
Image by Carmelo Aquilina via Flickr
Dispensationalism: Was the church an accident
for Christ’s failure to establish the kingdom?
The theology that teaches that Christ postponed
the kingdom and yet await its establishment at the
millennium is what’s known as Dispensationalism.
It is a rather recent teaching (past 200 years) in the
area of eschatology (study of last things) which
includes the second coming and its related events.
We believe that Dispensationalism errs by charging God with failure to keep his promise regarding the imminent (from a first century perspective)
establishment of the kingdom.
In that view, the church became a substitute, an interim entity to “pacify” the world until God fulfills his promises to “ethnic” Israel. I am using the term “ethnic” Israel to accomodate its use in Dispensationalism to refer to “blood” descendants of Abraham and whomever else they may include in their use of it.
Thus, according to Dispensationalism, there are two promises which run side by side, one for the church and one for ethinic Israel. The latter allegedly will be fulfilled at some time in the future when Christ would come to set up a literal throne in Jerusalem and reign on earth for a literal thousand years.
The literal thousand years reign is what is known as the millennium. Preceding this event is a seven year tribulation ending with the rapture, thus called the seven year pre-tribulation rapture.
Other variations of the view are a mid-tribulation rapture theory which allegedly occurs half way during the tribulation or after three and a half years.
Dispensationalism – Was the Church an Accident for Christ’s Failure to Establish the Kingdom?
First, this raises the question Abraham asked? Is there anything too hard for the Lord? Apparently so, if the unbelief of the Jews effected a failure of Christ to do what God sent him to do. Christ said it was his food [mission in life] was to do the will of the Father who sent him and to finish the work, (John 4:34). A part of that work involved his suffering on the cross as prophesied in the Law, (Gen. 3:15; Isa. 53, Psa. 22, Dan. 9:26).
At the close of his ministry, he said, “it is finished,” indicating that part of his mission was completed, (John 19:30). Therefore, it is quite difficult for those of us to accept the “God failed theology” of “change of plans eschatology.”
The Promise of Abraham and the Beginning of “Ethnic” Israel’s Promise
We are told by advocates of Dispensationalism that the promise of God to “ethnic” Israel remains separate from that of the church. We’re also told that it begins with the promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:3. This, they say is where it all begins.
Now the Lord had said to Abram: Get out of your country, from your family and from you father’s house, to a land that I wil show you.
I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing.
I will bless those who bless you, and will will curse him who curses you; and in you all the families of the earth will be blessed.”
Now, if this is the begining of the promise to “ethnic” Israel separate and apart from the church, “Houston, we have a problem.”
The Promise Includes the Gentiles
Now, if this is the first mention of the promise to “ethnic” Israel, this promise also includes the Gentiles. Paul also applies it to those “outside” of ethnic Israel.
Therefore, know that only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham.
And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preache the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”
“So then those who are of faith are blessed with believing Abraham.” (Gal. 3:7–9)
How then can the Gentiles be excluded from the first mention of the promise to “ethnic” Israel? We’re not saying at this point that the Gentiles are included in the same promise to “ethnic” Israel, but only that at the time that promise is given, the Gentiles also receive a promised blessing in Abraham.
So, for both Israel and the Gentiles, the promise of blessings originate at the same time.
According to Dispensationalism, Gentiles Received the Promise Outside or Apart from Ethnic Israel
Now, if I’m understanding them correctly, it is argued that the Gentiles receive the promise in the church, while the promise to the “blood line” descendants runs parallel or along side of it, but separate and distinct from it.
Remember, according to their view, the church is parenthetical, an accident that waited to happen, —that came about as a result of Christ’s failure to establish the kingdom. Keep this in mind.
The Gentiles Were To Receive Their Promise of Abraham in the Church!
The promise of bringing in the Gentiles to inherit the blessings of Abraham fulfills the mystery of God kept secret from men in the ages before that of the Apostles. Paul spoke of God revealing the mystery to him. What is the mystery?
How that by revelation He made know to me the mytery (as I have written already,
“By which when you read, you may understand my knwledge in the mystery of Christ),
which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to His holy apostls and prophets;
that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, of the same body, and partakers of His promise in Christ through the gospel.” (Eph. 3:3–6).
Now here is the question we’d like to pose for Dispensationalism.
If the Gentiles were a part of God’s promise at the call of Abraham, i.e., at the very same time that the “ethnic” Jews received the promise of Abraham, and since the Gentiles would receive the blessing in the church, how could the church be an accident, temporary or parenthetical arrangement and manifestation of Christ’s failure to complete his mission?
Now that’s a rather lengthy statement, so let me clarify.
The Gentiles were included in the promise of Abraham.
The promise of Abraham was the decree of God.
Therefore the Gentiles were included in the decree of God.
The Gentiles were included in the decree of God, i.e. the promise of Abraham at the same time “ethnic” Israel was included.
But the Gentiles would receive the blessing of Abraham in the one body, —the church.
Therefore, the church was included at the same time promise of Abraham was given to “ethnic” Israel.
Now, if the fact that the Gentiles and by necessary inference, God included the “one body,” i.e. the church in the promise of Abraham makes it an accident or afterthought, why would not the inclusion of “ethnic” Israel make them an afterthought as well? One cannot deny the Gentiles without denying Israel and vice versa.
Further, if some argue that “ethnic” Israel is also separate from believing Israel or the remnant in the last days who are saved in the church, then one must also exclude “believing” Israel (many of whom were “ethnic” Jews) on the same basis the Gentiles are denied, namely, because they received the promise of Abraham through the church.
Therefore the salvation of “believing” Israel, i.e. the remnant according to the election of grace represents the failure of Christ. See again Galatians 3:7–8, above.
We Believe We Shall Be Saved Even as They
This complexity compounds especially in view of the fact that Peter declares that upon the acceptance of the Gentiles into the church, which formerly was comprised primarily of “ethnic Jews” (and proselytes, —converts to Judaism), that they would be saved even as were the Gentiles.
“But we believe that throught the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” (Acts 15:11).
So the Jerusalem conference voting preference leaned in the direction of the Gentiles, in determining the manner of salvation, i.e. that it was in the church, versus separate and apart from it.
These All Died in Faith – Heb. 11:39–40
In addition, Paul argues that all the faithful Old Testament saints, including “ethnic” Israel who died, yet awaited to be included in the number of the “church” people, i.e. the remnant and the Gentiles, to obtain the Abrahamic promise.
“And all these died, having obtained a good testimony through faith, did not receive the promise,
God having provided something better for us, that they should not made perfect apart from us.” (Heb. 11:39–40)
These “ethnic” Jews who died in faith, could only obtain their portion of Abraham’s blessing, i.e. the promise by being resurrected into the church. They were not getting one inch of Palestinian real estate.
Further, Paul affirmed that the fact that David promised an additional rest for God’s people demonstrated that for those like himself who were in the land already, that they had not received the promise of Abraham, i.e. the land, also called the rest! See Heb. 4:1–9.
In all of this, he affirms that a rest remained for the people of God. The rest was being entered by the remnant and the Gentiles. The rest was not Canaan as it was then presently inhabited by David and “ethnic” Israel. If it were, God would not have spoken of another day, (Psa. 95:11).
Therefore, his conclusion was there remained a rest, —a homeland” to the people of God, but in this case, it is the church comprised of the remnant “ethnic” Jews, and proselytes, etc who believed in Christ” and the Gentiles.
So, now do we have two land promises? One to those who believe in Christ, the believing remnant and Gentiles, and another to unbelieving “ethnic” Israel?
Also interesting is the fact that this remnant of Jews and Gentiles in the church (Heb. 12:22–23), was likewise then presently receiving the kingdom, (Heb. 12:28).
Since this kingdom was being received by all believing Israel, why was it not the kingdom being restored to Israel?, (Acts 1:6–7)? Was God that confused or is it those who espouse Dispensationalism? I suggest the latter.
To learn more about this lesson and others available in mp3 audio, enroll at our blog. Get access to audio and other studies. Do it now!
I am convinced with all due respect to those who believe this that it is a fundamental error–that, in fact, when our Lord Jesus Christ came to our earth, he did preach the kingdom of God, that it was offered and and that it was accepted and was fulfilled.
The reason I believe this is because the kingdom that God purposed and our Lord Jesus Christ proclaimed the first time was not the earthly, political rule (which will come at the second Advent), but rather the kingdom of spiritual forgiveness, of the overthrowing of demons, the healing of the sick and of the fulness of that salvation that was prophesied in the Old Covenant adminstration–the fulness of the reign of God in the hearts of men
Many of the Jews of Jesus day rejected Him, but by no means all. There were those who believed on Him and became His disciples. Think of the twelve apostles, of the many women who followed Him, of the many who were healed by Him and came to believe on Him in this way, of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, of Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea.
Then, there was a company of brethren numbering 120 shortly after Jesus' ascension (Acts 1:15), the 500 brethren who saw Him at one time after His resurrection (1 Cor. 15:6). He not only offered the kingdom to the Jews of His day; he established it, and a number of people became His followers.
To the Pharisees Jesus said, "But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you" (Matt. 12:28). To Peter, as a represnetative of the church, Jesus said, "And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shall lose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Do these passages give us the impression that Christ postponed the Kingdom?
I'm in agreement with you. There was no postponement. Yes, many Jews believed on him but the nation as a whole, i.e. the majority of them rejected him. (John 1:11-12; John 11:50-53)
Good. If there were those (a believing remnant) that accepted Christ, even though the majority of the nation rejected Him, and the kingdom of God was not postponed, it logically and biblically follows that the kingdom that Christ preached or offered to Israel (“The Kingdom of heaven is at hand”–Matt. 10:6-7) was not the earthly, political rule prophesied in the Old Testament (I.e. Amos 9:11-12 cf. Acts 15:16-17), and God did not take up a new work, creating a new people called the church–that, in fact, when our Lord Jesus Christ came to our earth, he did preach the kingdom of God, that it was offered and and that it was accepted and was fulfilled.
"Now as they heard these things He spoke another parable, because He was near Jerusalem and because they thought the kingdom of God would appear immediately." (Luke 19:11). See the parable of the nobleman for Jesus' explanation to the Pharisees. Now, if during the final week of life and entry into the Jerusalem, he yet spoke of the kingdom as at hand, i.e. immediately appearing, then by your own admission, per verses cited in Matt. 10:6-7, the kingdom had not arrived, but was imminent.
As you go, preach, saying, 'The kingdom of heaven is at hand.' (Matt. 10:7) At hand, but not immediate. Therefore, biblically and logically, Christ did not an immediate entrance into that which was yet future in the latter part of His ministry as communicated to the Pharisees, above, and per Luke 21:31.
Good. If there were those who accepted Christ, as I have intimated (even though the majority rejected Him) and the kingdom was not postponed, then it logically and biblically follows that God did not take up up a new work, creating a new people called the church, as dispensationalists claim–that , in fact, when our Lord Jesus Christ came to our earth, he did preach the kingdom of God, that it was offered and and that it was accepted and was fulfilled.
The message was the kingdom is "at hand" not "in hand." The premil dispensationalists have it "out of hand." If God did not create a "new people" i.e. a new heavens and earth wherein righteousness dwells, then to what kingdom, ekklesia were Christians coming to well after the personal ministry of Christ? (Heb. 12:22-28)? Why was the kingdom yet announced as "at hand" per Luke 21:31? Therefore, if any man is in Christ, he is a new creation? Old things are passed away, all things have become new. 2 Cor. 5:17; Rev. 21:4. "That you put on the new man which was created according to God, in true righteousness and holiness." (Eph. 4:24) So, where is this "old man" of which you speak?
The kingdom of God comes to this earth in two phases corresponding to the two comings of the Messiah. It came in the first phase or First Advent in the form of the suffering servant of Jehovah (Isa. 52:11) in spiritual power and forgiveness. It will come in great power and glory in visible conquest of His enemies when Christ comes as the conquering King at the end of the age or Second Advent."
"New man" is simply a biblical term to describe one who been made alive (regenerated) through repentance and faith in Christ in contrast to the "Old man" or that fleshly nature (Eph. 2:1) that controlled and dominated us before we were saved. One who has received Christ has demonstrated that the kingdom rule of Christ has come to dwell within. That is why Jesus said, "The kingdom of God is within you". However, we await Christ''s second coming and the final consummation when our faith will become sight and we will receive our glorified bodies and stand blameless before Christ clothed in His perfect righteousness in the holy city, the New Jerusalem on a new (restored} earth (Revelation 21 and 22).
You are making all of this up because you cannot respond to the "time statements" found in scripture. So, I ask plainly. Was the kingdom "at hand" during Jesus' ministry? Was the kingdom "at hand" per Revelation 1:1, 3; 11:15? Define "at hand." Does it mean near or far. And, please, be consistent and apply it on both ends of your "two comings" explanation.
I am not making anything up and have responded to your "time statements" consistently. "At hand" in Matthew 10:7 obviously means "near" (Greek means "approach, be at hand, come [ draw] near"). In Rev. 1:3 "at hand" means near ("at hand, or ready"). The NKJV translates it "near". Of course, scripture is speaking of time here ("near" or "ready") in the echatological sense (we have been in the church age for over 2000 years).
What the Old testament writers depict as one movement is now seen to involve two stages corresponding to the two comings of Christ (the present age and the age of the future). Neither exclusively preterist nor exclusively futurist views take into account the already -not yet tension that runs throughout the book of Revelation, which refers to both the past and the future; for example, "the signs of the times" or events which must take place before Christ returns. The relationship between the two eschatological stages is that the blessings of the present are the pledge and guarantee of greater blessings to come.
Well, thanks for committing! You certainly have responded to the time statements but you absolutely have not been consistent. You have agreed to my earlier statements that Christ announced the kingdom as "near" in His ministry. You have defined near as "approach" be at hand, come [draw] near"). You've also agreed that it means the same in Rev. 1.3. "At hand" means near ("at hand, or ready").
Now to your contradictions, and I don't mean any of this personally because I don't know you and certainly appreciate your convictions and willingness to engage in friendly debate.
Once again, you agree that at hand means near. However you apply that to a time in Jesus' ministry per Matt. 10.6-7". Yet, you argued that the kingdom came during His ministry by saying "The kingdom is within you." Now, it's interesting that Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees who opposed and disbelieved Him, yet you affirm that the kingdom was within them!?!
Once again, Jesus spoke a parable of the Nobleman to those same Pharisees who thought the kingdom would immediately appear. Obviously, He was correcting their misunderstanding of His teaching, i.e. the same which you appear to have adopted.
Thirdly, your view of "at hand" is certainly inconsistent. You affirm at hand means not more than three and a half years in the case of Jesus' ministry (if in fact the kingdom was in them at that time). But, in Revelation 1:3, you affirm that at hand stretches for almost 2000 years while you affirm the "not yet" of the kingdom.
So, please without obfuscation, which is it? Does at hand cover a time period of over 2000 years, yes or no? If so, then where is the 2000 years between Matt. 10:6-7 and the arrival of the kingdom? If "at hand" is shorter, i.e. three and a half years or less, then by what hermeneutic principle do you extend any events in Revelation beyond three and a half years? What are you saying, at hand means near, at hand and a gap of 2000 plus years?!? Okay, then apply that to Matt. 10.6-7.
Now, just for good measure, let's apply your theory to the following passages. Please without equivocation, tell me which "at hand" rule and hermeneutic you use to distinguish the following:
(1) Behold the hour is at hand, Matt. 26:45.
(2)The kingdom of God is near (at hand), Luke 21:31. (And don't gloss over "this generation in verse 22). Certainly, Jesus projected this one beyond His personal ministry, (see vv. 21-22).
(3) The day is hand, Rom. 13:11.
(4) The time of my [Paul's] departure is at hand, 2 Tim. 4:7. So, according to you, Paul ought to be preparing to die any moment now, right?
(5) 'What is becoming old is ready (at hand) to vanish away.' Guess we're yet in the Old Covenant age, now going 3500 years strong, (or was the Old Covenant fulfilled in Jesus' ministry?!?
Finally, Rev. 1:3, says those were things which would "shortly come to pass…for the time was near" Rev. 1:1,3. So, the events John write about relative to at hand were future, but shortly in His future, hence he was told, "do not seal the book" for the time is near.
Okay, so, let's have your delineating hermeneutic for which at hand is short, and which at hand is long, and how you solve such a mystery. Oh, and just for good measure, tell us what "not at hand" means.
I have been very consistent and explanatory. You said, "You affirm at hand means not more than three and a half years in the case of Jesus' ministry (if in fact the kingdom was in them at that time)." I never affirmed any such thing (read my comment).
Then you state, " But, in Revelation 1:3, you affirm that at hand stretches for almost 2000 years while you affirm the "not yet" of the kingdom." I never affirmed this either. (read my comment). I simply stated that we have been in the church age over 2000 years to show the connection between past and future, between the "already-not yet" tension that runs through the book of revelation–that runs between the two eschatological stages of the inauguration and consummation of the kingdom of God.
It's easy to assert without proof, then expect a short answer. But such is the nature of debating which is unfortunate. So, that I'm fair, because I do not want to misunderstand/misrepresent you, allow me to ask. You are affirming that a spiritual kingdom came in the first century? Can you tell us when this kingdom began? When was it first at hand, then in hand? To whom does it apply, Jews, Gentiles or both? Secondly, you are expecting a future political, national kingdom to fulfill the not yet. Is this correct? If so, to whom does it apply, Jews, Gentiles or both?
You state: " Rev. 1:3, says those were things which would "shortly come to pass…for the time was near" Rev. 1:1, 3. How long have we waited for the time when "the seventh angel sounded and the kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ" (Rev. 11:15) ? Is it near? What do you mean by near? Again, in the same context (a text without a context is a pretext).it illustrates that John, who received the revelation of Jesus Christ (Rev. i.i) is speaking in the eschatological sense of time. You also forgot to mention that John also states in Revelation1:19 : "Write the things which thou has seen (past) , and the things which are (present) and the things which shall,be hereafter."
I could say much more, but I find my comments to be much more limited than that long post of yours above. How about some equity or fairness in this discussion?
No, I didn't forget it. I anticipated you would bring it up, as you did. That's why I made the comments about the time statements referring to "shortly to come to pass." I put it in bold, so you wouldn't miss it. Now was the past, "shortly to come to pass"? If so, then it wasn't the past, it was the future. So, tell us plainly, is the past, past, or is it future. And to which does John's words, "shortly to come to pass" refer to, things already past, or things which were then future?
To be honest, I find I am so restricted as to length that I can't make a comment more than a few sentences on this website, much less a "delineating hermeneutic", so I am making this my last comment. The scriptures you quote prove nothing. Try looking at each in its context, but before you do how about answering my questions about what is meant by "near" ( Rev. 1:3) in terms of Revelation 11:15 when the trumphet sounded and the kingdoms of this world are made the kingdoms of our Lord, and of His Christ', and in its immediate context of the same chapter (Rev. 1:19): "Write the things which thou hast seen (past), and the things which are (present) and the things which shall be hereafter"?
If you would like a longer reply, thy write out your proposition, and send me your arguments on via email in a pdf or word format. Then you'll have time to respond to the list I gave you. You're ignoring many of these responses, not because of time, but because of the damage they do to your concepts of the kingdom. Rev. 1:3 hermeneutically governs Rev. 11:15, because it was "shortly to come to pass." Now, you must redefine at hand to some 2000 year elasticized process to make the kingdoms of "this world" in John's day means the kingdoms of "this world" today, which is totally out of context. Until you acknowledge that John's "at hand" and "hereafter" are governed by his "shortly to come to pass" and have drawn near time at hand statements, your case is an illusion and figment of the imagination. John said what he meant. The kingdoms of "this world" (the world in His day) not ours have become the kingdom of our Lord and His Christ. Why? For the same reason John affirmed that "the world is passing away because it is the last hour [in his day] for they knew it was the last hour because the antichrists had already come among them and left from among them (1 John 2:17-19). For the same reason Paul affirmed, "the ends of the ages have come upon us" [those in the first century]. But you must take all these passages out of context to strrrrrrreeeeeeetch them into a 21st century setting with no Bible proof. I asked for some simple yes or no answers to some number questions which could all have been answered on one line. So, it's up to you as to how you use your limited space, for dodging and complaining or for giving us straight answers. If the "spiritual" kingdom was "at hand or near in the first century and came in the life time of 1st century disciples, then why didn't this political, national kingdom you allege do the same, since it too was said to be "at hand," (which I don't believe for a moment).
Try one more time:
1. Does at hand mean shortly for the spiritual kingdom, (in the lifetime of first century diciples) yes or no? (You've already affirmed yes)
2. Does at hand mean shortly (in the lifetime of first century disciples) for the political kingdom? yes or no?
3. Does "things you have seen" (past as you put it) mean things past (yes or no)
4. Does "things you have seen" (past as you put it) mean things future, i.e. shortly to come to pass? yes or no
5. Is Rev. 11:15, governed by things "shortly to come to pass" yes or no?
6. Does "not at hand" mean near? yes or no
7. Does "at hand" mean "not near?" yes or no
Just so you know, the seventh angel has sounded, when, in A.D. 70, so I'm not waiting. You can if you like, but if that's a political kingdom, you'll die waiting for it, cause it ain't happening. That's why your position on "at hand" and "shortly to come to pass" violates all grammatical and hermeneutic principles. So don't make a long response, just number and put the yes or no's all on one line and be done with it.
"Ate" says Rev. 1:3 hermeneutically governs Rev. 11:15, because it was "shortly to come to pass." Just goes to show to what extreme (and this is an extreme preterist website) preterists will go to maintain their position–that the seven trumpet has sounded, Christ has returned bodily, physically, [Acts 1:11], visibly [Rev. 1:7], personally [John 14:3], gloriously [ Matthew 24:30) ) and all the kingdoms of this world have been conquered by Christ and subjected to Him. Incredible!
Rayburne, its really simple logic, though I don't necessarily believe you'll be convinced. Revelation 1:3, says John saw things shortly to come to pass. We both agree. Rev. 11:15 is one of the things John saw that was yet to come to pass. We both agree. Therefore, Revelation 11:15 was shortly to come to pass. I agree. Rayburne doesn't. But in so doing, he abandons logic. Now if you could show that Rev. describes things were were 2000 plus years away (and please provide the verse). Then we could possibly entertain that Rev. 11:15 is not yet fulfilled. The same principle works for Acts 1:11 per the following. Acts 1:11 is the coming of Christ. The coming of Christ would have in a very little while. (Heb. 10:37). Therefore, Acts 1:11 occurred in a very little while. (I'll cut it short, so my reply doesn't exceed your expectation of fairness.)
No, "Ate", it is not really logic; it is nonsense. I feel stupid just responding to such comments (which I find devoid of logic and reasoning) but I have only this to say ( and this will be all). Obviously, if Acts 1:11 and John 14:3, in their biblical context (a text without a context is a pretext), written over 2000 years ago, were fulfilled in Revelation 1:3, 11 and Hebrew 10:37, then, , as the famous Anglican interpreter Dean Alford wrote, "there is an end to all significance in language and Scripture is wiped out as a definite testimony to anything." Goodbye and God bless.
Yes, you're right. When at hand, shortly to come to pass, and the time has drawn near means a time longer than the entirety of the Jewish age, language truly has no meaning. If that's what your eschatology is based upon, then I leave you to take pride in destroying the simplicity of meaning. Your "futurist" literal views blind you to truth. Give me one example from everyday non eschatological example life, where you use "shortly" and "at hand" (near) respecting time to mean 2000 years and beyond. Can you, will you? I think not!
Needless to say, the above quote from Dean Alford also applies to the absurd idea that Revelation 11:15 (when Christ conquers all His enemies at His second coming) was fulfilled when Titus sacked and destroyed Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
One could pull from any list of commentators and scholarly exegetes who take futurist views. What does that prove? That God is a liar? Rom. 3:4.
No, it simply proves that there are theologians who are much more capable than you and I at exegeting the scriptures who recognize extreme (preterist) views not taught in scripture.
Theologians are people like anyone else. They can be mistaken and many of them have been wrong and are wrong on points of scripture. Alford is not exempt. His futurism led him into error in exegeting simple terms such as en tachei, engus, etc. So did many others. But here's one thing you nor they would do. Interpret Paul who said the "time of my departure is at hand" (1 Tim. 4:6) and Peter who said, I must put off this my tabernacle "shortly" (2 Pet. 1:14)to mean 2000 years. I will accept that you have some credibility when you are consistent and use the same hermeneutic for these passages as you do the others relating to Christ's coming. You can't. You won't, and you will continue to run and hide from them. I'm sorry, the word hits you that way, but until then, you have no case. And, you must give me credit at least, even if you disagree with my position, I don't change the meaning of those terms. They mean shortly and near in "every" context where they are found! No gaps, no delays, no elasticizing, no rationalizations from commentators, modern or ancient.
I have been consistent allowing scripture to ingterpret each text in its biblical context. Your assertions are nothing more than highly speculative theorizing based on minimal biblical evidence (taken out of context) and attempts to reinterpret the nature of Christ's Second Coming and the resurrection of His people based on the notion that these events have already taken place when Jesus came by means of the Roman armies in judgment on Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
http://www.faithwriters.com/article-details.php?i…
You should read a refutation of the full preterist arguments on the website above.
Okay, you can now go and read my complete refutation of the article. If it's not there let me know and I will send to you.
Why don't you try and refute the clearly stated problems with your extreme preterist views on the following website.
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.a…
I'm sure readers would be interested in your "refutation."