J. Marcellus Kik
POSTMILLENNIALIST ; PRESBYTERIAN
An Eschatology of Victory – The Appearance of the Sign
“Many commentators cannot see how this was fulfilled before the year 70 A. D. Yet the New Testament itself reveals that this prophecy was fulfilled, and for those who regard the New Testament as authoritative, this should be convincing enough.” (On Matt. 24:14)
 |
(On the Millennial Reign of Christ)
“The premillenialist, however, maintains as a cardinal and fundamental tenet of his system of eschatology that the throne of glory is an earthly throne set up in the material city of Jerusalem. The temporal throne of David is to be reconstructed in Jerusalem… As a matter of fact there is not one passage in the New Testament which gives definite information of a personal reign of Christ upon a temporal throne in the material city of Jerusalem! What seems to be hidden to the apostles have been revealed by uninspired men.” (An Eschatology of Victory, 171)
(On the Significance of A.D.70)
“The catastrophe of Jerusalem really signalized the beginning of a new and world-wide kingdom, marking the full separation of the Christian Church from legalistic Judaism. The whole system of worship, so closely associated with Jerusalem and the Temple, received, as it were, a death blow from God himself.” (An Eschatology of Victory, p.138)
“..the Jewish nation has received the judgment of God. Its sun, moon and stars have been darkened and are still obscured.” (ibid., p.132)
“Jerusalem and the temple were central in the worship of the Jews, and their destruction meant the end of the world so far as the Jews were concerned.” (ibid., p.132 )
“The judgment upon Jerusalem was the sign of the fact that the Son of man was reigning in heaven.” (ibid., p.132 )
(On The Second Coming of Christ)
“..in the light of well-defined biblical language, the reference is rather to a coming in terms of the events of his providence in judgment against his enemies and in deliverance of his people.” (ibid., p.141)
(On The Olivet Discourse)
“There is not a single figure employed whose use has not been already sanctioned and its meaning determined in the Old Testament. Prophecy has indicated and history has verified that all events mentioned by Christ have found their fulfillment.” (ibid. p.156)
(On Matthew 24:7)
“And as to earthquakes, many are mentioned by writers during a period just previous to 70 A.D. There were earthquakes in Crete, Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos, Laodicea, Hierapolis, Colosse, Campania, Rome, and Judea. It is interesting to note that the city of Pompeii was much damaged by an earthquake occurring on February 5, 63 A.D.” (An Eschatology Of Victory, p. 93).
(On Matthew 24:13)
“One of the most remarkable things about the siege of Jerusalem was the miraculous escape of the Christians. It has been estimated that over a million Jews lost their lives in that terrible siege, but not one of them was a Christian. This our Lord indicated in verse 13: ‘But he that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved.’ That the ‘end’ spoken of was not the termination of a Christian’s life but rather the end of Jerusalem is evident from the context. Immediately after this verse Christ goes on to relate the exact time of the end. Christians who would live to the end would be saved from the terrible tribulation. Christ indicates also the time for the Christian to flee from the city so that he could be saved during its destruction. This is verified in a parallel passage (Luke 21:18): ‘But there shall not an hair of your head perish.’ In other words, during the desolation of Jerusalem, Christians would be unharmed, although in the period previous to this some would lose their lives through persecution.” (ibid., p.96f.)
(On Matthew 24:16)
“Many commentators cannot see how this was fulfilled before the year 70 A. D. Yet the New Testament itself reveals that this prophecy was fulfilled, and for those who regard the New Testament as authoritative, this should be convincing enough.” (ibid., p. 99)
(On Matthew 24:27)
“Not only were the disciples forewarned about false Christs abut Jesus informs them that when he does come a second time it will be no local event. It will be a universal coming seen by all. This verse stands in contrast to the previous verses, for it speaks of Christ’s second coming rather than his invisible coming in judgment upon Jerusalem.” (An Eschatology of Victory, (NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1971, p. 124)
(On Matthew 24:30)
“The judgment upon Jerusalem was the sign of the fact that the Son of man was reigning in heaven. There has been misunderstanding due to the reading of this verse, as some have thought it to be ‘a sign in heaven.’ But this is not what the verse says; it says the sign of the son of Man in heaven. The phrase ‘in heaven’ defines the locality of the Son of Man and not of the sign. A sign was not to appear in the heavens, but the destruction of Jerusalem was to indicate the rule of the Son of Man in heaven.”
“The apostle Paul states in the eleventh chapter of Romans that the fall of the Jews was a blessing to the rest of the world. He speaks of it as the enriching of the Gentiles and the reconciling of the world. The catastrophe of Jerusalem really signalized the beginning of a new and world-wide kingdom, marking the full separation of the Christian Church from legalistic Judaism. The whole system of worship, so closely associated with Jerusalem and the Temple, received, as it were, a death blow from God himself. God was now through with the Old Covenant made at Sinai: holding full sway was the sign of the New Covenant.” (ibid., pp. 137-138)
“This clause has been thought to relate definitely to the second, visible, and personal coming of the Lord. But in the light of well-defined biblical language, the reference is rather to a coming in terms of the events of his providence in judgment against his enemies and in deliverance of his people.. Many commentators have taken it for granted that the expression “coming in the clouds” refers to a visible coming of Christ. A careful study of the Scriptures, however, reveals that that is not a necessary interpretation.” (An Eschatology of Victory, p, 140-141, cf. 142-143)
(On Matthew 24:34)
“It is my contention that Matthew 24:34 gives the key to the understanding of the entire chapter. If we accept the ordinary sense of that verse the chapter becomes understandable.” (ibid., p.30)
(On Matthew 26:64)
“But of special importance for the right understanding of it is Matt. 26:64, where Jesus says to the high priest, ‘But I say unto you, from henceforth ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.’ There the Lord comes upon the clouds to the judgment of Jerusalem, as a manifest proof that we are not to think merely of His coming at the last day, and that the words do not point to a visible appearing. There also the Lord does not come merely to the proper catastrophe on the clouds; He comes from henceforth; so that His whole secret and concealed agency towards the destruction of Jerusalem is comprehended under His coming.” (An Eschatology of Victory, 1971, p. 39)
(On Acts 1:11)
“This clause has been thought to relate definitely to the second, visible, and personal coming of the Lord. But in the light of well-defined biblical language, the reference is rather to a coming in terms of the events of his providence in judgment against his enemies and in deliverance of his people.. Many commentators have taken it for granted that the expression “coming in the clouds” refers to a visible coming of Christ. A careful study of the Scriptures, however, reveals that that is not a necessary interpretation.” (An Eschatology of Victory, p, 140-141, cf. 142-143)
(On Acts 2:16-21)
“The same type of apocryphal language is employed in the second chapter of Joel and the Apostle Peter quotes the prophecy of Joel on the day of Pentecost as recorded in Acts 2:16-21. This provides us with an infallible interpreter.” (ibid., p.132 )
(On Dispensationalism)
“Too little study of Old Testament ideas of judgment, and apocalyptic language and style, would seem to be the reason for this one-sided exegesis.” (ibid., p.135)
(On The Abomination of Desolation)
“The Roman Army carried ensigns consisting of eagles and images of the emperor to which divine honors were often paid by the army.” (ibid., p.102)
“The word ‘abomination’ in Daniel has a definite connection with idolatry.” (ibid., p.104)
(On The Seventy Weeks)
“The only valid objection against this general interpretation is that the destruction of Jerusalem did not occur within the seventieth week – within the period of seven years. The seventy weeks extended to about 33 A.D. The destruction of Jerusalem, of course, came in 70 A.D. A close examination of the passage in Daniel does not disclose any definite statement that the people of the prince were to cause this destruction within the seven years. Within the seven years the destruction of the city was determined by its rejection of Christ and his apostles. Because of that rejection the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.” (An Eschatology of Victory 109-110)
“If the seventieth week were postponed we would still be in our sins!” (An Eschatology of Victory 108)
(On the New Heavens and Earth)
“But what about the new heaven and the new earth? Will there not be a renovated material heaven and earth? When the Scriptures speak of a new heaven and new earth it is not a material concept, but a spiritual concept.”
“Just a little reflection will show that to take Revelation 21 and 22 in a literal way is to make utter foolishness of that which John revealed. In that figurative passage you cannot say that the “new heaven and new earth” is a material concept while the rest is to be taken in a figurative way. The “new heaven and new earth” is but the same as “the holy city” and “the Lamb’s bride.” (An Eschatology Of Victory, p. 254-256)
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security
Date: 07 Jan 2007
Time: 05:11:42
Comments:
I am very enamoured by the preterist hermeneutic. However, Rev 21 & 22 keep my coversion. If these are but mere metaphors then let the goats have them (what’s a meadowfor?). If the NH & NE are metaphors for the Bride, how is it that v. 15 is true?
And if 21.4 applies to the Bride presently, it makes no sense of my life. For I have all those now. My only hope is that one day there will be a place where those enemies are defeated.
finleysx6@netzero.com
Date: 30 Jun 2009
Time: 06:34:14
Your Comments:
Thanks very much. I have read the book and am no longer dispensational. In fact I am very encouraged. Now I will have to teach my church folk where I have been wrong.
Thanks so much.
Dean Verwey South Africa
Date: 18 Dec 2009
Time: 19:33:00
Your Comments:
M Robert Mulholland, Jr’s book on Revelation has a very interesting view of Rev. 21 and 22.
Date: 10 Nov 2012
Time: 08:53:35
Your Comments:
On Matthew 24 Kik is certainly right.
pmc