Prior Book | Prior Chapter | Prior Verse | Next Verse | Next Chapter | Next Book | Viewing NASB and Amplified 2015 | |
NASB | Matthew 16:28 ¶ "Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." |
AMPLIFIED 2015 | Matthew 16:28 ¶ "I assure you and most solemnly say to you, there are some of those standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." |
Subject: Still not convinced preterism is false |
Bible Note: BradK, I once read a quote that said: "If your premise is off your findings will be off." The only way preterism can be true, in my opinion, is if the premise of those who have believed in a yet future return of Christ has been off. I am coming to the conclusion that it is possible that, in the area of eschatology, otherwise orthodox believers may have missed the boat. This is why I've tried to focus on the time-frame references and audience relevance. It's not my intention to beat a dead horse here. I really believe that if the focus of the NT writers (and by extension God Himself) was primarily to communicate to their first century audience the events surrounding the end of the old covenant age, the futurist might well be mistaken. Once one concedes that NT Scripture outlines a time-frame that clearly speaks in terms of imminence (soon, at hand, near etc.) then the predicted events, by necessity, must be explained within those time-frame parameters. The futurist must attempt to manipulate the time-frames in order to explain events they see as not taking place imminently as predicted. That is why they develop such things as dual fulfillment theories and the idea that God doesn't exist in time etc. So, within the time-frame parameters of the NT, the Acts 1:11 passage would have to be explained in light of the fact that Jesus returned, as he said he would, within that generation. When God said that he would "come on the clouds" in Is. 19:1, he did exactly that. It was a literal fulfillment. However, he came in the form of the Assyrian army to destroy Egypt. So, when Jesus said that he would come in the clouds just as they had seen him go (in the clouds) couldn't he have come in the form of the Roman army? That is Scripture being consistent with Scripture, is it not? I'm not prepared to conclude that the NT writers were false prophets and I'm not comfortable explaining away the time-frames. So, the only alternative is preterism. The time-frame is one of the more clear teachings that I've found in Scripture. And, I've been taught that we should interpret the obscure in light of the clear. For that reason I think it would be helpful to discuss this issue from the time-frame and audience relevance perspective. In humility and grace, Coper |