It took me a while to arrive where I am currently. 
Premillenialism
Pre-Tribualation Rapture
Mid-Tribualation Rapture
Post-Tribualation Rapture
Pre-Wrath Rapture
Postmillenialism
Partial Preterism
Amillenialism?
Full Preterism
It’s been quite a journey. Basically studied and adopted just about every position there is on the subject and ended up rejecting them all until full preterism.
I’m okay with that being the siege and fall of Jerusalem. But verses 30 and 31?
Speaking of theological changes, Sproul moved from amillennialism to post-millennialism (partial preterism). His book The Last Days According to Jesus was the book where he stated his changed view. I never read it, but did hear him speaking about it once and Acts 1:11 was his simple reason for rejecting full preterism.
- Any body notice that the first time Jesus talked about the return of the Son of Man was before he was crucified. When he was crucified and died on the cross, “he went away”. When he was resurrected, that was his first return; when he ascended up into heaven, “he went away again.” Before “going away” the second time, he did not, IMO, speak of his immanent return. He just told Peter: “If I want “the other disciple” to live until I return, what is that to you?”
I did not. But will eventually read the entire gospels again this year and I’ll be sure to remember this.
Since I ac introduced to preterism at such a young age I was never really anything else. I mean sure as a kid I read left behind thought it was acceptable as to what would happen. But in church was taught cessationism and preterism by a pastor who also spoke of evolution. He was a chemist before becoming a pastor. He is what we would call an evolutionary creationist.
But since then, I’ve read a lot of books on other views and they just all fall short of preterism.
Don’t think listening to the Gospels is cutting yourself short. It wouldn’t be far-fetched to see them as originally written to be heard. Robert Alter’s translation of the OT is available on hoopla for me as an audiobook, and I am finding it to be a rich resource. Even the intros to the individual books, which I consider to be theologically liberal, are still worth hearing.
I enjoy his work. I went through his translation of the Old Testament a few times. Also on hoopla as an audiobook. I’ve read the New Testament a bunch. Just never paid attention to what he mentioned. This time I will. Soon I’ll probably go back through his translation. I wish they had more theology books on there like in depth commentaries and so on.
Not sure what we can make of that argument from silence. However, it fails to take into account what Jesus says in the book of Revelation, where His return is repeatedly and emphatically said to be imminent.
Did you mean The Story of God Bible Commentaries? If so, I do wonder how long I have to wait to see the one on Ezekiel… these would also seem to work well as an audiobook.
- IMO, the only “functional use” of the last book in the New Testament is inspiration for Michael Card’s 1997 album, “Unveiled Hope”
- Luther wrote: "I accept as my authority for that decision, Martin Luther’s "“Preface to the Revelation of St. John” (1522)
- About this Book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly [Revelation 22]—indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important—and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1[:8], “You shall be my witnesses.” Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely." - Also, I note that John Calvin himself never wrote a Commentary on The Revelation of John, which most assuredly was written after the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus, and the death of Peter and Paul. My days of Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, and reading Apocalyptic literature are over. If Jesus wants me know about his plans for vengeance, he’s going to have to tell me himself.
Not to derail the topic, but what is the verdict on the date and authorship of Daniel in that work? I have no interest in an argument. I’m just curious as I’m leading next Bible study on Daniel and this is an issue I had to look at and it’s quite divisive.
There is also another thing that’s fairly divisive that I’ve changed my mind on in the last year or so. I’ve changed my mind to the position that Justin Lee puts forth in his book “Torn”. I’m a cis heterosexual man who’s only attracted to cis women. I use to have a very heteronormative interpretation of the Bible. But I’ve learned that specific clobber verses that seem to be very easily read as plain text may actually have a very cultural component to it. Through the examples provided in the Bible, and other ways to interpret those verses, I’ve came to an affirming conclusion and that what’s being discussed in the Bible is next loving consensual relationships like that but are actually about temple prostitution and non consensual toxic abuse.
The theological view is that it was written retrospectively during the Maccabean revolt. Clearly this will devalue it in many’s eyes. The empires being
Mede/Persian, Babylonian, Greek , Roman
I am sure that if you search around you will find 2 or 3 conflicting views. I do not think that there is a certain answer.
Richard
Terry, thanks for laying your thoughts out so clearly here. This was a very helpful post.
Thanks for the reference.
Entirely my fault for opening this can of worms, so I thought it best to pull it over into a side conversation. Play nice now y’all.
This is my position and I think it’s final redaction is very solidly datable to ca 163-164 BCE (meaning it’s ex eventu prophecy). I was just wondering what the book Mike read says on the issue.
Widder is charitable towards scholars who hold to a late date for Daniel and it’s something she admits evangelicals with a high view of Scripture can fall on either side of. Her view for a couple reasons is an early date, but it doesn’t rule out the book being later edited.