As for the dating of Rev. I too see that it's more than likely before the destruction of Jerusalem. You may be aware of certain scriptures that would lead you to agree with that, mainly Isa.2:12-21, Luke 23:26-31, and Rev.6:12-17. If your not familiar with these passages it will shed light on dating Rev.
I really love what you say Doug about how the Bible wasn’t written to us but for us. Because when we get to passages that we don’t understand, our problem is that we try to understand it. But we don’t need to, the Jews and the peoples that the Bible was written to do understand and that’s all that matters. For us we need to leave the unexplained and learn from the things we know
Totally agree with your view on 'isms' and your summation of Revelation and of Preterism in general. I'm also not a Futurist. The Preterist view always quote Rev 1:1, while never quoting Rev 1:19, 'Therefore write what you saw, what is, AND WHAT WILL BE AFTER THESE THINGS.' As an aside. I find the numbers in Revelation to be revealing (excuse the pun). Revealing information as signified in line with the whole book of Revelation. For instance, the number 'seven' in scripture is always representative of complete/completion/whole, as in seven days make a complete week; Jacob completed seven years of servitude to Laban for Leah and seven more for Rachel, etc. So the number seven is revealing completion, that, for example, the seven heads of the beast of Rev 13:1 is referring to the complete Gentile beast (kingdoms) arising throughout history. And so it is with all the numbers referenced. That they are not to be dismissed as literal, insignificant detail. Love your ministry. Cheers
Robert, it’s been my experience that all “views” quote certain passages and shy away from others. Not here to defend any one view but would like to understand the significance you see with the connection of 1:19 and if the accusation “never quote it” is true-why? Have you studied the Preterist view enough to know they don’t cite the verse and their reasoning?
@Theologyinthegrammer The Preterist view seems to put every emphasis on 70AD, quoting Rev 1:1, '...what must happen very soon.' Rather than the more encompassing verse 19, 'of what is and what will be after these things.' Isn't this the Preterist view, that the book of Revelation was entirely fulfilled in 70AD?
I would not think those holding to the Preterist view think all is done and nothing else to look forward to. Rather, my understanding is they are strongly emphasizing the destruction and fulfillment (promises) in a generation of a particular people (believers) that would understand the timeliness and urgency of the message (soon). I see their presentation as one that promised an end and new beginnings. Yes, many of their prominent teachers stress 70AD/fulfillment, but I also hear from many of them regarding the now-what question. Christ is on the Throne. Love God, love your neighbor, be devoted, and disciple the nations. From my angle, too many are caught up in deciphering the mysteriousness of “The End”and completely missing the commands for everyday. Regarding …what must happen very soon… and …what will be after these things… can be understood independently and connected--logical to me. Scripture does not provide warnings and what follows--many times? Perhaps you can explain why you favor the more encompassing and what the writer intended his readers to understand soon to mean to them. Thanks for the dialogue.
@@Theologyinthegrammer Thanks. I'm eagerly awaiting Doug's teaching on Revelation. I understand the Full Preterist view says it has all been fulfilled. As distinct from the partial Preterist view which says it hasn't all been fulfilled yet. Without being influenced by other's teaching, simply because I wasn't exposed to any teaching on Revelation whatsoever, and, rather, just from private reading of the text, I concluded that Matthew 24 was an answer to a two part question from the disciples and not one, as Doug describes in this video. I've also sincerely tried to read Revelation from the Full Preterist perspective. However, in my mind, can't make it all fit into the time period of pre 70AD. As I said, I'm not a Futurist, with their view of it being some time in the future of our present perspective. I must truly be a rebel because I can't agree with some of the Historicist views either. There are other considerations which influence my views and prevent me from falling into any one of those groups. Cheers
@@Theologyinthegrammer Regarding your comment about people being concerned with the mysterious and missing the present reality of being in Christ (my paraphrasing), I agree. My interest in the mysterious is in relation to now, the church and what is not the church. What is true and what is the lie. Cheers
The weeping and mourning. Is this what Jesus refers to constantly when talking to the Jews about there will be weeping and mourning and gnashing of teeth? Or is this only in reference to hell
First time on this channel, so idk what this guy teaches, but hell is a norse word, not a hebrew one. The modern idea of hell comes more from greek thinking than it does from biblical thinking. When the bible says "sheol" or "valley of gehenna" or a few others, it gets translated as hell. The problem is that we have different view of what "hell" is than what the original speakers/listeners would have had about sheol and gehenna. So IMO weeping and gnashing of teeth doesn't mean eternal conscious torment the way that hell implies it would.
Reading other translations of Zech 12, a completely different story is told from the reading and interpretation given here. So much for the sola scriptura debate. I'm not meaning to controversial. Just expressing what seems to be.
I wouldn’t consider myself a dispensationalist. I appreciate you sticking with just what the scripture says. I will say that you have created a position that forces the prophecy to be fulfilled in the first century when it is possible some is yet in the future. For example, I’m hard pressed to see that Jesus returned and is reigning since the first century. Are you familiar with dual (or even multiple) fulfillment? The concept that the prophet sees hilltops aligned with each other but not the valleys in between; nor does the prophet have depth perception to discern the chronology. So, when you detect “a shift” in Zec 12:7, might the shift be to a prophecy yet in the future?
I am familiar. How would one begin to prove the theory? How would we decide which prophecies have multiple fulfillments? Should we be looking for another virgin to give birth to another King?
@@CrossToCrownLive How long winded can I be? The short answer is, “What hasn’t happened yet”? My example was Jesus’ return. I think we need to be careful about insisting all that Zechariah prophesied was already fulfilled. While I agree with your concept of literal and directional fulfillment, I happen to believe that Immanuel was literally fulfilled, given the ancient eastern concept of a name being who and what you are. Immanuel = God with us was literally fulfilled. So, when we discover a prophecy that seems not to have been fulfilled literally yet, let’s not be quick to put it in the directional category and dismiss it might have future literal fulfillment. Let’s learn from the Pharisees and Jewish rulers and not be too dogmatic in our interpretation.
My thoughts on this is that we see a lot of Jewish literature have repetition, so why not see history as also having repetition? I agree that I see double fulfillment in scripture and I think people get way too caught up in the modern understanding of the English word "fulfillment" and so we aren't able to see that sometimes things are just "hyperlinks" that show that there is a similarity and that we should see how things are "fulfilled" similarly. I've been told that Ancient Hebrew thinking of time is more circular than linear, so that also makes me think that fulfillments are also going to have some circular sense.
Ye’r a preterist, Harry! Really, it is a very simple thing. Take any Bible prophecy save for the resurrection and make a claim: ”this passage was fulfilled in 1948” or ”this passage is being fulfilled before our very lying eyes”. If you understand that you have no right or authority to compel anyone to believe that claim and if you are willing to admit that you are too infallible to make such claims in the first place, then you have practically conceded that preterism is the only sensible position.
Victorious Fulfilled Eschatology is where it's at. We are now in the New Jerusalem. Mt Zion. The old is gone the new has come.
As for the dating of Rev. I too see that it's more than likely before the destruction of Jerusalem. You may be aware of certain scriptures that would lead you to agree with that, mainly Isa.2:12-21, Luke 23:26-31, and Rev.6:12-17. If your not familiar with these passages it will shed light on dating Rev.
I really love what you say Doug about how the Bible wasn’t written to us but for us. Because when we get to passages that we don’t understand, our problem is that we try to understand it. But we don’t need to, the Jews and the peoples that the Bible was written to do understand and that’s all that matters. For us we need to leave the unexplained and learn from the things we know
Amen. This is hands down one of the biggest issues in the modern church.
Zech 12:8 is telling us that God will save the remnant of Jerusalem? Which are the believers in Christ Jesus.
I’m confused, what’s the difference between inhabitants Jerusalem/ house of David/ Judah
Totally agree with your view on 'isms' and your summation of Revelation and of Preterism in general. I'm also not a Futurist. The Preterist view always quote Rev 1:1, while never quoting Rev 1:19, 'Therefore write what you saw, what is, AND WHAT WILL BE AFTER THESE THINGS.'
As an aside. I find the numbers in Revelation to be revealing (excuse the pun). Revealing information as signified in line with the whole book of Revelation. For instance, the number 'seven' in scripture is always representative of complete/completion/whole, as in seven days make a complete week; Jacob completed seven years of servitude to Laban for Leah and seven more for Rachel, etc. So the number seven is revealing completion, that, for example, the seven heads of the beast of Rev 13:1 is referring to the complete Gentile beast (kingdoms) arising throughout history. And so it is with all the numbers referenced. That they are not to be dismissed as literal, insignificant detail. Love your ministry. Cheers
Robert, it’s been my experience that all “views” quote certain passages and shy away from others. Not here to defend any one view but would like to understand the significance you see with the connection of 1:19 and if the accusation “never quote it” is true-why? Have you studied the Preterist view enough to know they don’t cite the verse and their reasoning?
@Theologyinthegrammer
The Preterist view seems to put every emphasis on 70AD, quoting Rev 1:1, '...what must happen very soon.' Rather than the more encompassing verse 19, 'of what is and what will be after these things.'
Isn't this the Preterist view, that the book of Revelation was entirely fulfilled in 70AD?
I would not think those holding to the Preterist view think all is done and nothing else to look forward to. Rather, my understanding is they are strongly emphasizing the destruction and fulfillment (promises) in a generation of a particular people (believers) that would understand the timeliness and urgency of the message (soon). I see their presentation as one that promised an end and new beginnings. Yes, many of their prominent teachers stress 70AD/fulfillment, but I also hear from many of them regarding the now-what question. Christ is on the Throne. Love God, love your neighbor, be devoted, and disciple the nations. From my angle, too many are caught up in deciphering the mysteriousness of “The End”and completely missing the commands for everyday. Regarding …what must happen very soon… and …what will be after these things… can be understood independently and connected--logical to me. Scripture does not provide warnings and what follows--many times? Perhaps you can explain why you favor the more encompassing and what the writer intended his readers to understand soon to mean to them. Thanks for the dialogue.
@@Theologyinthegrammer
Thanks. I'm eagerly awaiting Doug's teaching on Revelation.
I understand the Full Preterist view says it has all been fulfilled. As distinct from the partial Preterist view which says it hasn't all been fulfilled yet.
Without being influenced by other's teaching, simply because I wasn't exposed to any teaching on Revelation whatsoever, and, rather, just from private reading of the text, I concluded that Matthew 24 was an answer to a two part question from the disciples and not one, as Doug describes in this video.
I've also sincerely tried to read Revelation from the Full Preterist perspective. However, in my mind, can't make it all fit into the time period of pre 70AD. As I said, I'm not a Futurist, with their view of it being some time in the future of our present perspective. I must truly be a rebel because I can't agree with some of the Historicist views either.
There are other considerations which influence my views and prevent me from falling into any one of those groups. Cheers
@@Theologyinthegrammer
Regarding your comment about people being concerned with the mysterious and missing the present reality of being in Christ (my paraphrasing), I agree. My interest in the mysterious is in relation to now, the church and what is not the church. What is true and what is the lie. Cheers
If heaven and earth haven't passed away then the law is still active. Mat 5:18
Inner tribe conflict, with the true family of David being lifted up to Shepard what’s left after the siege??
The weeping and mourning. Is this what Jesus refers to constantly when talking to the Jews about there will be weeping and mourning and gnashing of teeth? Or is this only in reference to hell
First time on this channel, so idk what this guy teaches, but hell is a norse word, not a hebrew one. The modern idea of hell comes more from greek thinking than it does from biblical thinking. When the bible says "sheol" or "valley of gehenna" or a few others, it gets translated as hell. The problem is that we have different view of what "hell" is than what the original speakers/listeners would have had about sheol and gehenna.
So IMO weeping and gnashing of teeth doesn't mean eternal conscious torment the way that hell implies it would.
Reading other translations of Zech 12, a completely different story is told from the reading and interpretation given here. So much for the sola scriptura debate. I'm not meaning to controversial. Just expressing what seems to be.
Brother does Matthew 24, Luke 21 tie in to Zach 12? Destruction of Jewish temple 70 AD.
I believe it does, please watch the previous video, where Doug goes through chapter 12 😊
can we directionally say that Judah represents the 1st century Jewish believers
I wouldn’t consider myself a dispensationalist. I appreciate you sticking with just what the scripture says. I will say that you have created a position that forces the prophecy to be fulfilled in the first century when it is possible some is yet in the future. For example, I’m hard pressed to see that Jesus returned and is reigning since the first century. Are you familiar with dual (or even multiple) fulfillment? The concept that the prophet sees hilltops aligned with each other but not the valleys in between; nor does the prophet have depth perception to discern the chronology. So, when you detect “a shift” in Zec 12:7, might the shift be to a prophecy yet in the future?
I am familiar. How would one begin to prove the theory? How would we decide which prophecies have multiple fulfillments? Should we be looking for another virgin to give birth to another King?
@@CrossToCrownLive
How long winded can I be? The short answer is, “What hasn’t happened yet”? My example was Jesus’ return. I think we need to be careful about insisting all that Zechariah prophesied was already fulfilled. While I agree with your concept of literal and directional fulfillment, I happen to believe that Immanuel was literally fulfilled, given the ancient eastern concept of a name being who and what you are. Immanuel = God with us was literally fulfilled. So, when we discover a prophecy that seems not to have been fulfilled literally yet, let’s not be quick to put it in the directional category and dismiss it might have future literal fulfillment. Let’s learn from the Pharisees and Jewish rulers and not be too dogmatic in our interpretation.
My thoughts on this is that we see a lot of Jewish literature have repetition, so why not see history as also having repetition? I agree that I see double fulfillment in scripture and I think people get way too caught up in the modern understanding of the English word "fulfillment" and so we aren't able to see that sometimes things are just "hyperlinks" that show that there is a similarity and that we should see how things are "fulfilled" similarly.
I've been told that Ancient Hebrew thinking of time is more circular than linear, so that also makes me think that fulfillments are also going to have some circular sense.
Ye’r a preterist, Harry! Really, it is a very simple thing. Take any Bible prophecy save for the resurrection and make a claim: ”this passage was fulfilled in 1948” or ”this passage is being fulfilled before our very lying eyes”. If you understand that you have no right or authority to compel anyone to believe that claim and if you are willing to admit that you are too infallible to make such claims in the first place, then you have practically conceded that preterism is the only sensible position.