Gary DeMar - Should we interpret Revelation "literally"?

[bobeagle3]

Literal method -- is to believe that Jesus Christ is God! What do you believe about that Gary?

[HaveUconsidered]

I've already commented on this a couple of videos ago so I won't repeat myself.

I just want to add that under a preterist "method of interpretation", countless dozens upon dozens, at times whole paragraphs of prophetic text in the OT as well as Revelation are simply "spiritualized away" under the banner of "apocalyptic poetry". It all becomes subjective poetic goobly-gook.

Nothing means what it plainly says. Hundreds of texts are simply deconstructed away.

This is what cults do.

[HaveUconsidered]

The passage allows for the "this generation" phrase to be interpreted in different ways.

I believe Gary is a partial-preterist guy, correct?

And I believe that along with answering the question about the then standing temple, Jesus was also answering about His second coming, was He not?

If so, THEN GARY TOO MUST SEE THIS "THIS GENERATION" STATEMENT AS REFERRING TO THE DISTANT FUTURE!!!!!"

This kind of disingenousness drives me nuts.

[HaveUconsidered]

This is so sickingly disingenuous from Gary, I don't even know where to begin.

There is a difference between using a literal method, which is essentially the historical-grammatical method of interpretaion; a system which allows for literary devices such as symbolism, hyperbole, etc, and a literalist, which interprets everything in a wooden manner.

Dispensationalist are the former, reading text plainly. The context in most all cases will determine if the passage should be taken literally.

[xena1973]

Dispensationalism, Pre tribulation rapture is a man made doctrine, they never stay within context of a chapter and just pull out verses to prove there view which is a pretext, and like all pre tribers they have never shown me were it says that Jesus Christ will come before the tribulation, I would like a comment or reply back.

[jcr4runner]

If a doctrine is new --

It probably isn't true.

[elegemvan1]

@jcr4runner You are right.

For example speaking in tongues is false, and so is knocking people to the floor.

[jcr4runner]

@elegemvan1

Read Tertullian in the second century on tongues. It's not a new doctrine.

Tongues has always been controversial in its administration.

The doctrine of tongues as the "evidence" of the baptism of the Holy Spirit is new.

Speaking in tongues is not unbiblical. Further, the misuse of tongues is not a primary heresy.

Forbidding tongues is unbiblical (1 Cor 14 :39).

Further "knocking people to the floor" isn't a doctrine. It's a practice.

[drflyfishe2r]

DeMar either intentionally or ignorantly seems to think that 'literal' does not allow for figures of speech! This is so wrong and does not even meet standards of the sports page or comic strip! All of us use figures, but the figure stands for a LITERAL fact that is heightened by the figure, not hidden by it. Further, his interpretation of Mt. 24:34 is not correct and cannot explain the simple words "all these things". Only the Dispensational view can account for this.

[tool2scream05]

eh... the dispensational view does not at all account fo "all these things." The Preterist view DOES in fact account for all of it, though I'm not a fan of DeMar's partial preterism, nor am i full-preterist. However, "all these things" is clearly EVERYTHING spoken of in the chapter, especially the "coming of the son of man" and the Danelielic prophecy. Which were all fulfilled in 70 AD.

[fardawg]

"DeMar ...seems to think that 'literal' does not allow for figures of speech!"

Isn't that why dispensationalists accuse preterists of not being literal, because we recognize the use of hyperbole etc.? Dispensationalists pick and choose what to take "literally" and then accuse others of spiritualizing when they don't believe their twisting of scripture. I say this as a former dispy.

[fardawg]

I take Christ literally when He says, ""Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon THIS generation", "THESE stones", "all these things" happen to "THIS generation" and "when YOU see the abomination". I take Christ literally when He spoke in Revelation of the things being "near", "shortly to come to pass" "at hand", "coming soon". I take Him literally when He says that the words would Not be sealed as they were in Daniel's day because they were about to be fulfilled.

[fardawg]

I understand the "LITERAL fact" of God's judgment against apostate Israel in AD 70 as expressed by the use of the Old Testament "figures" of falling stars and cloud judgments. I understand the "LITERAL fact" of the gospel destroying the Roman Beast and all those who would stand in its way until His physical coming at the end expressed by the "figure" of Christ riding throughout the world on a white horse and coming at the end of the millennium in fire to resurrect and judge.

[jacopman]

fardawg.................I have a study Bible that has another approach to "this generation"......it says the word generation in the passage we are talking about means......."or the nation of Isreal".

If that is the case then the nation of Isreal will not pass until all these things happen.

If that is the case then the time of the second coming will happen when Isreal still exists.......which throw yet another light on this passage........

[fardawg]

I understand the "LITERAL fact" that dispy's twist and add to scripture and try to separate the people of God, "either intentionally or ignorantly ", as the judaizers did, by using their "literal" approach. I don't say this to be cruel or contentious but to point out the hypocrisy that I myself was guilty of.

God Bless, and keep studying God's word and not man's 19th century tradition.

[SymptomSerpico]

Okay, he says context... I believe the approach is: "Take scripture normally or plain unless there is something in that verse where you cannot take it that way."

[tempusfugit68]

Oh, and the generation that Jesus is speaking to is the ELECT of Matthew 24:31 whom the angels gather up from the four winds.

This guy keeps mentioning "context, context" yet he never follows his own advice.

[jcr4runner]

I don't follow you, the elect are from all generations. The sign of the coming of the Son of man is that the nations of the world (the ETHNE) would have the Gospel preached to them.

The sign of the Second Coming isn't "all these things ... war .. pestilences .... famines ... false Chrsitis ..." ALL THESE THINGS occurred in the first century.

[tempusfugit68]

They have? So the gospel of the kingdom was preached to all nations in the first century? Kingdom rose against kingdom? The abomination of desolation was set up in the temple? By whom? These events are the "beginning of sorrows" of the great tribulation which is to follow which itself will be followed by disturbances in the heavens and the coming of Christ.

It can't be any clearer.

[tempusfugit68]

No, the elect in that passage is a specific group of people at that time that have to endure those events unto the end.

[jcr4runner]

The sign of the Second Coming is the Gospel being preached to all nations. The parables of Matthew 24:36 to 25:46 then speak about the Son of Man coming when people have become complacent due to the peace and safety that ensues the conversion of the world.

I'd also place (as does Dr. Ken Gentry) verse 31 as a parenthetical statement that refers to the events in the discourse AFTER v. 36.

[tempusfugit68]

No, it's the gospel of the kingdom being preached. This is NOT the gospel of the grace of God. It is the promise of the coming literal kingdom of God on earth.

The angels are gathering the children of Israel that have been scattered throughout the earth. Get a concordance and look it up.

Start out with Deut. 30:3; Isaiah 11:11,12; Isaiah 27:12,13

[NILLOC17]

There is only ONE Gospel. The idea of two Gospels is a lie of Dispensationalism

[nalibok]

According to Paul, in Acts 20:24-25, the gospel of the kingdom & gospel of grace are equivalent:

However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace. "Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again.

[jcr4runner]

The disciples were thinking the destruction of the Temple would occur at the Second Coming, however, Jesus answers their questions about "the sign of your coming" in two ways.

1. What would be the historical events surrounding the destruction of the Temple? In a sense this is Jesus "coming on the clouds" or coming in judgment. Note coming on the clouds means He hasn't come to earth yet.

[tempusfugit68]

Jesus was not answering the apostles directly. He had a tendency to do that. He was speaking to a future generation. Anotherwards, a future group Jews that would believe on him. Surely, he knew his words would be recorded for a future generations benefit.

[nalibok]

That's an interesting thought, but what evidence is there for that view in the context?

[jcr4runner]

2. Jesus ALSO answers questions about His Second Coming in bodily form to earth in verses 24:36 through 25:46, but the Second Coming has nothing to do with the Temple being destroyed.

[tempusfugit68]

You keep missing the fact that the temple will be rebuilt and destroyed again in Jerusalem. The Jews right now have the plans drawn up for it.

[nalibok]

Where does scripture say that will happen?

[jcr4runner]

For a good discussion -- "On the "transitional verses in Matthew 24" -- you can Google that phrase and you'll find an article by Ken Gentry at The Forerunner website.

[tempusfugit68]

When exactly do you believe "the tribulation of those days" takes or took place?

Remember, IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days the sun is blackened, the stars fall from heaven and the Lord returns. Matt. 24:29,30

[nalibok]

Read

Isaiah 13 destruction of ancient Babylon

Isaiah 34:4-5 Judgment on Edom

Ezekiel 32 & Isaiah 19 Judgment on Egypt

They use the same type (apocalyptic) of language to describe events that are known to have taken place in the past. This language is God's way of saying that the fall of a nation like the end of the world to them, the end of the heavens, something of permanence no one thought would come to an end.

[tempusfugit68]

Again this guy is being silly. You read the Bible just like any other thing. You follow the laws of English and grammar. If it is obviously figuative then it is that. This guy is putting up a straw man.