.”

“What was it?”

“You said that the word for inhabited earth was translated that way in Luke 4, but then you intimated something about Matthew 4 that you never followed up on. Do you think you could do that now?”

“Sure.  Remember my thesis: a Greek word must be translated, not interpreted as much as is possible?”

“Yes. If a word means “this” it must not be translated as if it meant “that.”

“Yeah.  That’s a good way of putting it. So. in Luke 4 we read that Caesar taxed the whole inhabited earth.  Well, in Matthew 24, Jesus tells us that the Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole inhabited earth, not “world” as my translation has it.  Jesus did not say “cosmos,” he said “oikumene” and if word choice matters, I think Jesus knew which word to choose. Within the context of Matthew (that judgement is coming) itself, Jesus’ Olivet discourse establishes the context for the rest of the New Testament. Everything after Matthew 24 is about Matthew 24. The message of the Gospel that is to go out to the “world” is the message of Psalm 2, not salvation from the fires of eternal hell.”

“What do you mean by that last part?  I thought the Gospel was about Jesus dying on the cross for our sins.”

“Yes, that is part of it, but that is most definitely not what the Apostles and Paul went about preaching. Jesus calls them “witnesses” or testifiers. And to what did they testify?  They testified to the resurrection, ascension and coming adjudication of Jesus within the lifetime of the generation of Jews within 40 years of Jesus’ ministry. And Jesus says that before the judgement comes, they will have preached the message throughout the oikumene/ empire or inhabited earth.  But our translations are not consistent here because they think Jesus is talking about the final judgement and so the whole world is what is meant.  But oikumene does not mean “world” in the same way and the same sense that cosmos does.

What about the resurrection?

I have an acquaintance who wishes to remain in anonymity who has asked me to consider two bibilcal texts which seem to imply the historical expectation regarding the resurrection.

He asked me to discuss two texts which imply the resurrection: John 5.29 and Acts 24.15.

I am not denying there are texts which seem to support a general resurrection for the righteous and the wicked.  However, I see the entire NT as concerned only with one coming judgement which includes all nations/oikumene and which is clearly portrayed in Revelation (which is not concerned with the end of time).  Even if you do not know Greek you can get into the text anyway.  Our current translations are heavily influenced by presuppositions based on historical tradition (cf. hell).  Chris, this is the second passage where Paul addresses the resurrection and a coming judgement using the Greek adverb mello. Here are some passages where mello  is found but translated with a bias:

Acts 17:30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he [mello] will judge the [oikumene]world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
Acts 24:15
 having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there [mello] will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.
Revelation
2:10 Do not fear what you are [mello] about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested, and for ten days you will have tribulation. Be faithful unto death, and I will give you the crown of life.
3:2
Wake up, and strengthen what remains and is [mello] about to die, for I have not found your works complete in the sight of my God.
​3:10
Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is [mello] coming on the whole [oikumene] world, to try those who dwell on the earth.
Now, prima facia mello ought be translated the same in each passage.  I contend it is not in
Acts 17 and Rev 3:10 b/c the translaters were predisposed to another hermeneutic.​  However, I am very pursuaded that if mello is left about to in all these passages, it will leave no doubt as to its meaning.  Not only that, but oikumene is a term that does not mean “world” like cosmos.  Much like kronos and kairos have diff connotations for time, cosmos is more universal while oikumene is particular.  In this case, oikumene is the system of government set up in Daniel where the statue and beasts are the oikumene that remain until AD 70 when God puts them down and the kingdom of the Son of Man takes over.
Just as you contend the church has been wrong about hell for quite a while, I contend the same about the resurrection.  There is no way to argue that the Spirit would protect the church from one error but not another.
My friend:
That doesn’t answer my question.
Me:
I don’t mean to sound obstinate, BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUT, how is my answer not an answer?
In short, the Greek term “mello” means “about to.”  Paul says in Acts 24 that the resurrection of the just and the unjust is about to happen.  The book of Revelation explains this resurrection as well.  Jesus’ words in JOhn 5 are similar: an hour is coming and now is when the dead/ those in the tomb will hear his voice.  I guess my answer is,  Yeah.  See. The language is all imminent and therefore supports my suspicion: we have misunderstood the resurrection (just as we have misunderstood hell.)  Now, one doctrine might be more vital in your mind, but that doesn’t remove the elephant in the room.  The two texts you gave me are flexible and can be read either way.  But only one way is more consistent than the other.
My friend:
It’s not an answer because you haven’t told me what these verses refer to in the perspective you’ve offered. You’ve told me what they can’t refer to–a future, bodily resurrection (which is what has me worried about you, and which I think is untenable)–and you’ve told me that whatever it is it was about to happen, but that’s it.
Me:
So, first: can we not have this conversation on the blog? (If not, may I leave it anonymous?)
2nd: I can’t give you a definite answer b/c I am still wrestling through it.
C: The two passages you gave me are only two, very minimal.  In Acts I am fully persuaded that the resurrection to which Paul referred was imminent: “about to happen” as the Greek makes clear (and to which I offered as an answer earlier).  Along the same lines, Jesus’ words seem to imply imminence: the hour is coming and now is. Both in John 4 and 5 Jesus uses this turn of phrase to refer to changes in the world b/c of his work and both times he says that the hour is coming (soon).
4th:  Simply b/c I reject a 2nd coming motif coupled with a resurrection, does not mean I reject the historical doctrine.  I am simply trying to see how to have my cake and eat it too.  I think that Biblical Theology (primarily in the sacrifices) helps here and will offer an explanation for the resurrection.
Lastly, to reiterate: I affirm the NT teaches only the coming of Christ within the generation of his audience.  There is no text anywhere in the NT that expects another final coming. If it does ( and I am a traditionalist, so I know the texts; and I very well could be wrong), it is obscure and out of sync with the Olivet Discourse which lays the groundwork to interpret the rest of the NT: everything after Matt 24 is all about Matt 24.
MF:
I appreciate that you’re wrestling with these texts, and I think it’s certainly fair to reply to my original question by saying, as you’ve just done, “I can’t answer your question.” My point was only that it wasn’t an answer to my question 🙂

I want to focus on what has me concerned for you the most. As I demonstrate in that link I sent you, biblically resurrection is, by definition, a return to bodily life, and the texts I asked you about explicitly say both the saved and the lost will be so resurrected. I understand why you’re compelled at this point to believe that the event referred to in those texts must have already taken place, but that cannot be concluded in a vacuum apart from the clear biblical teaching that resurrection is, by definition, a return to bodily life.

I’ll soon want to bring in Revelation, which teaches that this resurrection will happen in our future, but to keep things narrowly focused, let’s leave it for now, and let me simply ask you this: How do you reconcile the bodily resurrection of saved and lost in those two texts I asked you about with your conviction that it happened in the first century?

Me:
As with any good argument, terms are crucial.  I do not accept all references to “resurrection” to mean “physical bodily resurrection.”  Here are some vital concepts linked to resurrection:

1. Coming back to life, resuscitation: Lazarus, etc.

2. Rising to glorified, transfigured life as individuals: Jesus.

3. Cultural revival: Ezekiel 37; Romans 11.

4. Not used for ascension to rule, unless it is used that way in Rev 20.

5. Arguments for seeing the resurrection here as cultural revival:

a. Contrast between “judgment” and “reign.”

b. The millennium is on the earth, not in heaven, according to the preceding verses.

6. This is the resurrection of the Apostolic or First fruits Church, martyred in Revelation 14. The resurrected Christ now has a resurrected Bride.

My reconciling texts that seem to imply physical resurrection with a first century occurrence?  Let me repeat: Acts 24:15 clearly states that there is “about to be” (Gr. mello) a resurrection of both the just and the unjust.  Are you aware of this?

MF:

1. Right. Bodily resurrection.

2. Right. Bodily resurrection.

3. No. Resurrection here does not “mean” cultural revival; it symbolizes it, in a genre quite different from the texts I asked you about.

Me:

I am not sure how you can deny Ez 37 is national/cultural resurrection.  If Ez 37 is not symbolic of the North and South coming to life, what is it?

MF:  Re: Romans 11–No. If it’s a reference to cultural revival here–which I dispute, but we can table that–it’s an idiomatic/analogical reference to it, and the word resurrection isn’t used.

Me:  I interpret Romans 11 preteristically.  The jealousy in Acts that the Jews displayed fits in nicely with what Paul says here.  The salvation of Israel of which Paul speaks here is 1 c.

MF:  4-6.  In Rev 20, resurrection means resurrection. John sees the saints bodily raised in the imagery. Now, you can argue that it symbolizes cultural revival like it did in Ezekiel 37; fine. (I don’t agree.) But again, that has no bearing on the texts I asked you about.

Me:  It does have bearing in the theology of the NT.

MF:  The word ἀνάστασις is certainly used to refer to bodily resurrection in Matt 22:23, 28, 30, 31; Mark 12:18, 23; Luke 14:14; 20:27, 33, 35, 36; Acts 1:22; 2:31; 4:2, 33; 17:18, 32; 23:6, 8; 24:21; 26:23; Rom 1:4; 6:5; 1 Cor 15:12, 13, 21, 42; Phil 3:10; Heb 6:2; 11:35; 1 Pet 1:3; 3:21. I don’t think it’s questionable in the few others, either. And I think it’s certainly used in Rev 20:5, 6 to refer to bodily resurrection as well, but in apocalyptic imagery in which it may symbolize something else–which is not true in John 5:29 or Acts 24:15. 

Me:  From what I can see, your texts above are @ Christ’s resurrection, but some (Heb 6) are not. The expectation in the first century regarding Matt 24-25 is the hermeneutical key.  Not all resurrection (explicit or not) is physical.

In Acts 24:21 ἀνάστασις means bodily resurrection (given those to whom he’s appealing), and it strains credulity to suggest that it means something different in verse 15.

Me: Prove this.  Prove that “anastasis” here is only about physical resurrection.  I challenge that it is your presuppositions that are directing your interpretation (as are mine), but that is a far cry from an undeniable fact.  Just as a person’s presuppositions lead him to believe in a literal, eternal hell and cause him to force his interpretation on the text, so too, here with you.  I assert that from Matthew 1- Revelation, the natural reading of what was coming to the world was AD 70.

MF:  In John 5:29, there’s no reason to think it’s not referring to bodily resurrection; Jesus explicitly says “all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out.” He doesn’t say in verses 28 and 29 that the hour in which this occurs “is now here” like he did in verse 25, and there he didn’t reference a resurrection of the lost, nor necessarily resurrection at all in the sense of explicitly using the language of coming out of tombs. In that verse he could be using the language of resurrection as a metaphor for regeneration; I don’t think that’s at all certain, but it’s certainly plausible. But again, that language didn’t include the lost, nor of coming out of tombs, so John 5:29 still heavily favors bodily resurrection.

Me:  Simply b/c Jesus does not repeat his turn of phrase again, does not mean it does not carry through.  Consider this:

John 4–Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him.

So, is Jesus talking about two different events here?  In one place he says, “and now is” but right after that he does not?  What are we to understand?  I assert we are to understand that both statements are imminent.  So, to paraphrase, Woman, believe me, soon you will neither worship the Father on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem [because of AD 70].…But soon and very soon, the true worshippers…

I argue the same for John 5 which reads,

“Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. 27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Again, just because Jesus doesn’t repeat the exact same words, doesn’t mean the connotation doesn’t carry.  He is saying the same thing again. Note the parallelism:

Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

and

Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice 29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

Note bene:

1.”the dead” parallel “all who are in the tombs.”

2. Both “hear the voice of the Son of God”, or “his” voice. (Is it some one else’s voice since John doesn’t repeat “Son of God?)

3. “those who hear will live” is parallel to “resurrection of life.” Jesus’ additional words about the dead are just that.

MF:  Besides all of that, you still haven’t offered any possible interpretations of what ἀνάστασις might mean when John 5:29 and Acts 24:21 say the unjust will be resurrected unto judgment. None of the meanings you claimed is intended in the other passages appears to fit its use here.

Me: If it is symbolic, then its meaning is open for interpretation. I believe Matt 25 and Rev 20 are past and symbolic.  Just as Jesus’ words about “fiery hell” were symbolic of judgement and not literal, so too, here.  What is important is the act of judgement.

MF:  Now, when it comes to μέλλω, what you’ve offered is not a reconciliation of the texts. You’re still just asserting that whatever the ἀνάστασις of the unjust unto judgment is in John 5:29 and Acts 24:15, it must have occurred in the first century, but that’s not a reconciliation. The very thing that needs reconciling is the fact that ἀνάστασις is almost certainly a reference to bodily resurrection in these texts with the claim that μέλλω certainly puts the event in the first century. Just repeating the latter point doesn’t reconcile anything. You need to either explain that a corporate bodily resurrection did occur in that time frame, or you need to explain what besides bodily resurrection is being referred to in these two texts.

I, on the other hand, deny that μέλλω must mean “about to” in Acts 24:15; that’s how I reconcile them. “About to” is certainly within the word’s semantic domain, but I see no reason to believe that of the meanings within its semantic domain, “about to” is the intended meaning in Acts 24:15. Or are you denying that μέλλω has a semantic range to begin with, insisting instead that simply always means “about to”?

Me:  I am not sure I can offer a reconciliation, but rather my interpretation which I believe I have made clear.  I believe a corporate resurrection of the body of Christ happened in Rev 14 and 20. μέλλω  is an adverb just like “taxei” in Rev 1.  My dispensational friend asserts not that Jesus is coming quickly, but that “when” he comes, it will be swift.  That is some pretty fancy gymnastics.  So, too, with you: yes, μέλλω means “about to.”  There are many times when Greek is not so fluid as we would like.  I think my citations from before are adequate proof of its denotation.  But again, we must acknowledge where our presuppositions are driving us and I believe the burden of proof lies with you.

A defense of preterism

A Facebook post conversation with Daniel Dawson:
He says,
I don’t hold to the preterist view but have studied it somewhat. I don’t fully understand all of it’s finer points but have seen enough promises in scripture that have clearly not been fulfilled to think that Revelation is still ahead of us. I do hold to a mountain/valley as well as a near/far fulfillment perspective on prophecy, if you know what I’m talking about. It sounds like you weren’t always a preterist. What did you hold to before that? Also, I’m a little surprised to hear postmillennial and preterist together. Is that even a thing? Clearly it’s not a viewpoint I’ve heard discussed in full.

My response:
I was raised baptist and dispensational/pre-mill. I am now reformed and covenantal which includes postmillennialism. This means I expect the Gospel to conquer the nations as Jesus commanded in Matt 28: Go and discipline the nations…. If we discipline, we are in charge. If we are not in charge, it is our own fault.
I make the two terms bed-fellows b/c I believe the Bible to be concluded within the first century, but I also expect the resurrection of the righteous.
Basically preterism interprets the New Testament as a first century book with every book written prior to AD 70. It interprets Jesus ministry and prosecution of wayward Israel within the generation of the 1 c.
Matthew’s gospel begins with a call to repent and join Jesus’ movement within the kingdom of heaven. John the Forerunner warns of a wrath that is to come. It is this wrath that the rest of the NT is strictly concerned and it is this wrath with which the Revelation is exclusively concerned.
I do not hold to a mountain peak hermeneutic. My hermeneutic is typological. There is a single fulfillment seen within the life of the prophet (unless obviously open-ended or specifically long in duration). There might be a future secondary typological fulfillment, but unless the Scriptures make it plain that is the case, there is no need to assert a future 2nd-ary fulfillment.