True Justice, Elevated and Pure

An excerpt from “WHATEVER BECAME OF MELANIE?” by yours truly.

”What about justice?” she asked. “Aren’t the holiness and justice of God to some degree compromised by what you’re saying?”

“That all depends on your view of justice,” said Brenda. “If you see justice as nothing more than heartless revenge and retribution for crimes committed, then you’ll naturally see a problem here. But is this what true justice really is? Is this the extent of God’s purpose and holy design regarding justice, that the unrepentant sinner should be tormented day and night in the flames of hell forever, for crimes committed in the brief moment of his mortal existence? Born into a world of shadows, with a predisposition to sin and self-will, cast upon the stage of fleshly desires and lust - hardened by sin and circumstance, weak and frail, spiritually blind, deceived and deluded, a will bound by sin and self-indulgence, and more likely than not, never hearing the gospel of grace and redemption until he finds himself standing before his Maker, and then it’s too late! Does the justice of God rise no higher than this? Do the evil tyrants of the past, with their torture chambers and racks, their boiling caldrons of oil; though repulsive to us now, do they accurately reflect the justice of heaven? This obviously isn’t a very flattering commentary on the justice of God, but if the conservative doctrine of hell is true, so is this.”

Alice nodded silently, in deep reflection.

“If you study the history of the early church,” said Brenda, “this twisted view of justice was not popularized until the fifth century, when Augustine imposed upon the church a theology that he patterned after the harsh judicial system of Rome. He then proceeded to build a systematic theology around it that has ruled, or rather ‘plagued’ the church ever since.

“Do you know what view was predominant in the early church during the first five centuries?”

“No,” said Alice with deep interest.

“Christian universalism!” exclaimed Brenda. “A large segment, if not the majority of the early church fathers believed in the final holiness and happiness of all. This is a fact that even ‘orthodox’ scholars cannot deny. Those closest to Jesus and the Apostles, for the most part, believed in the final triumph of grace.”

“Can you verify that?” asked Alice.

“I’ve got quotes galore,” said Brenda. “We’ll look at some of them later this week.

“Getting back to our discussion, this was the height and extent of Roman justice, you broke the law and you got stepped on, simple as that. There was no higher end or more noble purpose than this. Now according to the view prevalent today, God’s justice is far worse and much more severe than anything we’ve seen demonstrated on this planet. Regardless of how brutal and depraved a ruler or tyrant was, the victims of his justice would eventually die. This is not the case with God’s victims. As the ages of eternity roll on, the victims of His justice are never any closer to satisfying the demands of that justice than they were at the beginning. Age after endless age after endless age, the haunting cries for mercy continue to rise from the pit of despair, only to fall upon the deaf ears of cold-hearted omnipotence. Literally billions who have been created in His likeness, numberless myriad of souls who were supposedly once the objects of His love and goodness, now, the objects of His wrath and holy hatred, and that, for ever and ever and ever.

“According to this view, the justice and love of God are diametrically opposed. They are against each other and they serve completely different ends. You are either an object of His love and goodness, or you are an object of His justice and wrath. The haunting consistency of Calvinism cannot be ignored. For if God is God indeed, a soul is either an object of His love and goodness, yesterday, today and forever, or an object of His justice and impending wrath, yesterday, today and forever. If a soul is an object of His electing love as determined in the council of eternity past, he will be an object of electing love forever, whether foreknown or foreordained, it matters not. If a soul is an object of electing justice, as also determined in the council of eternity past, he will be an object of electing justice and holy wrath forever, again, whether foreknown or foreordained, it matters not. Now is this just? According to the sense of right and wrong, the innate values, moral instinct and intuition that God has placed deep within you, is this just?”

“I see your point,” said Alice. “So tell me, what is justice?”   

“Contrary to popular opinion,” said Brenda, ”God’s love and justice are friends, and they seek and work toward, and will one day achieve the same glorious end, the just and holy life of all His children. We’ll look at the Scriptures later, but for now, just try to wrap your mind around the principle. What does society justly require of us as citizens? - to obey the laws of the land and to live just lives, right? Now, in a civilized and progressive society, what ideally is the purpose of penalties under the law? What do they intend and hope to achieve? Are judicial punishments nothing more than cold, calculated revenge? Is this their intent, or do they hope to achieve the rehabilitation and redemption of the offender? Granted, there are times and occasions where this cannot be done. But if the authorities had the power to change and rehabilitate the life of an offender through the process of justice and corrective discipline, would they not do it? Is this not clearly the highest and most noble end of justice? A misguided youth strays from the path and commits a crime. Is the response of society to damn their children to harsh and heartless retribution? -  vengeful punishments that would do nothing but harden the youth, and condemn him to a life of crime?

“What about justice in the home? What is the motive, what is the desire of parents as they administer justice to their children? Does a loving parent whip a child for a minor offense? And even if the offense is a large one, does the parent ever stop loving the child and finally cast him or her off forever? Can the ties that bind a parent and child be so easily severed? No! A wise and loving parent will discipline and punish out of love! A wise and loving parent will always carefully and judiciously discipline the child so that the child might grow to live a just and righteous life! This is where love and justice meet - and they do meet and always serve the same noble end.

“Where do we find the ultimate pattern for true justice? Do we find it in the home? Do we find it in society? Or do we find it in the heart and the redemptive purpose and ways of God? As in the home and society, God’s justice is only truly served and gloriously achieved in the rehabilitation and transformation of its object. Perfect justice must always render its object perfectly just. It cannot be otherwise. Parents and societies often fail, but God never fails. He cannot fail! There will ultimately be no victims of God’s justice, only grateful recipients.”

“Wow!” exclaimed Alice. “You’re good.”

“No,” replied Brenda. “God is good, and this is the real issue. No matter how we may try to get around it, if God damns even one soul to the torments of hell forever, He is not good. The foundation of His goodness crumbles, and He resembles more the devil than the false, flattering image we’ve made of Him.” 

“According to Jesus, what is the greatest commandment?”

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength,’ and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’” quoted Alice from the Scriptures. ^{Mk 12:30, 31a NIV}

“What can more magnify and glorify the justice of God,” asked Brenda, “than all His children eventually achieving this high and holy end in every thought, word, deed and motive? This, first and foremost, far above and beyond anything else, is the grand and holy claim of justice, a royal prerogative that will never be relinquished, a lawful right that will never be altered, an irrevocable necessity to which all the dealings of God, all His judgments and penalties of law, all His providential acts and interventions are directed. This exalted and glorious end will finally be achieved in each and every one of His children. Both His goodness and justice will be vindicated and magnified beyond all our abilities to fathom or comprehend.

“As Paul states in his epistles, it is the works of the devil, death and the grave that will finally be destroyed, not the children of God who are now held captive by these forces. There is a difference. Notice too that they are destroyed, not preserved in hell forever.

“‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.’ ^{1Cor 15:22 NKJV} Here we see the word ‘all’ again. All die in Adam, every last one. We all essentially come into this world with a god-complex. Yes, for the most part we want to do what’s right, but we also want to decide what’s right. Herein lies our natural depravity, the core and marrow of our rebellion. ^{Isa 53:6} Whether we know it or not, whether we accept it or not, we are not our own. We are not autonomous, independent creatures with the right to self-government and rule. God has made us. Our lives are intrinsically, inseparably bound to Him. There is not one breath we take that God has not given, not one pulsating beat within our breast that He does not author and powerfully sustain.

“Christ has redeemed us. For us He lived a perfect life, for us He was despised and rejected, for us He died an agonizing, shameful death, for us He powerfully rose from the grave, victorious, exalted and free! To save us from ourselves, our sin and its consequences, to reconcile us to our Father, to restore us to a state of happiness and wholeness, He freely gave His all. On the cross of Calvary He offered Himself to the Father as a sacrificial gift of His love - in the language of the Old Testament types, a ‘sweet savor,’ ‘an aroma pleasing to the Lord,’ ^{Lev 1:9b KJV & NIV}  a culmination of a perfect life of loving submission and pure devotion.

“As reward for His selfless obedience even unto death, God has highly exalted Him, giving Him a name above all names, granting Him authority over all. ^{Phil 2:6-11} Christ is now the rightful heir and undisputed owner of all things. Everything and everyone belong to Him. This also happens to include us. And the fact of the matter is that He is now in the process of claiming His inheritance, not mutilating and destroying it! And He will succeed! Not cold, heartless revenge, but true justice, holy, exalted and pure, will finally triumph. And all who have died in Adam will most certainly live in Christ, and that, forever and ever and ever! And the predominant, most powerful instrument in His arsenal of justice is His love! True, deep and lasting repentance, a genuine, life-changing conversion is not birthed by servile fear, but by love. It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance. ^{Rom 2:4} Fear is nothing more than a cruel taskmaster that hardens the heart and drives the child away. According to the Scriptures and our own experience, it is the love of Christ that compels and inspires us to truly live for Him. ^{2Cor 5:14} It is the constant, cloudless view of His mercy that empowers and persuades us to offer ourselves as living sacrifices in the service of God and others. ^{Rom 12:1} Though justice does involve punishment and the occasional fearful consequence, this is not its base. The foundation of true justice is love, as are all the attributes of God, for God is Love. The only logical conclusion we can draw from this is the Biblical conclusion, in Christ ALL will finally be made alive!”

“I believe it!” replied Alice emphatically.

“Once you’ve seen the issues it’s hard not to,” said Brenda.

Postmortem punishment: Neither Biblical nor moral.

With respect to the Bible passages that seem to speak to a postmortem punishment of the unbeliever, I believe their perceived strength lies only in what we have inferred upon them. Having been schooled in dark ages dogma (as was I), we find it extremely difficult to see a passage without the mound of inference that has been associated with it. For example, Heb. 9:27 “It is given unto man once to die, then the judgment.” If we disregard all the dark ages doctrines and views that have been subconsciously linked to this passage and take it at face value, all it is really saying is that upon death each and every person will stand before God and give an account. I do not see it in any way suggesting or supporting the postmortem punishment of the sinner. I recall for years encountering Ecclesiastes 12: 7, 8 in my Bible reading. “…and the dust returns to the ground it came from, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.” I recall awkwardly glossing over it, as it failed to fit into my theology at so many levels. But how simple and profound is this truth! How consistent it is with the nature of a true Father, the Father of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ!

Please take a moment to consider this quote from "Whatever Became Of Melanie?" Chapter 25, where, in responding to a carefully crafted question, Jesus himself buttresses, confirms and gloriously enlarges upon the ancient words spoken by the Holy Spirit through Solomon.

“Consider the words of Jesus regarding the resurrection of the dead. As you recall, the Sadducees, who claimed there was no resurrection, tried to trip Him up with a hypothetical question about a man who died. In keeping with the law, he left his wife to his brother, who also died. Eventually, by each one subsequently dying, all seven brothers were married to her. She too eventually died. The Sadducees then asked whose wife she would be at the resurrection. Jesus responded by saying: ‘You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But what about the resurrection of the dead - have you not read what God said to you, 'I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.’ ^{Matt. 22:29-32 NIV} This quote is from Matthew's Gospel. Mark's account is basically the same. ^{Mark 12:18-27} Luke on the other hand gives us a bit more information. ‘Those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God's children, since they are children of the resurrection… He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.’ ^{Luke 20:35-36, 38 NIV} 

“The conservative tries to undermine the universal scope of this teaching by forcing what he perceives to be the qualifying clause: ‘those who are considered worthy’ will be saved, and they alone. But we're not talking salvation here, we're talking resurrection! As you take a closer look at this and other resurrection passages, you see very quickly that this supposed ‘qualifier’ doesn't float very well. Now obviously Matthew, Mark and Luke all regarded this exchange as worthy of note - actually, it's the only teaching on the resurrection recorded by them. But Luke is the only one who is careful and thorough enough to include this most critical qualifying clause. If it is indeed as critical to the proper understanding, and ‘limiting’ of the text, as conservatives affirm, then Matthew and Mark were apparently somewhat careless and negligent. And those who didn't have Luke's gospel to refer to would have invariably been misled into believing that the resurrection of the dead would be universal and all-inclusive. As we've already seen, it was indeed a universal event, including both the righteous and the wicked dead, and everyone in-between. Speaking of the resurrection, Paul says, ‘There will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.’ ^{Acts 24:15b NIV} Worthiness apparently was not an issue.”

“Then what is Jesus saying here?” asked Alice.

“There was a crowd present,” replied Brenda, “no doubt consisting of Sadducees, Pharisees and many common people. ^{Matt. 22:33} As Jesus was correcting the false notions of the Sadducees regarding the resurrection, I believe He also used the occasion to berate and scold the Pharisees with some pointed sarcasm, who believed in a partial, conditional resurrection. He was probably looking right at them. If this is not so, then tell me, according to the Scriptures, who among the dead are not raised at the resurrection?  Please, point me to chapter and verse. Also, what conservative denomination believes the resurrection of the dead to only include those who are in some way worthy? And how incredibly contradictory this is to the principles and spirit of the Reformation! Grace alone! Faith alone! Apparently not. Salvation based upon worthiness… It sounds like something the Pharisees would say and believe, doesn’t it? Matthew and Mark didn't include this supposed ‘qualifier’ in their accounts because it was essentially extraneous information. The essence of what Christ taught and intended remained quite intact without it. With regard to the resurrection of the dead, everything in this passage points to a universal, all-inclusive participation, regardless of the life style or belief system of the participants. The passage, by both its silence and implicit clarity, forces this conclusion upon us with the greatest eloquence. First, the example presented was seven brothers and a woman with no commentary on their spiritual status or condition. The plain assumption, based upon the silence of Christ, is that they would ‘all’ participate in the resurrection, and any supposed worthiness or lack thereof was a non-issue. All would be raised, regardless! The only qualification they needed was to be dead! Second, having been raised, they would ‘all’ be ‘like the angels in heaven.’  ^{Matt. 22:30b NIV} They are ‘all’ immortal for ‘they can no longer die.’ ^{Luke 20:36a NIV} Now what is the plain implication of this? Obviously, being immortal and angel-like, they will ‘all’ be holy and happy forever!

“One thing more: notice the response of the people. ‘When the crowds heard this, they were astonished at his teaching.’ ^{Matt. 22:33 NIV} Now what did He teach that could have caused them to be astonished? The Pharisees believed in partial salvation and resurrection. If Jesus taught this, it would have astonished no one. The Sadducees denied the resurrection. This too would have astonished no one. It's highly likely that most of His hearers believed in the heathen doctrine of postmortem punishment that their forefathers had absorbed in Babylon a few centuries before. If He taught this it would have astonished no one. The only doctrine that could have astonished and overwhelmingly amazed the entire crowd was the doctrine that He so powerfully and plainly declared - the universal resurrection of all the dead to a state of holiness and happiness forever! This and this alone could have caused such a fervent, emotional response. The plain teaching of Christ is that, at the resurrection, all the dead would be raised, and would be like the angels in heaven. They would never die. For they are all God's children. They are all children of the resurrection. For He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. To him all are alive!

“Now tell me, where do you fit hell and eternal death into this framework?”

Please note that the entire eschatology of the New Testament is permeated with imminence. According to the words of Christ: “For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” Matt. 16: 27, 28.

 Another quote from Melanie:

“When interpreting Bible prophecy, there are two factors that we must consider: time and manner. First, we must honor the Biblical time frame. If the Scriptures teach that the time of fulfillment was near, to be realized in that generation, prior to the physical departing of some who heard Him speak, then we must accept it as such. With regard to the manner of fulfillment, we do not impose upon the Scriptures our own method and manner of interpretation, but we submit to the Divine Author, and interpret them in the manner in which they were intended. Granted, there is much more work and effort required doing it this way. We will have to become intimately acquainted with the Old Testament Scriptures and the style and manner of the inspired writers. But the fruit it will finally yield is the true and intended manner of fulfillment, which we will find to our delight to be in total harmony with the Biblical time frame.”…..

”The New Testament Scriptures, which were all written before A.D. 70 are just oozing with imminence: ‘Be patient and stand firm, because the Lord's coming is near,’ ^{Jas. 5:8 NIV} ‘Behold, the Judge is standing at the door!’ ^{Jas. 5:9b NKJV} ‘For in just a very little while He who is coming will come and will not delay,’ ^{Heb. 10:37 NIV} ‘It is the last hour,’ ^{1 John 2:18a NKJV} ‘The time is near,’ ^{Rev. 1:3 NKJV} ‘the things which must shortly take place,’ ‘Behold, I am coming quickly!’ ‘For the time is at hand,’ ‘behold, I am coming quickly,’ ‘Surely, I am coming quickly.’ ^{Rev. 22:6b, 7a, 10b, 12a, 20b NKJV}

“Consider again the Greek word ‘mello,’ which means, ‘about to be.’ Now this term obviously isn’t speaking to events that would take place some twenty centuries in the future. It’s referring to events that were imminent and near to those then living! Included amongst these were: the ‘about to be’ wrath, ^{Matt. 3:7} the ‘about to be’ age, ^{Matt. 12:32; Eph. 1:21; Heb. 2:5} the ‘about to be’ wars and rumors of wars, ^{Matt. 24:6} the ‘about to be’ return of Christ, ^{Matt. 16:27, 28} the ‘about to be’ judgment and judging of the world, ^{Acts 17:31; 24:25; 2 Tim. 4:1} the ‘about to be’ resurrection, ^{Acts 24:14, 15} the ‘about to be’ glory, ^{Rom. 8:18; 1 Pet. 5:1} the ‘about to be’ salvation, ^{Heb. 1:13, 14} the ‘about to be’ good things, ^{Heb. 10:1} the ‘about to be’ city, ^{Heb. 13:14} the ‘about to be’ rule and reign of Christ. ^{Rev. 12:5} As you can see there were a lot of things that were ‘about to be.’…” 

With regard to the dating of Revelation and it's true focus (the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem and the transition from the Old Covenant to the New) please consider these articles I've copied from “International Preterist Association”.

DATE OF REVELATION, PART 1.
The Authorship date of the Revelation by the Apostle John: 70 A.D. or 96 A.D.?
The futuristist and Historicist positions take the later date of 96 A.D. Both need the later date to deny the imminency verses of the Revelation that confine it's "revealing" to events that were "shortly to come to pass" and "at hand". This question is what most Historicists hang their hat on to refute preterism. They appeal to history, tradition, and hearsay evidence rather than the internal evidence of the Revelation itself.
The 96 A.D. date was handed down by tradition and based solely on a single obscure statement quoted by Eusebius.
The statement was by the Bishop of Lyons, named Irenaeus, who lived from A.D. 130 to A.D. 202. We only have Latin translations of his entire work containing the statement, but the passage in question is preserved in its original Greek in a quotation of it by Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Cesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History, written about A.D. 325. Here is the statement from Irenaeus, as quoted by Eusebius:
"In this persecution [of Christians under Domitian], it is handed down by tradition, that the apostle and evangelist John, who was yet living, in consequence of his testimony to the divine word, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos. Irenaeus, indeed, in his fifth book against the heresies, ...speaks in the following manner respecting him: 'If, however, it were necessary to proclaim [the name of the Anti Christ], ... it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation, for it is not long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian's reign." (Eusebius, III, XVII)
This statement is not an eyewitness testimony from Irenaeus, but his recollection of what was said by an even earlier man, Polycarp, who is suposed to have known John personally.
Two things: First, the key statement that "it is not long since it was seen" is ambiguous in the original Greek text. The word "it" can refer either to the visions John saw, the book he produced, or to John himself. The writer could have intended to say, "John, who saw the revelation, was seen," or he could have meant, "John experienced the visions," or thirdly, that "the revelation document that John wrote was seen." But no matter which way you want to see it, the statement is still ambiguous. If it means that the book of Revelation was itself seen at that time, it does not necessarily place the date of authorship then. If it refers to John, we know that he did live to the time of Domitian, although he was by then an aged and frail man.
This particular line of support for the late date is very precarious and suspect: Eusebius quotes Irenaeus. Irenaeus refers to Polycarp, who is said to have seen either John or the Apocalypse sometime in the last part of Domitian's reign in about A.D. 96. We do not know if he meant that he saw the book or the man and we do not know if he meant to imply that the book was written then or not. Morever, it comes to us through three  people separated by three centuries. This is simply HEARSAY evidence, and it is not much evidence at that! Hearsay evidence that has been "handed down by TRADITION".
Tradition is not a sufficient basis for scriptural interpretation when our understanding of the basic nature of the church and our relationship to God is at stake!
Where, then, can we turn to find reliable and authoritative evidence for the date of this important book? Within the book itself! This internal evidence, especially in view of the lack of any reliable external evidence for the late date, is the most authoritative and conclusive information we have that tells us about the date of authorship (and thus sheds light on the proper interpretation of the book).
"It is obvious that if the book itself throws any distinct light on this subject, this internal evidence, especially in the absence of reliable historical testimony, ought to be decisive. Instead of appealing to tradition or to some doubtful passage in an ancient father, we interrogate the book itself.... It will be found that no book of the New Testament more abounds in passages which clearly have respect to the time when it was written." (James M. MacDonald, "The Life and Writings of John", p. 151 152)
For further study on the internal evidence for the 70 A.D. date read Dr. Kenneth Gentry's books  "The Beast of Revelation   666" and "Before Jerusalem Fell".

DATE OF REVELATION, PART 2
What specific internal evidence within the Revelation establishes it's date of authorship? How does the Hebrew nature of the Apocylpse with the many Old Testament allusions and references support the date of authorship?
John T. Robertson made an interesting observation in his book "Redating the New Testament" which explored these questions: "One of the oddest facts about the N.T. is that... the single most datable and climatic event of the period   the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and with it the collapse of institutional Judaism based on the temple is never once mentioned as a past fact."
Robertson asked himself, Just WHY any of the books of the NT needed to be put after the fall of Jerusalem." He said he felt it exceptionally "strange that this cataclysmic event was never once mentioned or apparently hinted at."
L. Michael Hall, Ph.D wrote in his "Apocalypse Then, Not Now": "I did my own research... The further I went, the more I also felt compelled by the facts to limit all of the canonical books to pre AD 70 dates. I could find no compelling evidence for doing otherwise. Can you?
"One fact that I found intriguing and convincing arose from a contrast with other books of that era. Nearly every document written after AD 70, both Jewish and Christian (of which many exist) refer to the destruction of Jerusalem. Yet not one document in the NT mentioned it as a PAST event. Robinson calls this "an arresting fact." And indeed it certainly should arrest our attention. For it strongly implies that every book in our NT  cannon must have existed before AD 70. This marvel would exist on the order of a current historical writing about the 20th century Europe that never mentioned the holocaust of World War II."
Considering the above, does this not make the internal scriptural evidence found in Chapter 11   that describes the Temple as still standing   as a strong argument for the pre 70 A.D. date of the Revelation's authorship?
"I was given a reed like a measuring rod and was told, 'Go and measure the temple of God and the altar, and count the worshipers there. But exclude the outer court; do not measure it, because it has been given to the Gentiles. They will trample on the holy city for 42 months." (Rev. 11:1 3)
This passage gives us a symbolic imagery of a very specifically described physical temple   one possessing the exact nature of the stone Temple of Herod.
Ed Stevens: from, "What Happened in 70 A.D.":
"Those who interpret the book of Revelation in connection with Domitian and Rome are forgetting what the book is presenting. Revelation is NOT just discussing the death of a "beast," but also the downfall and destruction of some "Great City Babylon" and the end to some very threatening persecution.... What "Great City" which was important to the Christians and Jews fell "shortly" after 96 A.D.? What great persecution which was a  grave threat to Christ's followers ended "shortly" after 96 AD? None did. Revelation (11:8) identifies who the "Great City" was ("the city where their Lord was crucified"): Jerusalem! Revelation (18:24) also identifies who the "Great City" was: And in her was found the BLOOD OF PROPHETS and of saints and of ALL who have been slain ON THE EARTH.
"When this verse is compared with Jesus' statements in Luke 13:33 35 and Matt. 23:29 39, one can readily see that the "Great City" under consideration is Jerusalem. Jesus says that Jerusalem is the city that "kills the prophets," and that the "guilt of ALL the righteous BLOOD shed ON EARTH" would fall upon Jerusalem in that generation (Matt. 23:34 37). Upon comparing these statements of Jesus with Rev. 18:24, the conclusion is inescapable: Jerusalem is the "Great City". And, if the book of Revelation is dealing with the downfall of Jerusalem, it must have been written before 70 AD in order to predict it.
"What persecution is under consideration in Revelation? The other books of the NT speak of a serious persecution which the JEWS inflicted upon the Christians (see Matt. 10:16 23; Matt. 24:9,10,21; Acts 8:1; Gal. 1:13, etc.). This Jewish persecution came to a standstill in 70 AD. The death of Domitian in 96 AD did NOT stop the Roman persecution. Rome persecuted Christians for more than 2 centuries later.
"In Matt. 24:22, Jesus says that unless that "tribulation" was stopped, none of the "elect" would have been left to tell the story. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD put a stop to this threat. And it completely stopped the sacrifices.
There are many other internal witnesses that make a late date improbable and the 70 A.D. as the most likely date of authorship. A thorough discussion on the dating question is offered in "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth L. Gentry (I.C.E., 1989). Internal evidence such as Nero's identity as the beast (the  sixth king in Rev. 17:10 who IS.) is compelling, and Gentry's discussion of external evidence is also impressive.
For example one citation from Gentry's book quotes the sixth century writer Arethas in which he speaks of a pre A.D. 70 writing and meaning for Revelation:
"When the Evangelist received these oracles, the destruction in which the Jew were involved was not yet inflicted by the Romans."
Works from Tertullian, Jerome, and Eusebius indicate that John was banished to the island of Patmos during the reign of Nero at the same time that Paul and Peter were martyred, not 30 years later under Domitian. (e.g. Turtullian, in 'On Prescription Against Heretics', 36, where he states: "Rome...where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! Where Paul wins his crown in death...where the Apostle John was...thence remitted to his island exile!" "The Writings of Quintus Sept. Flor. Tertullianus, vol. II, translated by Peter Holmes (Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1870) p. 43)
The sixth and seventh century versions of the Syriac New Testament contain as the title to the book of Revelation: "written in Patmos, whither John was sent by Nero Caesar."

THE SEVEN CHURCHES IN ASIA
"John, to the seven churches in the province of Asia..." (Rev. 1:4)
There was only one small window of time in which there were only seven congregations in the area of the Roman province of Asia (modern day Turkey). Paul had established nine congregations in that land (in nine cities), but the churches at Colosse and Hierapolis are not mentioned in the address and letters of Revelation. The reason is that these two cities, along with Laodicea, were subjected to a great earthquake in approximately A.D. 61, and all there were destroyed. Laodicea was rebuilt soon after the earthquake, but Colosse and Hierapolis were not rebuilt. Because these towns were quite close together (Hierapolis was about 6 miles north of Laodicea, and Colosse was about 10 miles east, forming a small "triplet" of towns, with Laodicea being the most prominent.) This left SEVEN churches in Asia Minor during the five years just prior to the beginning of the war, the most likely time for the writing of the Revelation and the letters of John (where he states "we know it IS the last hour"   I John 2:18).
We know these seven churches are not symbols because they themselves are symbolized later in verse 12 and then interpreted in verse 20 by Christ Himself:
"....I saw seven golden lampstands." "...The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."
These literal and real congregations which John addressed the book to, were in existence in that region at that very precise time of the beginning of the war in A.D. 67. The imperatives in the Apocalypse which are directed toward the reader are given in  the second and third chapters. These letters to these 7 churches address specific situations and mention particular individuals. Their intent is obviously to address the circumstances that these churches were facing at the time. We would do well to heed the counsel and warnings in chapters 2 and 3, but the Apocalypse was written TO the seven churches in Asia   not to the twentieth century. While the Apocalypse is relevant to believers in all ages, God specifically directed it to these first century churches.
As an ending note, some opponents of the early 70 A.D. date claim there is no support for it. Such claims are misleading, for it ignores the evidence and the many able proponents of an early date. Kenneth Gentry names over one hundred prominent scholars who believe the Apocalypse to have been written before 70 A.D. in "The Beast of Revelation" (I.C.E., 1989, pp. 83 84)
Concerning our second question, consider Chilton's comment: "Revelation is the most "Biblical" book in the Bible. St. John quotes hundreds of passages from the Old Testament, often with subtle allusions to little known religious rituals of the Hebrew people. In order to understand Revelation, we need to know our  Bibles backward and forward."
The keys to understanding the symbols and images in the Revelation are found in the Bible, not the newspaper or evening news.
While the internal evidence is the most important evidence to consider in the dating question, it is also the most involved. It requires sound exegesis of more than the first eight verses of the Apocalypse, and that work has been done by others. (For example, "Days of Vengeance", by David Chilton)
References: Prophecy Fulfilled   God's Perfect Church, by David P. Crews Apocalypse Then, Not Now, by L. Michael Hall, Ph.D The Development of the New Testament, by Arthur M. Ogden What Happened in 70 AD, by Ed Stevens Redating the New Testament, by John A. T. Robertson A Reasonable Look at Reveation, by Christ Schlect. For further study on the internal evidence for the 70 A.D. date read Dr. Kenneth Gentry's books  "The Beast of Revelation   666" and "Before Jerusalem Fell".

With regard to postmortem punishment, I believe it is neither Biblical nor moral. With regard to passages that appear to support it, please select the 5 strongest passages in your estimation and I will respond to them. I’m sure you would agree that if it cannot be ably defended in what would appear to be the 5 strongest passages, it cannot be ably defended at all.

 Also, please read “The Parousia” by J. Stuart Russell (available at Preterist Archive and other locations). Russell was neither a Universalist nor full-preterist, yet he has unwittingly laid an irrefutable Biblical foundation for both.

 May God richly bless you as you continue your noble quest for truth.

 Blessings, Allan    

An Essay on John 3:16

There are many who discount and reject universal reconciliation based upon one of the best known evangelical passages in the Bible. “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16 NIV). The contention and basic assumption is: it is those and those alone who believe in the Son who have eternal life. Those who reject him obviously reject the eternal life that he alone can give, and consequently perish in hell forever. It doesn’t get any simpler than this, so the contention goes. But is this what the passage teaches? Or is this what evangelicals commonly infer upon the passage, based upon key words contained in the passage – suggestive, misunderstood words which lead one who has been schooled in their thought to intuitively believe regarding the passage. What does the passage teach? To begin, we must realize that these words were not spoken to Gentiles in the light of New Covenant day. As foreign as it may seem, Jesus was speaking to 1^st century Jews about issues most vital and relevant to 1^st century Jews during the last days of the Old Covenant dispensation, just a few short decades before the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem and the complete desolation of their people and era. A Pharisee, a member of the Jewish ruling council came to Jesus by night. Impressed by the miracles he was performing he wished to question him. Jesus abruptly interjecting declares: “I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” (John 3: 3). “I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit.” (John 3: 5, 6). No doubt the kingdom of God was on the top of the inquirers question list, for there was nothing more pressing on the mind of a 1^st century Jew than this. When would Messiah finally arrive and deliver them from the tyranny and oppression of their Roman overlords! Jesus was speaking vital truth to his fellow Israelites, truth regarding the kingdom of God; but his teaching was far from their traditional expectation and views. Yes, as per their hopes and longings, the kingdom was near, as proclaimed by both John the Baptist and he. But contrary to their dreams and aspirations, the kingdom was not to be a glorious restoration and magnification of the Old Covenant theocracy. The New Covenant kingdom would be an invisible kingdom, the spiritual rule and reign of Messiah which would in a few short years arise from the ashes of the Old – again, a kingdom not comprised of an actual throne, a visible monarch and an élite Hebrew hierarchy; but an invisible kingdom, the exclusive and most personal reign of God both in and over the hearts of his true subjects –a reign of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. The Jews tragically saw no need of a major renovation. Theirs was a kingdom derived from birth and privilege. An individuals rank and prestige depended upon the purity of his Hebrew pedigree. Essentially, Jesus declared to this ruler in Israel that he was for all intents and purposes blind. If he was to see, if he was to perceive the true kingdom of Messiah, he would have to experience such a radical transformation, such a life and heart altering conversion that only the image of a new birth could adequately describe it. If he would enter this kingdom, his heart would have to experience the cleansing and renewal that only heaven could afford. This, God had promised centuries before, and should have been common knowledge to one with so lofty a title. “I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you will be clean; I will cleanse you from all your impurities and from all your idols. I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws.” (Ezek. 36: 25-27). And your fleshly lineage and pedigree will have nothing to do with it. It will be based upon the grace of heaven. Tragically most will fail to see this kingdom in this life and reject it. The true light has indeed dawned, but the persuasive powers of elitism and religious privilege are great. The convenience of masking your sin in the guise of an external religion of rites and oblations is far easier than facing, confessing and truly repenting of you shameful shortcomings and failings.

Yet “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” How did Nicodemus and the disciples interpret this passage? Without discounting the universal love and Fatherhood of God over all creation, I believe this passage was spoken with only the Jewish nation and people in mind. On this occasion he was not referring to the Gentile world nor any other world, but the Jewish world and the Jewish world alone. Paul, not Jesus was the apostle to the Gentiles. His mission was exclusively to the Jews. For remember, He first came to his own, and by virtue of them rejecting him, the gospel was extended to the Gentiles. Obviously this was God’s intent all along, but it was not stated or voiced by Jesus on this occasion. If it was, no doubt Nicodemus and the disciples would have voiced their concern and mind-boggling chagrin - for it took a miracle to convince Peter of God’s love and gracious design for the Gentiles before he agreed to enter the home of Cornelius – and this was after Pentecost. The amalgamation of the Gentiles into the household of Israel was not in the teachings of Jesus, but the mystery which God later revealed to Paul, in which the Gentiles would be heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. (Eph. 3: 6). The limitation of this text is apparent by the silence of those present. Jesus, on this occasion was speaking of the Jewish world, ethnic Israel, nothing more. Now God so loved the world of Israel, the world of his ancient chosen people that he gave his one and only son that whoever believes in him – believes in him for what? Whoever believes him to be the one and only son of God, the Jewish Messiah, essentially the one who was to come, the one who would fulfill the Prophetic, Priestly and Kingly roles of Messiah - essentially, he who would believe, receive and follow Messiah wherever he would lead would be saved. Saved from what? Saved from God? Saved from a place in the afterlife where the lost would be subject to unspeakable torments forever? No! A thousand times, no! He came to save his people not from their God, but from their sin. He came to reveal the Father, and to save the lost sheep of Israel, and to bring them home from wherever they may have strayed. He came to usher in the glories of the kingdom of God, the immediate presence and power of God in the hearts of they who would but from their hearts believe - to usher in the reign of God and heaven that would outlive the stars - the reign of grace in which the just would live by faith - the endless life of the aion in which each and every true believer would intimately know God and the precious Son of his love - in which each and every soul would ultimately and finally bow to Christ, and joyfully confess him Lord of all. Those who rejected the Gospel of his love and grace tragically perished but a few years later in the horrific fall and destruction of the city they believed would rule the world, Jerusalem. As Jesus spoke of those who perished in the falling of the tower of Siloam, he warned his hearers: “unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13: 5). What does it mean to perish? Does it ultimately involve a hell of ceaseless torment and agony in the afterlife? I challenge you to search “perish” in your concordance and identify a verse which even vaguely suggests this. My contention is you will find none. To perish is to die, usually in a more dramatic, untimely fashion. This is what the Scriptures reveal, nothing more. Actually there are Christians perishing today: a small number at the hands of their persecutors, shamefully a larger number as a result of over-indulgence. Does the Gospel to the Gentiles include the concept of repent or perish? Repentance yes - perish? I believe not. Again, please check your concordance. “For God did not send his Son into the world of his ancient chosen people to condemn them, but to save them through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned to perish, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world of his ancient chosen people, but they, for the most part loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.” (Paraphrase of John 3: 17-19). But be assured, they have all since joyfully echoed the Messianic greeting: “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.”

Now if the Gospel today doesn’t include the threat of perishing in hell forever, then what’s the point? What will motive people to repent and turn to God in all sincerity and truth? What will be the driving force in their lives to make them resist sin and pursue righteousness and justice? LOVE!!! The love of God for me! My love for God! My love for my brother and neighbor created in the image of God! "In so far as any man is led to perform an act from the hope of reward, or the fear of punishment, in just so far does he fail to fulfill the law of love in his own soul." I.D. Williamson

An Amusing Disaster

It was the summer of 94 on Manitoulin Island. My brother-in-law Murray and his wife Nancy were visiting Connie and I from British Columbia. Talking and laughter filled the air, between bites that is, as we feasted on an assortment of barbecue delicacies, salads and deserts. Without a doubt a ten-pound vacation was well in progress. My brother-in-law Jim had recently purchased property on Lake Kagawong, about four miles by water from where we were. At this point neither Murray nor I had seen it. Early one afternoon, feeling somewhat bloated and talked out, we decided to venture forth and locate Jim's property from the water. Murray, for whatever reason, had brought with him a small fiberglass boat. With great pride he shared with me how he had rescued it from a dump and had restored it to sea worthiness. The craft was 8 feet long and essentially looked like a jumbo pedal-boat with no pedals. Seeing as he had toted it all the way from the West Coast on the roof of his vehicle, I didn't have the heart to suggest we use my boat instead. It was assumed initially that we would row to Jim's. Not wanting to spend two days on the lake, I made the ultimate contribution to our folly by suggesting we use my 15HP outboard motor. As we shoved off from the beach, onlookers stared in disbelief. A collective weight of 470 lbs. plus the weight of the motor and gas tank was more than the tiny craft was designed to bear in the best of conditions. As I look back on this bazaar scene, someone must have put idiot pills in our coffee that morning. Due to the design of the craft and the excessive load, the best we could do was crawl along at a snails pace. As we proceeded out into open water, the waves, generated by a north wind began to increase. Before we knew it we were in the midst of two-foot rollers. Much to our surprise we were doing quite well. By throttling the motor we were able to keep from being swamped by the swells - the bit of water that we did take in, Murray was able to scoop out with his shoe (as we neglected to bring a baling container). After an hour or so of enduring nature’s roller coaster, we pulled up on shore and began to seek out our destination on foot. After an hour of fruitless searching through thick under brush we returned to the boat. Our hearts sank as we discovered that in our absence the waves had increased to four-foot choppy rollers. The options were few: wait it out or go for it. Spurred on by each other’s idiocy and not wanting to miss super we chose to go for it. With great difficulty, almost swamping the boat in the process, we managed to shove off from shore, start the motor and begin our journey home. It was Murray's turn to skipper the craft, as I baled feverishly with his shoe. Shortly into the return trip, it became apparent to both of us that we were just a swell or two from going under. Being the resourceful soul I am, I suggested that I abandon ship and that he pull me behind the boat with the short length of rope we had with us. He agreed. Relieving the boat of 220 lbs of ugly fat helped considerably, but it was still taking in water. It was now Murray's responsibility to operate the motor and to bale simultaneously. It's a good thing he wasn't chewing gum too. Thankfully the Authorities were not on the lake that day. Seeing us, they most certainly would have despairingly shook their heads and shot us both. Being dragged behind a boat isn't as simple as it seems. Granted, it can't compare to keel hauling, but it does present its own unique challenges. To prevent losing my sandals I had to maintain an increasingly uncomfortable curl on my toes. To keep my hat and sun glasses from being washed off and away by the waves, I had to hold my hat by pinching the rim between my index and middle finger, with my thumb pressing my glasses into the bridge of my nose. I was also abruptly reminded that breathing works best between waves. As we bobbed along, my arms tired from holding onto the rope. “A harness,” I thought, “I need a harness!” Being the master of improvisation that I am - without taking time to reflect upon the lessons I had learned in high school physics - I proceeded to loop and tie the rope into a makeshift harness around my protruding posterior. Granted, as the proverb states: “necessity is the mother of invention” - but there is a critical part of the complete equation that the wise, proverb-spewing sage neglected to include. “Invention, born of pressing necessity, is often the mother of mishap and mayhem.” Murray, grasping my intent, eased off on the throttle, giving me a moment to secure and adjust the makeshift leash. Upon receiving my nod, in one harmonious motion he faced forward, accelerated and continued to scoop feverously with his shoe. Unfortunately, the very instant he increased the throttle, I was just as instantly pulled under. As I scrambled to untie the rope, I prayed: "Lord, don't let me die like this!" While I was in my submerged, breathless state, Murray happened to look around. Seeing my head some two feet under water, he thought he had drowned me. He shared with me after that his first thought was: "how on earth am I going to explain this!" Thankfully the rope released and I resurfaced. At this point we were literally between a rock and a hard place. The boat continued to take in water as we drifted into Red Rock - a sheer rock-face about 80 feet at its highest point, covering 300 feet of shoreline. Murray had to shut off the motor and bale like a mad man just to stay afloat. As we came into shore I held onto the boat and proceeded to walk along the rock bottom against the face, trying to support the boat, hoping to eventually make it to a suitable landing place. This proved to be quite precarious, as the unrelenting waves continued to assail us. Finally we made it beyond Red Rock and were able to pull the boat up at a cottage landing. Looking like a couple of drowned rats, we sloshed our way back to the Camp, chaffing our thighs raw in the process. Entering the Cottage, wet, weary and bow legged - our wives, sipping coffee and munching on some fresh pastry they had just purchased from a Bakery in Gore Bay, said, "High guy's, have a good time?" Needless to say we were the object of derision and the chief source of entertainment for the rest of the vacation.

The Beatitudes - Matthew 5: 1-12

As the crowds did firmly press, ascending still the slope,

Anticipating words of grace, as none had ever spoke,

He turned and faced the people as they sat upon the ground;

His voice, so crystal clear and true, began to thus resound.

The poor in spirit, bless'd are they, who feel the agony,

Of separation far from God, and their iniquity.

For soon they shall, His Kingdom true, within their hearts possess,

God's presence dear, come down to earth, bequeathing heaven's rest.

The riches of the risen Son, shall be their legacy,

His righteousness and peace sublime, through all eternity.

Blessed too are they who mourn, their desperate want and need,

The sin performed, the good not done, in thought and word and deed.

For from the courts of heaven blessed, sweet comfort shall descend,

The Spirit true, the Paraclete, their broken hearts to mend.

The presence of the Holy One, enveloping and sweet,

Shall fill their heart, their soul enlarge - His precious mercy seat.

The Father's touch, His warm embrace, His grace, redeeming power,

His fellowship, forgiveness free, each moment, and each hour,

His providence and guiding hand, remaining shall abide,

Sustaining in the raging flood, within His presence hide.

The meek as well are truly bless'd, the teachable and kind,

Will more and more possess the earth, His glory for to shine.

His consolation full and free, a bulwark mighty, calm,

Shall keep in midst of gale and flame, omniscient love their balm.

To those who from the very depths, for righteousness do thirst,

Who hunger as a famished soul, place honor, virtue first,

Shall know as does the fertile plain, each morn as new day lights,

His righteousness and warming gaze, increasing ever bright.

Their hunger shall be satisfied, their soul enlarged, content,

Sweet peace and blessing overflow, on wings of angel sent.

An honored vessel glory filled, for each good work prepared,

The Blessed Master by their side, sustained by heaven's air.

Oh blessed are the merciful, the Father they do style,

Their heart and soul compassion filled, His children without guile.

They give and bless without return, His glory their sole aim,

The good of man thus to secure, relieving want and pain.

Their Father's light within does shine, His goodness through them gleams,

They see His image in each face, though broken and bereaved.

They love to be His hand and heart, delighting in His grace,

Defusing rays of heaven's love, in word and all their ways.

For as they do, sweet mercy kind, o'erflow to all around,

His mercy mild and multiplied, does constantly abound.

His presence sweet and fellowship, His comfort, peace and grace,

His power over sin and wrong, His heart and blessed face,

Shall be their portion in this life, their faith and hope elate,

True joy and gladness in the Lord - victorious estate!

There passage through the portals dark, deaths somber valley grim,

There faith it shall bold overcome, beholding only Him.

The pure in heart this blessing too, most sure their portion be,

The Lord of love and mercy filled, unclouded faith shall see.

No residue or foul stain, of sin shall interfere,

As they behold His Majesty, His glory without fear.

For conscience is to them a friend, grace given from above,

They see it as the Father's gift, a treasure of His love.

They heed its voice as it reveals, His truth and word apply,

His gentle nudge toward the good, the evil whence to fly.

They love His truth and precepts dear, they run in paths of right,

They long to know His cleansing power, His purifying light.

With conscience clear they do embrace, His judgments as their friend,

They strive to keep it pure and clean, before God and all men.

Then in His time, reflection dim, shall be removed, exchanged,

His glory bright they shall behold, from age to endless age.

Blessed too the peacemakers, who represent the Lord,

The Prince of Peace, the Holy Lamb, shall be their great reward.

His peace, all knowledge does exceed, shall be their portion ever,

And sons of God they shall be named, reflections of the Giver.

His peace as does His Kingdom vast, shall grow as strife shall fade,

Ascendancy o'er all His foes, as yeast does all pervade.

What blessedness to be a part, of His dominion grand,

To scatter seeds of victory, His peace o'er all the land.

To see His Spirit increase give, the tender shoots so rise,

The blessed flowers radiant, fruit peaceable and wise.

 

This blessing does not come without, a price that many pay,

Rejection, persecution hot, thus turning them away.

But in this persecution mean, this hurtful buffeting,

The greatest blessing does unfold: we share His suffering.

The Father does Himself embrace, so comfort and console,

Encourage, strengthen and revive, our weary troubled soul.

He gives us visions glory filled, our spirits liberate,

Enlarged compassions thus bestows, for those who give us hate.

Though yet confined to flesh and bone, a spirit weak and frail,

He elevates to heights unknown, His grace does vast prevail.

A vision of His final goal, most splendid, glory filled,

When all shall bow, confess the Lord, each zealous for His will.

We see most clear His purpose true, a new faith hence we gain,

To see afresh, to know assured, our labours’ not in vain.

A Preterist Exchange With A Friend

MARK March 27 at 7:59am

Hi Allan. Just another question to pose to you, if you don't mind. I have had a debate with a new friend of mine who also believes in universal reconciliation on the subject of death. He believes we are in the grave until the Resurrection whenever that is. On the other hand, and knowing that God is outside time, I'm inclined to think along the lines of Paul that to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord - that we are actually present or reigning with Jesus without a state of unconsciousness for possibly centuries. What is your persuasion? Blessing. Mark

ALLAN March 27 at 9:59am

Hi Mark. Good to hear from you. I believe everything took place coincidental with the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem. The New Testament redemptive timeframe consistently and overwhelmingly supports this again and again. My views on the resurrection can be summarized in “Whatever Became Of Melanie?” Chapter 25. I would strongly recommend "The Parousia" by J. Stuart Russell. It establishes a solid, irrefutable preterist foundation for New Testament Eschatology - a must read. I believe it's available online. Try searching "parousia archive", or the name of the book and author. For further consideration, go to IPA (International Preterist Association). Though they're not sympathetic with UR, there's still lots of good stuff there. Blessings. Al

MARK March 27 at 12:34pm

Thanks Allan. Actually I'm just in the middle of the Melanie book as I'm reading it for the third time, so I'll keep my eyes well open for Chapter 25. I have also been getting some good answers to my last question about the so-called 1,000 year millennium, so that's now a lot clearer. I'll look out for that Parousia book. Spring has at last arrived over this side of the big pond. God bless you again. Blessings. Mark

MARK March 29 at 5:11pm

Hi Allan. Would you describe yourself as a preterist? It is through deeper study that I can see that much of what was said by Jesus and what is in the New Testament, including Revelation, focused on the coming judgment in AD 70.Your book really blessed me accordingly. Where I am struggling a little is thinking of the 2000 years since then. Where do we believers in the time since fit into things if so much of the New Testament is speaking to that particular generation? This is why I am currently calling myself a partial preterist, although always keeping an open mind. With regard to the 1,000 year millenium of Revelation 20, some commentators see us as being presently still in the aion that it is allegorically speaking of. Even J Stuart Russell, who I am currently reading (thanks for pointing me to him as his book is awesome) infers it could be beyond the time limit of AD 70, while everything else is before it up to Revelation 20. If there is anything I have overlooked in my study, please do let me know. God bless you brother. Mark

ALLAN March 29 at 7:08pm

Hi Mark. I am a preterist – a full preterist if you will, and believe the mustard seed was planted, the dough leavened in AD 70. Though in my studies I’ve tried, I have not been able to discover Bible passages which speak of a double fulfillment. If it happened then, in a way that satisfied first century expectations, then it happened. If all their Bible based expectations were not satisfied, then it didn’t happen, nor will it ever happen because the predicted time has passed. During this covenant altering event, the kingdom was taken from those who rejected it, and given to a people who would bring forth its fruit. The kingdom which was near during the ministry of Jesus and John the Baptist came in its finality and fullness in that generation. Russell's book is amazing! He establishes the audience relevance of the New Testament Scriptures with precision and power. But in my estimation he falls short in his application and understanding of the imagery and radical blessings associated with the New Covenant. It involved a New Jerusalem, a new heavens and earth - the immediate presence and power of God in the life of the believer, a returning to the garden as it were, the implications of which we have not yet begun to comprehend. In the imagery of Daniel, the huge stone is now in the process of becoming a mountain that will ultimately fill the whole earth. The yeast will continue to work and permeate the dough, until all is leavened. With respect to Revelation, do the latter chapters speak to the New Covenant? If they do, then, for me anyway, it’s settled. Our job now isn’t to fear-monger people into a coming kingdom, as even futurist UR believers are obliged to do; but to share the water, the river of life freely – to declare and embody a Father’s love, a kingdom whose zenith is yet before us, knowing confidently that our labour is not in vain. Please reflect upon the eschatological portions of Melanie for a more coherent, comprehensive Biblical argument. Blessings, Al

MARK April 10 at 7:00am

Hi Allan again. How are you? Just to let you know that since our last contact, and having done some deeper study, I have moved considerably nearer to the full preterist position. Answers to questions I have struggled over are becoming clearer by the day. And content in the Melanie book is clearer on the third reading than when I first read it a year ago. Just too ask you Allan, do you regard the appearance of Jesus during the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (which Matthew 24 seems to refer to) as the so-called Second Coming to earth? If so, do you see any further earthly appearance to come or is it a case of seeing Him as we become present with him after death? I am progressing through The Parousia book. Preterism really does now make sense to me. God bless you brother. Mark

ALLAN April 10 at 9:48am

Hi Mark. I'm very happy for you in your pursuit and discovery of truth along the preterist path. It is indeed gratifying to finally find the eschatological key that opens so many dark and obscure passages. Remember that Jesus came in 70 AD not only to take the Kingdom from those who rejected it, but to give it to a people who would bring forth its fruits. It was a coming in judgment, yes - but also a glorious coming in blessing. I've copied a brief Melanie quote from Chapter 20. Please carefully consider the entire chapter.
“And is this not the absolute and supreme essence of Christian salvation? To be filled with the very person and presence of God? To know Him intimately? To walk with Him and talk with Him? To live our lives in the light of His presence and the radiance of His glory?
“In Ezekiel we read a prophetic word pertaining to the inauguration and commencement of the New Covenant Age: ‘The glory of the Lord entered the temple through the gate facing the east… and the glory of the Lord filled the temple.’ Ezek. 43:4, 5 NIV As Jesus declared in the Olivet Discourse: ‘For as the lightening comes from the east and flashes to the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.’ Matt. 24:27 NIV To those who love me, said Jesus, I will also love them, and show myself to them; My Father and I will come to them and make our home with them. John 14:21, 23 The writer to the Hebrews, contrasting the Old Covenant with the New: ‘The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, BY WHICH WE DRAW NEAR TO GOD.’! Heb. 7:18, 19 NIV
“Do you realize what we now possess as New Testament believers? Everything that Adam lost in the garden, the spiritual death and separation from God that he passed down to all his descendants, Christ has recovered and restored far above and beyond anything we could ever imagine! As believers we are now the temple, the dwelling place of God! The glory-cloud that filled the tabernacle of old, the holy fire that consumed the sacrifice upon the altar now resides in our hearts, and we dare to live no differently than our neighbor. The glory of God and heaven inhabits our very souls, yet we continue to cower in fear. Oh when will we begin to comprehend and live up to this glorious birthright?..."

MARK April 10 at 10:38am

Thanks Allan. The truth is a wonderful thing. I think what possibly clinched it for me was when I saw a video by an American speaker and author who applied a partial preterist argument to describe Matthew 24 up to verse 29 as confirming judgment upon the Christ rejecting Jews in AD70 and the sign of the Son of Man, which is correct. But that from 29 onwards he was saying the chapter points to a still yet future 'second' coming of Christ (even though we are 2000 years on). But I was unable to see where the clear distinction lay. His line did not sound clear and convincing. When I read that chapter in its entirety, it seems Jesus is talking of 'one event' to one audience, just as do the preceding and following chapters. Hence, full preterism seemed to make more sense now. But it is strangely ironic that so many of my UR associates and prominent UR figures, some who have written otherwise good books and who are on my Facebook list, support a futurist and literal view. I have to disagree with them on this, but unite on basis that we all believe in universal reconciliation. To me I can now see that preterism and UR naturally fit together, even though so many preterists don't accept UR. Are you having lovely Spring weather over in Canada? It is gorgeous over here. Hope it stays like this for the next few months. Blessings in abundance. Mark

ALLAN April 10 at 11:20am

Hi Mark. You're dead on. UR built upon a solid "full" preterist foundation is impregnable. With regard to the Olivet Discourse, another clincher of the seamlessness of Matthew's account is reading it in parallel with the accounts of Mark and Luke. It becomes very plain that there is no division.
Spring is beginning to peer out from behing the remaining snow banks in Sudbury. We're usually about a month behind Southern Ontario, which I suspect is probably a few weeks behind your spring. Ahhh! Summer! I can hardly wait - 3 months of mosquitos and road repair. :)
Blessings, Al

MARK May 15 at 11:41am

Hi Allan. How are doing? I am now fully persuaded that UR and full preterism are the truth. I am now firmly in that camp after much deep study. I believe that all prophecy was fulfilled in AD70; that the scripture verses many Christians say confirm a so-called second coming of Jesus occurred at that same time, and that the 1,000 year millennium happened before then as well. It's all clear now. I also am now convinced that when we die, our spirit immediately goes to be with the Lord. However, I would be interested to clarify something with you Allan. At the end of the aion we are now in, do you foresee any form of New Heaven and New Earth - an appearance or coming of Jesus? How do see the end of the aion materializing? You and I know that sin is still rife on the earth. Is there to be a time coming when humanity will exist on this earth where there is no more sin, as well as in heaven? Forgive me if I have missed anything in yours or any other writings. Otherwise, I am now a 'full' preterist, but just tying up the loose ends!!! God bless you and hope Spring is in full flow in Ontario. Mark

ALLAN May 15 at 1:39pm

Hi Mark. Good to here from you. Discovering the "harmony of truth" is indeed a gratifying experience, is it not! UR, soundly built upon a solid preterist foundation is completely unassailable; and if we are to win the day and turn the church right-side-up again, it will be with a preterist tipped lance. It's a tragedy that most UR proponents are oblivious to this as of yet. It's blessedly ironic that most proponents of preterism, who at this point loath UR, are in the process of establishing the foundation that is paving the road for a substantial UR break through.
It would appear to me from the Scriptures that a distinguishing feature of the New Covenant is that it is a "world without end." What Christ has done and established is more than enough to transform lives and societies, to bring us to God here and now. With regard to a future consummation, I believe the Scriptures are silent. But how can sin go on forever? Sin essentially is "missing the mark." It is either innocently or intentionally "falling short of the glory of God," a failure to love God supremely and to love my brother as myself. As the light of truth and a Heavenly Father's love gains sway in our hearts and society, as our true brotherhood impresses itself more and more upon our spirits and consciences, self-centeredness and sin will be less and less. I believe the power of sin resides primarily in ignorance and fear. We overcome it not by suspicion and superiority, but by light and love. We make the world Christian by emulating Christ ourselves. There is no other way. Essentially, the light that resides in our hearts is God’s ultimate means of combating the darkness. Yes, he can eliminate sin totally by eliminating the field in which it resides – but what glory is there in that? There is no Gospel victory there, but a pathetic admission of defeat. The Gospel is and will continue to be victorious! I believe we are living in the infancy of our collective human experience. If geologists are right, it has taken God 4.5 billion years to construct the stage. In that light, we have just arrived but a few seconds ago. Who knows! We may have multiple billions and trillions of years of human history yet to write? We may yet be destined to populate the universe! Yet all the church wants to do is escape it! I believe an important feature of UR is embracing life and living with gusto for the glory of God – determining each day to let our light shine, to contribute to the changing of the world, first by changing ourselves.
God Bless, Al

MARK May 15 at 1:46p

This is awesome Allan. And I think we have barely scratched the surface of understanding the depth and expanse of God's plans and love for us. Have a lovely Sunday and week ahead.