It's funny how one little word can mean so much to an argument. For me, one of the signs of desperation is the "until" argument.
Compare and Contrast:
Hyper-Preterism: The Lord's Supper (Don Preston)
Question: If the Lord did come in A.D. 70, then should we partake of the Lord's Supper? Paul said that "As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you do shew forth the Lord's death until he come" (1 Corinthians 11:26). So, according to this, we should not take the Supper if the Lord came in A. D. 70.
Answer: I believe that this common argument misunderstands the nature of the Supper and the meaning of "until" in Corinthians. First, the word "until" does frequently mean something like "up to the point of," and indicates a terminus or change. However, it frequently does not always mean this. Paul said "death reigned from Adam until Moses" (Romans 5:14). Surely it is acknowledged that the introduction of the Mosaic Law did not end or defeat death! Similarly, Paul told Timothy, "until I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine" (1 Timothy 4:14). I know of no one that would argue that Timothy was to stop reading the Scriptures when Paul arrived! There are many examples of this usage of the word "until."
Roman Catholicism: The Perpetual Virginity of Mary (Tim Staples)
Scripture’s statement that Joseph "knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn" would not necessarily mean they did "know" each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, "Until we meet again, God bless you." Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:
2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)
1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)
1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means! Luke 1:33 says, "he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.")
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Good point on the similarity between how hyper-Preterists and RCs deal with the word "until".
Below, I think you meant- I Timothy 4:13 - (smile)
Similarly, Paul told Timothy, "until I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine" (1 Timothy 4:14). I know of no one that would argue that Timothy was to stop reading the Scriptures when Paul arrived! There are many examples of this usage of the word "until."
The verses cited were from Don Preston and Tim Staples.
oh, I should have got that.
It was a good catch Ken.
Tim Staples probably cited the text from memory when he wrote the article. Say what one will about Mr. Staples, he does have an incredible amount of Scripture memorized.
Mt 24 is difficult, but i see it thru a glass, darkly, as a imprecise prophetic utterance answering both how the temple will be destroyed - which was a precursor to the final event. as was Dan. 12:11, though, like 70AD, you would think Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled it - and the Lord's coming at the end of the whole world.
But I disagree that 70 AD is the Lord's coming referred to in the Last Supper ordinance, a this is not only rather anticlimactic (or require a forced, "came in judgment" reading), but it would mean the "time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants" (Rv. 11:18) already took place, as it occurs at His coming. (2Cor. 4:5; 2 Thes.2:1)
And which time is the resurrection, and when "them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him...Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. “ (1 Thes 4:14,17) “ [Not purgatory]
And shall go on with Him to the battle of Armageddon and later judge men and angels. (Jude 14-15; 1 Cor. 6:3)
Those who effectually believe on the Lord Jesus now have eternal life life, and if they die in the Lord they shall go to be with the Lord, (2Cor. 5:6-8; Phil. 1:23; 1Thes. 4:17) but their rewards or loss thereof are not given out until that “day of the Lord.”
Believers will be rewarded for their good works, (Lk. 14:14; cf. 1Cor. 4:5; Acts 24:15) in distinction to “the resurrection of damnation” (Jn. 5:29b) which evidently occurs 1,000 years after, (Rv. 20:5) and in which believers will be part of the jury in the judgment of men and angels.
As for “until” see my work in progress here As regards I Timothy 4:13, This also denotes a terminus and change, not of ceasing from all ministerial work, but in context that of ceasing from what Timothy was to preoccupy himself with doing until Paul arrived (which is why “till I come” is the preface), in which case his normal routine and ministerial work would be interrupted by ministering to Paul and being tutored by him.
But I disagree that 70 AD is the Lord's coming referred to in the Last Supper ordinance, a this is not only rather anticlimactic (or require a forced, "came in judgment" reading), but it would mean the "time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants" (Rv. 11:18) already took place, as it occurs at His coming. (2Cor. 4:5; 2 Thes.2:1)
Welcome to the wild world of Hyper-Preterism.
Because Hyper-Preterism sees all of Matthew 24 fulfilled in A.D. 70, such things like the Lord's Supper have to be re-interpreted to fit the paradigm.
Keep in mind- the Lord's Supper is only one problem. For instance, If this is now the new heavens and earth, I wonder why hyper-preterists are staying married. I'm sure they have some sort of answer for this as well.
Right, same goes for 1914, etc.
I do understand their worthy desire, but find it forced, and a slippery slope hermeneutic. But though eschatology is not my major focus, and must allow for some differences, i also reject the pretrib rapture, and see the resurrection as being the catching away, just before Armageddon it seems.
And if i may also say, it is not the few texts which RCAs like Staples may have memorized that is the problem but like JW's, it is the ones they avoid, while wresting the ones they use to support their traditions of men.
BTW, the liked page examining such has been revised and will be, (no one should be their own proof reader, but the laborers are few).
Post a Comment