Is the WT's interpretation of the faithful slave...accurate?

[Rotherham]

First the opening comments will be posted by both myself and Mike Felker. Once those are established, we will each post a rebuttal to those opening comments before proceeding further.

Regards,
Rotherham

[Rotherham]

The prophecy contained within the 24th and 25th chapters of Matthew is a response to the questions asked by the then present Apostles of Christ. They asked 'What will be the sign of your "parousia" (presence) and of the conclusion of the "world" or age', or as rendered by the NWT, system of things.

What followed those questions is naturally the answer that Jesus gave, in much detail, involving parables and parallels and straight forward comments about both the parousia (presence), and about his "coming" or "arrival" and the conclusion of the system of things. It is very involved and requires much investigation to understand as best we can, what is meant by what he said.

It is believed that these answers not only primarily addressed first century events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem, but also a secondary fulfillment upon the last days of our current system of things, or this world as we know it. Secondary fulfillments are not unheard of within the pages of the Bible, and often, a telltale sign of a dual fulfillment is when the language of the prophecy has an obvious fulfillment initially, but then the language swells past any complete application to the first fulfillment, indicating and requiring a second fulfillment in order for the prophecy to have real relevance in history and for Christianity.

It is no secret what our views (JWs) are about when it comes to the day and age in which we live as they can be accessed readily at jw.org and elsewhere. In particular the July 15th, 2013 issue of the Watchtower, has spelled out in our views in some detail about the last days and the view that the FDS should be patterned after the first century arrangement where the MANY were FED by the few, such as when the Apostles and older men of Jerusalem made judiciary decisions to be observed by the worldwide congregation of Christians and that the early Christians were said to "adhere to the teachings of the Apostles". (Acts 15-16) (Acts 2:42)

You can find the July15th, 2013 issue here if you desire to see a fuller explanation:
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/w20130715/


Succinctly put, we believe that the historical evidence supports the understanding that we are living in the last days or the conclusion of this system of things via the things stated within the prophecy of Matthew 24 and 25 and elsewhere (such as in the books of Revelation and Daniel). We believe that the historical and scriptural evidence support our teaching that the words of that prophecy directly relate to the events of that conclusion. We believe that the same kind of evidence will support that the last days and the "parousia" of Christ run concurrently over the course of many years leading to the great tribulation and the battle of Armageddon. During these last days or "parousia", the natural conclusion from the scriptures is that there would be a governing body of men, just as in the first century, to teach and direct the greater household of Christians, known as the domestics.(see Matthew 24:45-47)

The goal of this particular discussion is to demonstrate that our (JW) views concerning the FDS mentioned in Matthew 24:45-47 and the context is as accurate as can be expected and they are reliable. There are always some elements of a prophecy or a parable that are subject to change if those elements are not specifically identified within the immediate or greater context of the scriptures. Many prophecies are not FULLY understood until they have been fulfilled. Prophecies are supplied not so much as to predict the future, but to demonstrate, once fulfilled, that God is indeed in control and actively involved in the outworking of the establishment of his kingdom by Christ on earth. Therefore, changing some applications involving ambiguous terms or context, is not a problem for Christians who understand the nature of how man comes to know truth.

As the scriptures make unmistakably clear that there was a governing element within the first century Christian congregation, it is to be expected that during the last days, when the good news of the kingdom would be being preached for a witness to all the nations, and the wheat would be separated from the weeds, that naturally, in keeping with Biblical pattern and precedent, a similar arrangement for Christians would be restored in order to successfully accomplish the preaching of the good news into all the nations and for the wheat to be decisively separated and maintained away from the weeds.

We would naturally expect Christianity in the last days to be patterned after the same structure of Christianity in the first century, after all, we are assured by Ephesians 4:11-17 that there would be gifts in men that would be "perfecting (correcting and readjusting) the holy ones clear up until the time that Christians have full understanding. I don't think anyone would say we have achieved that yet, so it is to be expected that those gifts in men, once the separation of the wheat and weeds began to commence, would once again assume the same responsibility as exercised by the Apostles of the first century.

Since the separating of the wheat and weeds would involve the differentiation and removal of those THINGS and PERSONS causing stumbling, naturally, an authoritative element would need to be present to maintain and facilitate the separation. Just as in the first century where there was an organized group of men (the Apostles and older men at Jerusalem) who had the authority to adjust and protect the other holy ones when needed and to present "food" to the sheep, so likewise today, in the conclusion of this system of things, the same arrangement would be expected. We believe that the establishment of that arrangement took place in the early part of the parousia which we believe started around 1914.

We would also see, that to say this FDS was in existence DURING the growing period of the wheat and the weeds, prior to the harvest, would seem to be contrary to what is stated by the prophecy of the wheat and the weeds. In fact, during this growing period, the wheat could not be differentiated from the weeds, so it is not easy to say that these "undefined" and "unrefined" wheat could serve as a faithful slave providing food at the proper time when they could not even be identified with any clarity during this time.

We see that this is what is reflected in the words of Matthew 24:45-47 and its context. Once the parousia began, Jesus appointed a faithful and discreet slave over the domestics of his household (all true Christians). The highpoint of the parousia is the "coming" of Christ where every eye will see him. It is at this "coming" that Jesus will appoint that particular group of slaves over ALL of his belongings, which means he will take the anointed to heaven along with all the other holy ones already in heaven, to be kings, priests and judges during the 1000 year reign of Christ over the earth.

So there is basically two appointments for this FDS element. Once in the early part of his presence, sometime soon after the establishment of his kingdom circa 1914 and another time at the "end" of the "conclusion". It is important to keep in mind that "end" and "conclusion" are two different words in the Greek and can refer to two different aspects of time. "End" is the end, like the final curtain drop of a play, whereas "conclusion" can refer to the entire final ACT of the play. One clearly involves more time than the other.

Whereas this FDS has authority over the domestics on earth during the "conclusion of the system of things", providing food for them at the proper time, they will be granted fuller authority, ALONG WITH all the other faithful slaves collectively, over ALL of Christ's belongings by means of their heavenly ruling and judging and acting as priests for all mankind that will be present during the millennium, primarily via the resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous. We believe that our understanding of this prophecy is accurate in the sense that it agrees with the patterns and precedents of the use of Biblical words and phrases found within the Bible, and that it is logical and is in agreement, not only with scripture, but with known historical facts.

As I am unaware of the exact objections and arguments to be presented by Mike Felker in his opening comments concerning these prophecies, I will wait to read what he has to say before specifically answering those. However, he also wrote an article that he posted on his blogspot and I will take some time to address what I think are some key points that need sorted out.


From Mike Felker's article: (http://carm.org/new-light-on-faithful-d ... watchtower)

The Governing Body concludes that they alone are the “faithful slave” by a supposed inspection that took place between 1914 and 1919. During this inspection, Jesus and Jehovah inspected all Christians worldwide and found the “Bible Students” (now called “Jehovah’s Witnesses”) to be the only ones whose hearts were really with Jehovah and the Bible. Therefore, Jesus selected a small group of anointed (i.e. among the 144,000) JW’s to be the “faithful slave.”

I believe with this point some clarification is in order. Mike seems to think that we do not regard the rest of the anointed as "faithful" slaves. Nothing is further from the truth. All of the anointed holy ones are considered faithful slaves, and discreet for that matter. However, are they ALL the particularly assigned "faithful and discreet slave" OVER the domestics, that is mentioned at Matthew 24:45-47 as a part of the composite sign of the "presence" of Christ?

We see the evidence as supporting the view that the FDS mentioned at Matthew 24:45-47 is a subset of all the rest of the anointed, all of the slaves, a subset that has had particularly authority and responsibility, during a special time (the conclusion) put upon them, much like what happened in the first century in regard to the Apostles and older men in Jerusalem. The Apostles and older men were indeed ALL holy ones along with the rest of the body of Christ, but only the Apostles and older men acted as a governing element. They had a particular authority and responsibility placed upon them that the other anointed ones did not have. A few were feeding the many.

Naturally, ALL of those anointed ones were slaves of Christ, and faithful ones at that, but the particular title of "faithful and discreet slave" that was given to a particular group of slaves and were assigned to be over the domestics in Matthew 24:45-47 during the CONCLUSION, is a subset of the much larger group of faithful slaves.

It sounded as though Mike was getting the impression that ONLY the FDS of Matthew 24 were to be considered to be faithful and discreet, when such is not the case. A slave of Christ can be both faithful and discreet without being a member of the subset designated during the parousia of Christ to be OVER the domestics.

Therefore, the proper idea that reflects our view, is that the FDS mentioned at Matthew 24 is simply a subset of all the other faithful and discreet individual slaves of Christ. That subset has been given a particular assignment during the last days of this system of things, during this time of the parousia of Christ. That assignment would naturally mirror as best as possible, the assignment given to the governing body of the first century.

With that achievement, the structure of the Christian congregation would parallel the first century in many ways, with a body of men who have authority and responsibility to teach and to direct the domestics, to act as "gifts in men" to readjust the holy ones until complete understanding is achieved. (Eph. 4:11-17)

Luke chapter 12 presents another parable about "being ready", and about "having lamps burning". This is clearly not the same prophetic scenario as mentioned in Matthew 25. It would be an error to think of these two parables are identical or that either of these parables are depicting literal events. Whereas Matthew 25 deals with virgin companions of the bride, this parable deals with men. There are some original language variations within that passage that could be considered which could also change the way some of the words are rendered which could present a slightly different picture than what is presented by the current rendition. The lesson is the same but the scenarios are different. I haven't seen presented any reason to think there lies a contradiction between our understanding of the two parables. Maybe more will be revealed throughout the ensuing discussion.

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

[Rotherham]

[MikeFelker]

[Rotherham]

I am glad that you acknowledge that some prophecies can carry dual fulfillments. However, you say that you disagree that Matthew 24 has a dual fulfillment. I would agree in part, so my question is, since both Matthew 24 and 25 are included in Jesus' answer to the question in verse 24:3, at what point in history, if there is but one fulfillment, do you see the fulfillment of both chapters?

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

Thank you for the question and giving me the opportunity to clarify my eschatology as it relates to these chapters. I would argue that all of Matthew 24-25 was fulfilled following Christ’s ascension (Acts 1:9-11) and leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. However, there are particular elements which do carry a continued fulfillment, such as Matthew 25:31-34. While space would not allow for a full explanation of my position, I would primarily view texts like Matthew 16:28 and 24:34 as applying to Jesus’ immediate audience. Therefore, I would deny a dual fulfillment as taught by the Watchtower unless Scripture can explicitly support it.

[Rotherham]

Hello Mike,

It appears then that you hold to the preterist position in regard to Matthew 24 and 25 and other related "parousiac" prophecies. The preterist position, while acquiring some adherents along its way, is currently challenged by many scholars today and due to these powerful objections, can not be claimed to be scripturally explicit by any means. The reason I mention this is because it seems highly inordinate then to demand scriptural explictness in regard to the JW position. As I have mentioned, and I would think nearly anyone would admit, there are often ambiguous elements when it comes to prophecy. With that knowledge then, upon going in to a discussion like this, asking for explicitness is not the right thing to be asking for.

What one needs to ask for or demand from any interpretation is whether it is reasonable and accurate when it comes to history, logic and the rest of what the scriptures reveal. Does that mean that it would be possible to entertain more than one interpretation of a prophecy that contains ambiguous elements? Yes, it would. If any interpretation remains true to those things, it would be "accurate" to the eyes of the beholder. Unless one could prove that it is scirpturally, historically or logically unsound, there is no way to state that it is inaccurate.

I have found the preterist doctrine to be historically inaccurate when compared to the actual words of the prophecies that deal with the establishment of God's Kingdom by Christ, least of which would be Daniel 2,7 and 8. We should really discuss this sometime. In fact, it seems it would have been the better one to start with.

For one to believe that the sign of the Son of Man appearing in heaven, after the great tribulation upon Jerusalem, is something that happened in the first century is completely illogical in relation to the accompanying language that surrounds it. So please tell me, do you believe that the appearing of the Son of Man, with the clouds, and every saw him, was something that happened in the first century?

If so, it would seem to me that the harder question to answer would be whether the preterist position is the one that is accurate.

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

[MikeFelker]

Rotherham, my first question to you will be to lay out a case for 1919 that is biblically, historically, and logically sound. While I understand that space is limited, please address in your defense what specifically happened in 1914-1919 and what relevance 1919 has to the FDS.

[Rotherham]

Hello Mike,

One cannot fully address our understanding of the events of 1914-1919 without first getting an idea of what we believed happened in 1914. The reason is because what we believe to have happened in 1914-1918, in relation to the FDS,is contingent upon our understanding of the "parousia" of Christ and when it also occurred.

Since you didn't specifically ask about how we arrive at 1914, (and if that needs to be expounded upon, it can be) suffice it to say for now, that based upon many prophecies and prophetic dramas, including the book of Revelation, Daniel and elsewhere, we are convinced that Christ became king and the "parousia" began circa 1914.

With that as a backdrop, it would be a logical step to see that Christ, upon his enthronement and his parousia, would start by cleansing the "church" first, just as we read that "judgment starts first with the house of God". This can be seen to be paralleled by what he did in the first century when he cleansed God' temple. This cleansing, upon his enthronement in 1914, would be necessary in order for the separating of the wheat and the weeds to take place during the harvest, the conclusion of the age, which is semantically paralleled in the Greek with his parousia.

It is enough to just say at this juncture, that the first century did indeed have a group of men, the Apostles and older men, that acted as a governing element in regard to teachings and organization. The few were feeding the many.

Suffice to also say that after the Apostles were no longer around, due to the weeds planted by the Devil, there would be no discernible governing body providing for the sheep during this time, since the wheat could not even be properly identified or distinguished from the weeds, and we know that the weeds were those who presented confusion and deviation from true scriptural teaching.

At the end of that growing season, the wheat and the weeds would be separated and the true Christians would be clarified. Naturally, upon the restoration of true Christianity, the same basic structure for Christianity would be restored. This is in complete harmony with Eph 4:11-17 where all Christians are told that they were given gifts in men, down through history, to "readjust" the holy ones so as to keep them in unity. This arrangement was to continue until FULL knowledge would be achieved, something I am sure both I and my opponent would agree this has not happened yet.

This restoration could not be accomplished without the existence of a governing element. So, logically and scripturally, at the near beginning of this separation work, Christ would once again appoint gifts in men to "readjust" his church, which naturally would involve digging out from the error of the weeds that had crept into Christianity. This is where we would expect the appointment of gifts in men to feed the sheep at the proper time, described in Matthew as the "faithful and discreet slave" appointed during the timing of this prophecy that asked for the SIGN of Christ's PRESENCE, which again is semantically paralleled in the Greek with the "conclusion of the age".

So a cleansing work, which means a refinement, which would also mean a restoration of a governing element within, would have to begin early on in the presence of Christ in order for the the wheat and the weeds prophecy to have fulfillment. A harmonization with Eph 4:11-17 with the prophecy of the wheat and the weeds amply demonstrates the need for a governing element within Christianity during the harvest period.

Our understanding of the parousia and the events of the conclusion of the age also has much to do with the book of Revelation. Because you no doubt see a major portion of this book being fulfilled before 70 CE, it is important to mention something at this time.

Since you state that you do not believe the resurrection to have occurred as of yet, you can't at the same time state that the major portion of Revelation was fulfilled in the first century. The reason is because Revelation depicts the church as already in heaven, since the king/priests are shown to already be there in chapters 4 and 5. Revelation does not contain pre 70 fulfillment, as the setting of the prophecies are "paraousiac" in nature, futuristic, and evidently you do not yet believe that the "parousia" has started since you do not believe that the resurrection has occurred.

1 Cor. 15:20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death. 21 For since death came through a man, resurrection of the dead also comes through a man. 22 For just as in Adam all are dying, so also in the Christ all will be made alive. 23 But each one in his own proper order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who belong to the Christ during his presence.

Your Bible would likely say "at his coming", which you evidently see as future in this verse.

Much more could be presented about the errors of the preterist view. Maybe we will get to more of that in the coming questions.

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

I can appreciate that my opponent didn’t seek to establish a case for 1914 because such would go far beyond the scope of what we could reasonably cover in this exchange. So I will avoid challenging this unless it becomes relevant to do so.

My first problem with Rotherham’s answer relates to what is considered “logical.” Apparently, it is only logical that Christ would “cleanse the church” first, which is “paralleled by what he did in the first century when he cleansed God’s temple.” Perhaps we disagree with what “logical” means, but would my opponent allege that my position is actually illogical since I obviously disagree? If so, then what law of logic am I breaking when I conclude that Malachi 3:1-3 has no fulfillment outside of Jesus’ earthly ministry?

My position on this is simple: Jesus fulfilled Malachi 3:1-3 during His earthly ministry. Then, during his parousia in 70 A.D., His judgment was actually not with the church, but with the Jews (having nothing to do with Mal. 3). After all, this is why the temple was destroyed per Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24. I find nothing illogical or unscriptural with this. Furthermore, there is absolutely nothing in Malachi 3 that requires my opponent’s position to be true.

Secondly, and more importantly, where do we get 1919? I realize that space wouldn’t allow for a full explanation of 1914, but I think for the sake of our debate, my opponent needs to substantiate 1919. So far in our discussion, it seems to be little more than an arbitrarily assigned date.

As far as the separating of the wheat and weeds, I don’t understand why a Governing Body is needed for this (I’d even deny that it was needed in the first century as I deny a Governing Body altogether). After all, did any of Paul’s letters highlight such a need when the churches were admonished to refute false teachings (2 Tim. 2:25, 2 Cor. 10:5)?

But let me cite a more specific example where weeds and wheat are truly separated: 1 Cor. 5-6 where grossly immoral ones are removed from the congregation. Did not Paul’s letters provide a sufficient basis for removing corrupt Christians from the congregation? If so, then why can’t they be sufficient for us today without a Governing Body? My position is that elders and even non-elders can sufficiently handle this task by adhering to the Scriptures.

Last, my opponent brings up a few arguments with regards to the parousia and fulfillments in the book of Revelation. I think this goes beyond our scope, but I’ll answer anyway if it will help clarify my position. First, I don’t believe everything in the book of Revelation has been fulfilled. Second, I don’t believe the elders in chapters 4-5 are resurrected men. I think it’s more likely that they are angelic beings of some kind. Third, I don’t hold to only one parousia. Christ can “come” or be “present” as much as he likes and there are no biblical limitations on this as far as I know (other than His final coming, of course). So there is nothing inconsistent in my position in holding that the parousia in 1 Cor. 15:23 is still future.

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

This question requires a little setup in order to be understood.

You stated that the parousia occurred in 70 CE and you also state that the parousia mentioned in 1 Cor 15 is yet future. The disciples asked about a "sign" for Jesus "parousia". Since parousia only occurs in the singular and is seen as an 'event' to take place, what scriptural support is there for the idea that there are two different parousias (70 CE and the future) in relation to the return of Christ?

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

I'm confused by the logic in the question. I see no biblical or logical reason to think that if a word is used in the singular as an event, then it cannot be used in more than one context (especially since my opponent grants dual fulfillments! More on that below). If this is what my opponent thinks, then i'd like to see some good reasons for this. Otherwise, I allow the context to determine a word's meaning, how many events it can refer to, etc.

The answer to Rotherham's question is simple: the context of Matthew 24 (or Matthew as a whole for that matter) shows that the culmination of events is in answer to the disciple's question in 24:1-3 regarding when the destruction of the temple will take place at the parousia of Christ. Its very important to also analyze the parallels in Luke 21:5-7 and Mark 13:1-4, because these don't mention a parousia at all; yet, they also mention many of the same events found in Matthew 24 as pointing to the destruction of the temple. But one of the most important contextual elements, and also most detrimental to my opponent's position, is found in Matthew 24:34 where, "this generation (i.e. not "that" generation) will not pass away until all these things take place." There is nothing in the context of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 which gives any indication that Jesus is referring to an audience thousands of years later. Instead, we are still in the context of the disciple's questions regarding the parousia, destruction of the temple, etc. with Jesus' answers to them.

When we come to 1 Corinthians 15, we are looking at a different context altogether; the resurrection. Here we will see Christ's final parousia whereby the dead will be physically raised. This presents an obvious differentiation in context from Matthew 24 because we have left the central theme of the destruction of the temple, which doesn't mention a resurrection at all. Therefore, we see two completely different events as it relates to a parousia of Christ. Unfortunately, it seems my opponent has read certain limitations into a word that simply isn't there, rather than demonstrating its meaning from the context. There's also another glaring problem for my opponent; the idea of dual fulfillments. Since my opponent obviously allows for these, i'm curious as to which parts of Matthew 24 have dual fulfillments and which ones don't? More importantly, i'd like to see this demonstrated from the context, or why we should even see dual fulfillments at all in this passage? Even as it relates to my opponent's question above, does he negate the possibility of a dual fulfillment of a parousia when he seems to find dual fulfillments elsewhere in the same context? It would seem that there is an inconsistency at play.

On a side note, there is much that my opponent has argued that I have not had the chance to respond to. I'll do my best to answer them as relevant questions are asked, if not at my closing.

[Rotherham]

Hello Mike,

I don't accept that you established any scriptural reason for believing in two different parousias. You affirm your position but that's about it that I see.

Believing in two separate parousias, which appears to be nothing more than a purely theologically driven position, sets up a number of problems for the first century church and their ability to understand, and also for our own understanding of what is being taught. I suppose I am curious how you would defend against a full preterist interpretation that all the "parousias" mentioned, happened in 70 CE, along with the resurrection of the holy ones to heaven at that time?

It seems you wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on if you accept that the parousia started in 70 CE, or at least 'one' of them did. Since the scriptures nowhere differentiate between an early and a late parousia, it would seem you could not overturn their position. It would come down to pure theology, not pure scripture.

As mentioned, the disciples ask for a SIGN, in the singular, for both the conclusion of the age and for his presence. The fact that Mark or Luke doesn't specifically mention "parousia" is inconsequential, because we know that Matthew did. If Luke and Mark did not mention that Jesus used that term, we still know that he did unless we want to cancel out Matthew's record. The different writers often were not synonymous with every detail but we still believe what they recorded happened or was said. Besides, the later writers often used that term, parousia, to describe the event of the return of Christ.

Since the disciples ask for a SIGN, not signs, in regard to both the conclusion of the age AND the parousia, it shows that they saw them as closely related events, one could say, singularly. They may have expected them at the same time. Otherwise, their question was not posited correctly. Since they were already living DURING the conclusion of the Jewish age and were already living DURING his "PRESENCE" in the first century, what would even be the need to ask for a SIGN to let them know he was there?

And later, when the writers spoke of that future parousia, how would any one reading even know that it referred to some distant parousia shooting past the one that you say they were asking about in regard to 70 CE? It makes no sense to create two different parousias because the believers would be clueless as to its identity because the writers, not even Jesus, ever differentiated between the two. In all contexts, the parousia was simply the parousia, with no indication otherwise that there was two of them.

And if you’re going to allude to dual fulfillment, you can hardly point a finger at us and criticize the very same thing that you left-handedly refer to as a defense.

The very use of the word parousia in all those different contexts, without any explanatory differentiation at all, even by Jesus himself who surely must have known that there was going to be TWO of them, the second being far more earth-shattering than the first, yet didn't even hint at it in his answer to his Apostles. Yet you say that toward the end of that prophecy in chapter 25, we see events that shoot down to the second parousia, yet Jesus never differentiated. Seems highly inordinate that he would not clarify in the most relevant context to do so, for his disciples who specifically asked about the parousia.

All this is strong evidence in itself that Matthew 24 has a second fulfillment. Since we both accept that there was a far distant parousia to occur, and Jesus didn't differentiate, and nor did his disciples, there is no good reason to think that there is more than one. And that recognition in itself sets up the understanding that we are dealing with a dual fulfillment in at least the early part of Matthew 24. We believe that the first 26 verses apply in a dual fashion. Clearly, verse 27 starts with the parousia that we see for good reasons as applying in the future only as there is no Biblical indication it happened in 70 CE, not even in a smaller fashion. Therefore, there was no FIRST fulfillment of the FDS passage, it was purely futuristic, to unfold in the future during the parousia of Christ.

Scripturally, it is more than apparent that there is a future parousia after the first century that involves the resurrection of the holy ones. To claim that there was also another parousiac event, by way of 70 CE, is purely driven by theology, not scripture, and could never qualify as EXPLICIT in nature. If we let the parousia of Christ mean the parousia of Christ, consistently without differentiation, which the Bible makes none, then this tells us that at least “portions” of Matthew 24 contain dual fulfillment.

Doesn’t one have to ask why the early church “fathers” did NOT understand the PAROUSIA of Christ as already having happened in 70 CE, or at least “one” of them? There is no indication anywhere that I have seen that they ever entertained this view. This is a later theological invention.

If, as we have seen, that there is no good reason to not see Revelation as pointing forward to future events, then there is much evidence from this book that supports the teaching that Matthew 24 contains dual fulfillment. So once again, it is imperative that the timing of fulfillment of the book of Revelation be discussed, otherwise, this will greatly delay any kind of conclusion on this topic under discussion. Also, a discussion of, at the very least, Daniel 2 and 7 is imperative to understand the answer to this topic. So I reiterate that this discussion is cart before the horse and without an inclusion of those topics being debated at some point, this will likely end up a “dangling” conversation.

However, devastating to your view is the idea that the wheat and the weeds is something that would have been fulfilled by 70 CE, unless you want to admit that there is a FUTURE harvest period where the wheat and the weeds are separated in a conclusion of an age. Up to 70 CE, where was this harvest where the sons of God were clarified and glorified like the sun? Where was the great apostasy that Paul foretold that would come before this day of Christ would arrive? He wrote this to the Thessalonians circa 51-2 CE and it was clear it had not yet happened. Clearly the confusion between the wheat and the weeds had not happened yet and God forbid any uprooting of the weeds until the harvest. When did the harvest happen? In your view, would this not be at the conclusion of the age, at 70 CE!? Would this not mean that the parable of the wheat and the weeds would have had to happen between circa 52 and 70?!! Where is the evidence for such a thing? Why would the early church “fathers” not even mention such a stupendous event as that?

This hadn’t happened by 52 CE. In fact, where do we read it EVER happening before 70 CE where there was no effort to uproot the weeds? Isn’t it rather true that clear up until the destruction of Jerusalem, were they not fighting against those false teachers and in fact, revealing them and removing them from the congregation? At what point prior to 70 CE were the sons of the kingdom made to shine like the sun AFTER their identity was confused with the weeds? When did this distinctive separation take place? And where do we find in the Greek Scriptures an effort to NOT uproot the weeds until the harvest??

In fact, the Apostle John, whom preterists claim wrote his books before 70 CE, speaks of the coming of the “antichrist”, claiming it was the “last hour” before his full blown appearance. This antichrist would clearly have been a “weed” or “weeds”? And if the separating and clarification of the wheat and weeds had taken place already, (due to the late date prior to 70) why was the appearance of the “antichrist” imminent? None of this fits logically with all this happening before 70 CE. Not only does it not fit logically, it is contradictory.

As far as what is dual fulfillment and what is not, since the first century was clearly living in a conclusion of an age, the Jewish one, and the wheat and the weeds clearly depict another conclusion of an age, the disciples were fully aware of what they were asking for in Matthew 24. They no doubt asked about a conclusion of an age that they heard Jesus mention in this very parable. They may have expected a first century fulfillment but history itself and Jesus explanation of the wheat and the weeds, proves it did not happen in the first century via all the above reasons.

This is another clear indicator that Matthew 24 was talking about both the first century and the future parousia, linking them together prophetically. Another indicator of this dual fulfillment is what Jesus spoke of from the book of Daniel. He spoke of the time when the disgusting thing causing desolation would stand in the holy place. When does Daniel indicate the fulfillment of this particular event? Well, in chapter 11 where it is mentioned this is seen to be something different from what happened at Jerusalem, yet Jesus applies it to Jerusalem. The other occurrence in the 12th chapter is clearly in the time of the end in connection with the resurrection according to verses 2 and 13.

Well, if Jesus clearly applies it to first century events and Daniel applies it to the end of the days in connection with the resurrection, once again, the need for a dual fulfillment is apparent. There are many other evidences both in Revelation and Daniel that support the view that this prophecy in Matthew 24 held a dual fulfillment, one for their conclusion of the age and one for the future conclusion of an age far past the first century, that transpires in connection with the future parousia of Christ. One for their great tribulation and then another great tribulation for a future age according to Revelation.

The reason I continue to hit at the preterist position is because I see it as a constant hindrance for you see this in another fashion. It should change your paradigm immensely if you were to see that the kingdom of the world by Christ, as mentioned in Daniel 7, could not happen until far after the first century.

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

[MikeFelker]

You believe that an inspection took place from 1914-1919 by Jesus. Do you believe that all true Christians in the 1914-1919 (or even prior) period were anointed? If so, were they not already chosen by the way of being anointed? The implication is with what purpose an inspection would be needed if they were already chosen and others rejected.

[Rotherham]

[MikeFelker]

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

This question again requires a little setup. The parable of the wheat and the weeds calls for the condition of the wheat and the weeds being indiscernible until the harvest. The wheat and the weeds are not to be separated likewise until the harvest, and then at the harvest the wheat and the weeds would be separated by removing things and people that cause stumbling. So this raises the following:

When did we see in the first century a concerted effort to NOT separate truth from false or to remove things that cause stumbling and when did we see the wheat become indiscernible from the weeds?

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

I believe my opponent’s position presents a fundamental misunderstanding of the parable; namely, that this parable is presenting a local reality. In other words, it appears Rotherham views this as a parable that takes place within the church only. Otherwise, why would he even bring up the fact of a, “concerted effort to NOT separate truth from false or to remove things that cause stumbling?”

I’ll leave it to Rotherham to clarify this, but this appears to be his position. Thankfully, the Lord Jesus interprets this parable for us in Matthew 13:36-43. First, we see that the field is the world (13:38). This fact alone renders Rotherham’s question irrelevant. After all, how could we remove the weeds from the earth even if we wanted to (other than murder, which is ridiculous to consider)? Furthermore, if this has a first century (and continuous) fulfillment that takes place in the world, then a removal of non-believers from the congregation would also render Rotherham’s point void. That is, removing wicked ones from the congregation is a far cry from removing them from the world.

Another point to consider is the aspect of discernibility. Can we know what are or aren’t weeds? Again, this question is pointless. Obviously, the Christian Scriptures provided plenty of criteria for judging the fruits of a professing Christian and how we should treat them (Matt. 7:15, 2 Tim. 2:18, 2 John 7, etc.). But this parable isn’t talking about professing Christians and whether we should keep them in the congregation or whether they are discernable. Instead, Jesus is speaking to the reapers, who are the angels in charge of separating the wheat and weeds (13:39). The charge is to them to not uproot until the harvest, which begins at the destruction of the temple (which the context of Matthew’s gospel). If a separation has ever occurred between true Christianity and the world, it would be here since the Christians fled and Jerusalem was destroyed.

Also keep in mind the fact that God knows who his true followers are and apparently so do the angels. After all, how could they “gather the elect” (Matt. 24:31)? Thus, I see a very strong connection here with the parable in Matthew 13. The point here is that the angels not make the separation until the harvest, which is when Christians are to “flee to the mountains (24:16).” This has more to do with warning against premature judgment than whether Christians are discernable. In other words, if the Christians remained in Jerusalem, of course they would get uprooted too!

Perhaps my opponent can spend some time elaborating on why his position is correct and mine wrong, but I really see no problem here.

[Rotherham]

[MikeFelker]

[MikeFelker]

Rotherham,

You stated that Jesus did not answer Peter in Luke 12:41 and instead had an audience in view thousands of years later. How can this be the case when the only prospects in view are the "us" (i.e. the disciples per 12:22 and following) or the "everyone" (i.e. the crowd Jesus was interacting with in 12:13-21)?

[Rotherham]

[MikeFelker]

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

This question requires a little setup to pose it properly.

The Apostles, at Matthew 24, were clearly asking about the "conclusion of the age" mentioned in the parable of the wheat and the weeds because that is the only mentioned "conclusion of an age" prior to this event.

Also, since you have not properly countered the point concerning "shining as the sun", being a reference to their heavenly glory, (your counter examples did not compare in terminology) that parable of the wheat and the weeds, according to Biblical pattern and precedent, includes their resurrection.

Without a proper refutation of that point, does it not stand to reason that their question to Jesus in Matthew 24:3 was in reference to the "conclusion of the age" connected to what you would call the "final" parousia, which includes their resurrection to heavenly glory?

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

[Rotherham]

Hello Mike,

My responses are between the ###############s.

I will try again to spell this out as I think you are clearly missing the point. This time in greater detail. Frankly, if you cannot provide a single exception to this Biblical pattern and precedent, then your position has no support. It is opinion over scripture.

You stated in one of your own articles at the very end that “But it is important that we let Scripture determine the meaning of words rather than our assumptions.” However, this is exactly what you are not doing, against your own correct advice, as I will demonstrate below.

First, what we are looking for are references that DIRECTLY state that someone’s countenance or face are “as the SUN” or shining as the “SUN”. Your references consistently fall short of that criteria and I am sure that you and the readers are very well aware of that fact because if you could actually find one you would have surely included it.

EACH time that someone’s’ countenance or face is said to be as the SUN, or shining as the SUN, it is ALWAYS a reference to their “heavenly glory”. Of this there is no mistake or exception because the scriptures are consistent in this regard. Allow me to repeat the examples and note that the reference to the SUN is the key point, not just light or illumination, but the SUN itself. Your counter examples completely ignore that and are therefore not relevant to the point.
Math. 17:2, the transfiguration, where the phrase is a clear reference to his future heavenly glory.

Acts 26:13, Paul saw Jesus in his heavenly resurrected state.

Rev. 10:1, a description of an heavenly angel.

Rev. 1:16, a vision of the heavenly Jesus Christ.

You will note that in each one of these references, the operative word is SUN. And there is no doubt that in each case it is a reference to heavenly glory. THIS is what you need to find. Examples that references lights or luminaries or brightness are not examples that relate because they do not refer to the SUN specifically as the other do. Clearly, there are numerous examples of where lights or luminaries do NOT refer to heavenly glory, but there is no mistake that when it references shining as the SUN, it is indeed a reference to that glory.

Without Biblical precedent otherwise, you have no support for your conclusions and the point stands as valid whether you wish to accept it or not, and you would be doing exactly what you counsel against, you would be using your personal preference over the word of God. Surely, at the very least, Jehovah’s Witnesses could not be faulted for this interpretation, as it clearly has Biblical support and backing. Your position does not.

You said:

Unfortunately, Rotherham is not dealing with what I said in relation to Daniel 12:3. It’s not enough to simply say that I didn’t “properly counter the point.” Instead, it needs to be demonstrated why my points don’t follow. With that said, let me repeat what I argued previously and allow the readers decide the validity of my points:
As far as Matthew 13:43, I don’t think Rotherham’s interpretation is necessary at all. While there is similar language used in Matthew 17:2, Acts 26:13 and elsewhere to reference heavenly glory, there are other parallels not mentioned by my opponent. Consider the following:

“Do all things without grumbling or disputing; so that you will prove yourselves to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you appear as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life, so that in the day of Christ I will have reason to glory because I did not run in vain nor toil in vain.” (Philippians 2:14–16)

##############################################
This is not an example that demonstrates the point as pointed out above. Where exactly do we see someone’s countenance or face shining as the SUN in this verse?
##############################################

You said:

“But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, that shines brighter and brighter until the full day.” (Proverbs 4:18)

###############################################
Again, the example is a comparison of apples to oranges.
###############################################


You said:

“You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; nor does anyone light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14–16)

#################################################
Another irrelevant example.
##################################################

You said;

The point I’m making is not in denying that Daniel 12:3 has something to do with the believer’s resurrection, but that the “shining” is specifically connected to righteousness and being distinguished from the world. This is clearly what the verses above teach, as well as Daniel 12:1-3 and Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43. Therefore, Rotherham’s suggestion that this can’t refer to the first century is unwarranted. Instead, in the events leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem, we have a clear divide between believers who took heed to Jesus’ warnings in Matthew 24 and those who remained in Jerusalem and suffered judgment.

################################################
I am sure that you and the readers know what I am going to say so I probably don’t need to say it. There is NO reference hear to someone’s face or countenance here shining as the SUN. The example is irrelevant.

What all these examples actually demonstrate is that you have no refutation to the point made, not from a Biblical standpoint, and therefore, our view stands as exonerated because it has the support and backing of Biblical precedent and pattern. I believe this stands as a valid point of refutation to the partial preterist view, a conclusion that full preterists would surely agree with. They are right in concluding that “shining as the sun” is a reference to the resurrection of the church, they are simply wring as to the timing for many other reasons not relevant to our discussion. At the very least, even if you want to hold on to such a flimsy, unsupported view, you could not possibly have any valid reason for rejecting the JW position, because if we are right about the parable of the wheat and the weeds, which we have every Biblical reason to believe we are, then the rest of our understanding falls neatly into place.
##############################################

You said:

Let me also add that “heavenly glory” doesn’t necessitate a location in heaven. In the transfiguration of Matthew 17:2, Christ revealed a heavenly glory while on earth. But I think we have something else in play here that I didn’t discuss: the “already but not yet” principle. We see this all throughout Scripture, and I don’t think Daniel 12:3 is an exception, especially when we look at parallel passages. Take Colossians 1:13, where “He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.” Also, consider that we have been “raised up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” (Eph. 2:6) Many other verses can be cited, but I think the reader will see the point in that the believer can experience eschatological realities now, in some sense. I don’t see any good reason why Daniel 12:3 can’t as well.

########################################################
You are either being disingenuous or you are clearly missing the point. Matthew 17:2 directly references the SUN and you know that it is a reference to heavenly glory, regardless of where Jesus was at when it was depicted. Daniel 12:3, Colossians 1:13, Eph. 2:6 and all your other examples have absolutely no mention of the SUN or someone shining as the SUN and are therefore the wrong examples to have any support for your view. THAT’s the point, not just illuminators or references to heavenly glory, but a specific reference to their face or their countenance shining as the SUN.
#########################################################

You said:

In answer to Rotherham’s primary question, it does not stand to reason that Matthew 24:3 is in reference to the final return of Christ, for reasons I have already stated in this debate. The disciples were asking about the destruction of the temple, which signified both Christ’s presence and coming. If the disciples were thinking of some event thousands of years later, the context Jesus provided would have refuted this. But I’ve already been through this and see no need to belabor the point.

###################################################
What they asked about was OBVIOULY the “conclusion of the system of things” that was mentioned in the parable of the wheat and the weeds. Of this there can be no doubt. And as we have seen there is every Biblical reason to see that ending with the PAROUSIA in connection with the heavenly glory received by the church via resurrection. To claim it just has something to do with their flight to Pella or separation from Jerusalem is completely against the Biblical pattern.

You actually have the very same problem with what you think is a parallel verse in Matthew 24. 31 And he will send out his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

Can one actually think that such all inclusive language as this is what happened in 70 CE when the group of Christians in Jerusalem separated and fled to Pella? Seriously? The language of what is stated doesn’t even match with history. The verse clearly references ALL the chosen ones, from the FOUR WINDS, “from one extremity of the heavens to the other”. That would have to include them ALL, not just the slice of Christianity involved at Jerusalem. Your interpretation doesn’t match historically or logically with the Biblical language used.

Notice how Mark puts and there can be no mistake about how far reaching this “gathering” is going to be.

He states:
“And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, FROM THE UTTERMOST PART OF THE EARTH to the uttermost part of heaven.”

This cannot in any way be effectively applied to what happened to that mere slice of Christianity in Jerusalem circa 70 CE. It involves ALL the elect, not just a slice, no matter how big or small that slice would have been. This will only actually happen when they are taken to heaven.

I am certain the readers will clearly see the point that I am making. Matthew 24, based on Biblical pattern and precedent, MUST be in reference to the PAROUSIA and the subsequent resurrection in connection with it. Nothing stands in the way of this understanding and it harmonizes with the Biblical pattern of words.

In your next response, I hope we just don’t see more of the same irrelevancies.

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

[MikeFelker]

[Rotherham]

Hello Mike,

For the CLASS that is considered faithful and wise, you are correct, they would not be judged adversely, obviously, but would be appointed to further responsibility at the return of Christ.

What I was attempting to describe was the fact that simply because an "individual" is in a class, whatever that class might be, it doesn't mean that individually they can't fail and effectively remove themselves from that class. But yes, as a class, not necessarily as individuals, but as a class, they would naturally be wise and discreet and be appointed to further responsibility.

However, if the actual CLASS became evil, they would be judged adversely.

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

This question requires some background to it before asking.

Although you attempt to counter by 'near misses' in terminology, it has been established that the exact phrase "shining like the sun" or "countenance as the sun" are a reference to heavenly glory. That is a sound hermeneutical evaluation whether everyone would accept it or not. In other words, it is a valid interpretation of those words.

Since one can rightly evaluate that phrase as a reference to heavenly glory, interpreting that same phrase in the parable of the 'wheat and the weeds' in the same manner would also be a valid interpretation.

Here is the question with the above in mind. Since our view is at the very least, a valid interpretation of the phrase "shining like the sun", would not our view of Matthew 24 and 5, which is directly related to what the parable of the wheat and weeds is portraying, would it not also be a valid interpretation?

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

I’m surprised we are going over this again, as if such a question is the nail in the coffin for my position and an affirmation of the Watchtower’s FDS doctrine. It’s not, but I have hopes that Rotherham will tie this together in his closing.

Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but I never stated that Daniel 12:3 isn’t in reference to heavenly glory. My point was that heavenly glory does not necessitate a location in heaven to experience it. You attempted to counter my point in relation to Matthew 17:2 by stating it, “directly references the SUN and you know that is a reference to heavenly glory, regardless of where Jesus was at when it was depicted.” Well, it actually does matter where Jesus and the disciples were when this was experienced because Rotherham’s position requires that it be in heaven. Such a position must be demonstrated rather than assumed. Moreover, Rotherham would still need to explain why the “already but not yet” principle can’t apply here when we see it all throughout the Christian Scriptures.

I think the wrong question is being asked. What Rotherham needs to refute is the notion that Daniel 12:3 was fulfilled in the first century in some sense. Since I’ve clearly established my position on both Matthew 24 and 13 as it relates to the destruction of Jerusalem, I once again see no reason to belabor the point here. Otherwise, this will be a debate about whether preterism is true rather than the debate thesis.

To answer Rotherham’s question directly: No, I don’t think he has a valid interpretation because it fails to account for the clear and unquestionable first century fulfillment language outlined throughout Matthew’s gospel.

[Rotherham]

Hello Mike,

Since this is my last question to you in regard to this topic, I will attempt to tie all of this together and why I see our view as superior to yours. I do think your view is categorically false but it involves other considerations that are not within the scope of this discussion. As I have mentioned before, this discussion started in the wrong place. I believe the real crux of the issue lies within the book of Daniel and Revelation and I hope you will be willing to broach those areas with me at some point.

I will explain why I have relied upon the interpretation of the "wheat and weeds" prophecy as a focal point in this discussion and why I have demonstrated that the preterist view is anything but "explicit", and why that is important to our position.

Early on in this discussion you have stated, and still do, that we must show that our view is that which is EXPLICITLY spelled out in the Bible. I have offered, and still do, that when it comes to ambiguous language, which is OFTEN found in prophecies and parables, there is much that is "interpetational", IMPLICIT rather than EXPLICIT. I have also maintained that as long as an interpretation can be shown to be historically, logically and scriptural harmonious then one can decide if that is the interpretation that they will adhere to, based upon their trust of the one or ones who are promoting it.

Early on you also proclaimed that the preterist position was EXPLICIT, and I believe this is where you immediately stepped into an immature and myopic view of the interpretation of prophecy and why I immediately set upon demonstrating that preterism was far from explicit. My examination and pressure on the preterist view has been to show you and the readers that there is nothing explicit about the preterist view and in the coarse of this response here, I will continue to show why that is the case, including the all important "generation" reference that preterism holds to, because that "generation" reference obviously has a great bearing on our own view.

It is easy for a person to rail against the views of others if they don't have to present a working model of their own view, and after you claimed that your view was explicit, I guess I find it perplexing why you then wonder about me trying to demonstrate that it was not. If it truly was explicit and you could have demonstrated such, then discussion over, for that which is explicit is beyond doubt, but as we have seen, your view is based upon theological assumptions as are many views. But again, even if theological assumptions are harmonious with history, logic and scripture, one can not claim categorically that the view is INACCURATE. OTHER factors, OTHER prophecies that have direct bearing upon the topic would have to be considered before a "no doubt" status of any interpretation could be claimed. And since I believe that Revelation and Daniel will present a "no doubt" status for our view, major pieces of this puzzle that we are working continue to be missing, and any ABSOLUTE conclusions or claims and expectations of things being EXPLICIT are highly premature.

You said:

Perhaps I wasn’t clear, but I never stated that Daniel 12:3 isn’t in reference to heavenly glory. My point was that heavenly glory does not necessitate a location in heaven to experience it. You attempted to counter my point in relation to Matthew 17:2 by stating it, “directly references the SUN and you know that is a reference to heavenly glory, regardless of where Jesus was at when it was depicted.” Well, it actually does matter where Jesus and the disciples were when this was experienced because Rotherham’s position requires that it be in heaven. Such a position must be demonstrated rather than assumed. Moreover, Rotherham would still need to explain why the “already but not yet” principle can’t apply here when we see it all throughout the Christian Scriptures.

#######################################
Here is the problem with this response and the overall bearing that it has upon this discussion. IT'S AN OPINION. You should know as well as any reader that what you are saying is not PROOF of any kind that this reference and the other ones that I have shown are "proleptic" and not actual. WE say they are actual and NOT proleptic for many reasons not even covered in this discussion. YOU say they are propleptic and can be recognized on earth before they get to heaven. Both views are valid to a degree, like I said, contingent upon other conclusions that are not a part of this discussion.

We believe that they are highly indicative of ACTUAL heavenly glory. It can not be denied that some of the references are indeed speaking of ACTUAL heavenly glory, so any scripture, using the same terminology could legitamately be seen the same way. Sure, words can be massaged with ad hoc reasonings and "near miss" terminology so that they can mean something else, but really, so what? Is that proof of a position? Is the very fact that they MIGHT mean something else proof that another view can not be believed because it is not EXPLICIT? Really? Is that how you think it works?

You should be able to appreciate that belief in a prophetic interpretation, as I have mentioned, can end up being, TO A DEGREE, as long as there is historical, logical and scriptural harmony to the view, a matter of trust in those who are promoting that view, especially in the light of ambiguous terminology. This recognition seems to escape you.

You said:

I think the wrong question is being asked. What Rotherham needs to refute is the notion that Daniel 12:3 was fulfilled in the first century in some sense. Since I’ve clearly established my position on both Matthew 24 and 13 as it relates to the destruction of Jerusalem, I once again see no reason to belabor the point here. Otherwise, this will be a debate about whether preterism is true rather than the debate thesis.

##################################
Again, here is the problem with your approach, and I have seen this problem many times even reading your blogs. You seem to think that I must REFUTE a position OR it somehow remains true. What happened to you actually PROVING that YOUR position is the only CORRECT one, in harmony with your claim that it is explicit? People don't always have to REFUTE a position. In the presence of ambiguous terminology, what should be expected is that they can, at the very least, present another VALID way to LOOK at the verse and what it says, which I have clearly done.

Either Daniel 12:3 is proleptic or it is actual. Either Matthew 13's reference to "shining as the sun" is proleptic or it is not. I can state for you the reasons I believe they are not proleptic, but I know full well that preterists have used ad hoc reasonings and "near misses" to excuse their view from refutation, that is until everything on the topic is considered, which hasn't happened nor will it happen within the scope of this discussion by a long shot.

You are often trying to overturn my position by stating preterist views of many verses and then you wonder why I attack the preterist view. Really? You don't see that as a tad bit myopic? I certainly do.

Unfortunatley, this one sentence(below) is all that you actually offer in response to my question. I had hoped for more as I am sure some of the readers did too. But, nonetheless, I will address what I THINK you mean by your answer since you did not elaborate. I get the feeling that you are at times deliberately vague in your answers.

You said:

To answer Rotherham’s question directly: No, I don’t think he has a valid interpretation because it fails to account for the clear and unquestionable first century fulfillment language outlined throughout Matthew’s gospel.

##################################
That isn't exactly what I asked about. Let me explain: Since it can clearly be seen that the references to "shining as the sun" IN THE KINGDOM OF THE FATHER, can be validly interpreted as an ACTUAL reference to HEAVENLY GLORY, and not a proleptic reference, this changes thing drastically for the view of Matthew 24 aqnd 25. Here is why:

IF that view is the correct view, and we have no reason to believe otherwise, by the disciples asking about the timing of the "conclusion of the age" when the holy ones would ACTUALLY be resurrected to heavenly glory, this means that the answer to that question would have to shoot far past 70 CE clear down to the time of the ACTUAL resurrection. This means that Jesus answer did NOT just deal with the events of the FIRST century, but included the events of the ACTUAL resurrection and obviously the PAROUSIA that would be in connection with that ACTUAL resurrection.

I know that is NOT your view, but there has certainly not been presented by you any reason why this interpretation just can't be valid, EXCEPT, and this seems to be the "sanctum sanctorum" of the preterist postion, the reference to THIS GENERATION. You seem to believe that this prophecy can not be dual in nature. Once again you claim that we can't believe that it is unless it is EXPLICITLY spelled out. You seem to forget that unless your view can be EXPLICITLY spelled out, which it can't and hasn't been, it is simply another way of looking at it.

But let me expound a bit upon the notion of a dual fulfillment and why we see that as an absolutely valid and contextual way to look at a portion of Matthew 24, including the "generation" reference.

Again, Biblical pattern and precedent is fully supportive of our view that "shinig as the sun" IN THE KINGDOM OF THE FATHER is in reference to their ACTUAL resurrected heavenly glory. The language itself really does not resemble something proleptic but actual, because it tells us WHERE this glory is recognized. In the other verses which prolepsis is obvious, such as the transfiguration and your "near miss" reference in Ephesians, they were clearly on earth and prolepsis was contextually necessary. Such is not the case in Matthew 13. In fact it says, as mhighlighted above, that they shine as the sun "IN THE KINGDOM OF THEIR FATHER". There is every good reason to believe that such a statement is in reference to being IN heaven because that is surely where the Father's kingdom IS.

Therefore, IF that is the true view, and notice I said IF, but IF that is the true view, then that necessitates Matthew 24 and 25 to be a prophecy that takes us all the way down to the time of the ACTUAL resurrection and the PAROUSIA connected WITH that resurrection. The answer that Jesus gave then , by that conclusion, would have to be dual in nature because when he answered he did not differentiate between the first century and the RESURRECTION PAROUSIA.

Three questions were actually asked and only one of them would have been in regard to first century events if our view of Matthew 13 is correct, the one that asked about "these things" in relation to Jerusalem's destruction. The very fact that he spelled out a very long answer and never identified any division between the time periods that they had asked about would be clear indication that he was presenting a dual fulfillment. Now the disciples could have clearly NOT understood that the answer to those questions involved different time periods, but Jesus surely would have known, and his answer indicates he ran them altogether, which again, IF the "conclusion of the age" includes their ACTUAL RESURRECTION, would demand a dual fulfillment in order for it to be true.

Really, what you have to disprove is that the PHRASE "shing as the sun in the kingdom of their Father" can NOT be a reference to resurrection, but you simply can't, because we know elsewhwere that EXACT phrase does indeed refer to ACTUAL heavenly glory. In other words, you have barked up a wrong tree to be able to find any nail in a supposed coffin.

We see confirmation of this view when he begins to speak about what would happen immediately after the tribulation of those days with the sign of the Son of Man appearing in heaven and all the tribes beating themselves because of it and they would all see the Son of Man coming on the couds of glory and all his angels with him. Preterim would have us believe that none of that actually happened but was just elevated prophetic language that didn't really mean what it said. There is certainly every reason for us to believe that this explanation just doesn't fit with what actually transpired. How any one could see such an explanation and other preterist "tight spots" as EXPLICIT is beyond belief for me, and I am sure for many readers as well.

We also see corroboration in the description of the gathering of the elect from "one extremity of HEAVEN to the OTHER, or as Mark puts it from one extremity of the earth to the extremity of heaven. Again, ad hoc reasoning and near miss references might present a different view, but there is every reason to believe that this TOO is a reference to their heavenly resurrection in connection with the PAROUSIA, because if we let the WORDS MEAN what they SAY, the only times that happens is at their ACTUAL resurrection. We certainly can not be faulted or refuted for believing that.

This is also based upon Revelation and Daniel which we have not discussed, but which we need to do. In fact, if we want anything useful to come out of this discussion, it is imperative that we do.

So all of this talk of EXPLICITNESS in the face of highly interpretative language is simply wrong headed, and frankly, probably impossible to accomplish without considering the fuller scope of this very broad and encompassing topic.

Our interpretation is valid based upon Biblical precedent and the straight forward reading of what words actually say. You have presented NOTHING to demonstrate that our view simply can not be valid, including all the questions and misunderstandings about slaves and classes, except to say that unless its EXPLICIT, no one can believe it. I really think you should know better.

Regards,
Rotherham

Word count-2442

[MikeFelker]

[MikeFelker]

[Rotherham]

Hello Mike,

I am not sure what this has to do with proving or disproving the accuracy of the Watchtower article that is the focus of this debate but I truly appreciate the opportunity to expound upon this point as I believe it is a very important feature of the overall understanding of the concept of a governing body/element within Christianity.

You might think my complaint is a double standard since you think my attacking preterism was off topic, but as I explained in my prior post it was very much on topic as it relates directly to end times eschatology. And as I mentioned, if your view was actually EXPLICIT as you claimed, you would have won the debate hands down. The EXPLICITNESS of YOUR teaching on end time’s eschatology would have proven the INACCURACY of our OWN teaching.

However, I don't see how this question actually addresses eschatology, but be that as it may, it makes no real difference to me, and as I said, I appreciate this opportunity. I actually wish this was more the topic of discussion than the one we chose, but maybe that can be a future endeavor.

I believe we have mentioned this before on your blog and had come to a few agreements in the discussion. I will mention those here as I formulate my response. This understanding, as mentioned, comes from a proper view of Ephesians 4:11-17 and a few other related verses which I will incorporate. For those who might be interested in the preliminary discussion that Mike and I had on his blogspot, you can find it here:

http://apologeticfront.com/2013/03/05/t ... and-unity/

In answer to your question you wanted to know the difference between the governing body today and the governing body of the first century. Basically it is this as I mentioned on your blog:

The situation today is different than the first century, naturally, due to the fact that inspiration is not present and neither are the gifts of the spirit, one being the discernment of inspired utterances and another one being the gift of knowledge. Today, although it is quite possible that a new understanding could be achieved through the efforts and research of an individual, as Proverbs recommends, there is salvation in a multitude of counselors. That is why there should be a consensus of a new view before it is promoted to the congregation. In the event that inspiration is no longer with us, this is the workable approach to any new understanding and still maintains the unity as is demanded by Eph. 4:11-17.


In our discussion on your blog we had come to the following agreements:

1. An unrelenting heretic should be removed from the congregation.

2. We should surrender our views to those taking the lead over us as long as those views do not violate what the scriptures teach.

3. Ephesians 4:11-17 is an active and current process to be fully realized in the future.

Ephesians 4:11-17 clearly establishes that there would be gifts in/to men that would be responsible for readjusting the holy ones until that full stature arrives. That has not yet arrived so the process must remain for a reasonable unity to be sustained. It should be readily clear from the context that the purpose was for the unity to be maintained so that the congregation would not be torn by every wind of teaching. I’m not really sure what more there is to exegete than that. I think we actually agree that this is what it says. I think your disagreement is in relation to how strongly we should adhere to the teachings of those gifts in men and whether it should just be a “local” authority or a “worldwide one.

The way we have things arranged within our modern organization of Christianity is that we are trying to maintain the same stance toward unity as was maintained in the first century. As I stated before, without the very beneficial aid of direct inspiration, given that we are in the process of digging out from age-old errors and discovering more and more about the ancient languages used, I don’t see any other way to maintain earthwide unity except in the fashion that we do so. I am sure that there is some room for variation, but the basic principle is Biblically sound. If such a thing can be carried out on a local level, why in the world would we think that the same thing would not be necessary on a worldwide scale? Without it, Christianity would indeed be a perfect example of different congregations being carried hither and thither by every wind of teaching based on the cunning and contriving errors of men. If being carried about by every wind would be inappropriate on a local level, how could it then be OK to exist on a worldwide level? That makes no sense.

We believe that this reflects the spirit of what is stated in numerous places within the Bible. Ephesians 4:11-17 surely doesn’t stand alone. And any exegesis of that passage must be seen to harmonize with everything else that is stated on the topic. Below are some related scriptures and comments to help the readers see where we are coming from:

(From a discussion with IvanMonroy)
viewtopic.php?f=36&t=621#p4962

Hebrews 13:17 told the first century Christians to be obedient and to SUBMIT (Greek-“surrender, yield”) to those who were taking the lead among them. Hebrews tells us that those ones 'will render an account for our souls'. Who would that have been in the 1st century? Would it not be those gifts in men, the Apostles, who were clearly acting as a governing element among the congregations of Christianity? Would it also not be true that these "gifts in men" would strive to be of the 'same mind and the same line of thought with no divisions’, according 1 Cor. 1:10 and context?

Paul said that there were those who gave ORDERS in connection with 'how to walk and be pleasing to God';

1 Thessalonians 4:1,2-

Finally, brothers, we request YOU and exhort YOU by the Lord Jesus, just as YOU received [the instruction] from us on how YOU ought to walk and please God, just as YOU are in fact walking, that YOU would keep on doing it more fully.2For YOU know the orders we gave YOU through the Lord Jesus.

The first century Christians were said to adhere to the 'teachings of the APOSTLES'. (Acts 2:42)

Acts 2:42

And they continued devoting themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to sharing [with one another], to taking of meals and to prayers.

Was this different then the teachings of the SCRIPTURES? No, because the Apostles adhered TO the scriptures. It is abundantly clear that the Apostles had a special authority in the 1st century congregation.

In reality, the idea of a governing element, made up of men, is everywhere apparent in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Consider the following points and questions:

Romans 16:17
17 Now I exhort YOU, brothers, to keep your eye on those who cause divisions and occasions for stumbling contrary to the teaching that YOU have learned, and avoid them.

Divisions in 'what?
What teachings are they in reference to? Would it not be the teachings of the Apostles? (Acts 2:42)

2 Thessalonians 3:6
6 Now we are giving YOU orders, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to withdraw from every brother walking disorderly and not according to the tradition YOU received from us.

Who is the WE giving the orders if there is no such thing as a Christian governing element?
What is it they received from the US that they needed to adhere to?

2 Thessalonians 3:13-15
13 For YOUR part, brothers, do not give up in doing right. 14 But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked, stop associating with him, that he may become ashamed. 15 And yet do not be considering him as an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother.

Where did this letter come from that they had to be obedient to?
Why was it spoken of as OUR WORD, and not God's word? Who was the OUR?
Where was this obvious authority coming from?

Titus 3:10-11
10 As for a man that promotes a sect, reject him after a first and a second admonition; 11 knowing that such a man has been turned out of the way and is sinning, he being self-condemned.

How would you know if someone was promoting a sect if there was no governing element in regard to doctrine?
Who determined what the 'promotion of a sect' entailed?

Titus 2:15
15 Keep on speaking these things and exhorting and reproving with full authority to command. Let no man ever despise you.

Who had “full authority to command” and what did that mean for those under their authority?


Notice 1 Thessalonians 4:1,2-

Finally, brothers, we request YOU and exhort YOU by the Lord Jesus, just as YOU received [the instruction] from us on how YOU ought to walk and please God, just as YOU are in fact walking, that YOU would keep on doing it more fully.2For YOU know the orders we gave YOU through the Lord Jesus.

Throughout his letters to the different congregations we here Paul speaking of the 'orders' or 'instructions' that the congregations had been given by the WE. Who was the WE?
Did you notice Paul didn't say to them "God instructed you", but he said "WE" instructed you? Why did he not say 'God instructed them'?
Why does it say that THEY INSTRUCTED them on HOW TO WALK AND BE PLEASING TO GOD?

It should be readily apparent that the Apostles were speaking with authority to the congregations scattered about.

Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were defective and might make appointments of older men in city after city, as I gave you orders.

Correction. Appointment. Again, clearly indicative of an element of authority.

And again, Hebrews 13:17 "Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you."

If there was no governing element within the 1st century congregation, who were the leaders that they were to submit to and obey?
How were these ones responsible for the souls of the congregation to the extent that they would have to make an accounting for them?

As well, Acts 16:4 tells us that Paul and others in a 'town to town' fashion, delivered the DECREES reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem for the people to OBEY."

Why were they called DECREES?

Why were the other congregations expected to OBEY those DECREES? Why did they have to obey the decisions reached by the Apostles and older men?

Is it not clear that the Apostles and older men in Jerusalem represented an authority in the 1st century church?

This idea of a governing element within Christianity is embedded within many passages of the Bible.

Consider:
Paul said at 1Cor. 13:11: "Finally, brothers, continue to rejoice, to be readjusted, to be comforted, to think in agreement, to live peaceably, and the God of love and of peace will be with you."

"The apostles and older men... to those brothers in Antioch... Since we have heard that some from among us have caused you trouble with speeches, trying to subvert your souls, although we did not give them ANY INSTRUCTIONS" - Acts 15:23-24

Titus 1:5 For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might correct the things that were defective and might make appointments of older men in city after city, as I GAVE YOU ORDERS.

2 Thes. 2:1,2 However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we request of YOU 2 not to be quickly shaken from YOUR reason nor to be excited either through an inspired expression or through a verbal message or through a letter as though from us, to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.

Regards,
Rotherham

[MikeFelker]

[Rotherham]

[Rotherham]

I'm not big on concluding remarks as they rarely do justice to the extent and detail of the overall discussion, but I'll give it a shot nonetheless.

My opponent set out to demonstrate the JW understanding of the parables about the "faithful and discreet slave", as found in Matthew 24:45-47 and the slaves mentioned in that context as well as in Luke 12, are inaccurate.

I believe from the outset that he made the mistake of claiming that these things have to be EXPLICIT or they are not accurate. He claimed that his own views about eschatology (end time matters) were EXPLICIT and, at times, used his preterist views to counter the arguments I would put forth.

This naturally led to me examining with scrutiny his eschatological views with the intent of showing him that they were not EXPLICIT by any means but often times, theologically driven. This was in hopes that he would see the wrongness of claiming something had to be explict or it was inaccurate. Just because something is not explicit does not mean that it is inaccurate. I also wanted to demonstrate that our eschatological views had the backing of Biblical precedent. I believe I demonstrated those two things beyond any reasonable doubt.

Much of this, for me, centered around the discussion of the parable of the wheat and the weeds, which I believe is a key factor in having a Biblically precedented eschatological view.

Via the questions that Mike asked about the identity of different slave classes and such, it came to be revealed that his understanding of what we teach was a bit inaccurate, from my take on what he said anyway. We do not believe that there is only ONE class of slaves to be dealt with. We believe, as explained, that ALL of the anointed brothers of Christ are a class, or lets say a SET of individuals, who depending upon their faithfulness, can individually remove themselves from that class if they do not remain faithful. The subset of the larger set, that being of the governing element, is what seems to cause some confusion.

Those which we think of in this "parousia" age as the "faithful and wise servant" are a subset of the larger set of all anointed ones, having a specific function in the last days during the presence of Christ. I hope, through all of the discussion and back and forth on that point, that my opponent and the readers can see what we are saying and what we are not saying.

As I mentioned in one of my responses to Mike, it is just as it was in the first century, where the Apostles were a subset of the larger group of "holy ones" or anointed" ones, and the disciples ADHERED to the teaching of the Apostles. The Apostles had a worldwide influence(Acts 2:42)

As I have mentioned, this is a clear case where the few were feeding the many, a pattern seen throughout the entire history of God’s people in the Bible, expect during the growing season of the wheat and the weeds, where confusion would reign.

Naturally though, again as I mentioned, once the wheat would be separated from the weeds and the sons of God would be clearly defined, the same type of structure for maintaining the unity of the Christain church worldwide would be reinstalled, which we see as the appointment of that "faithful and discreet slave" during the parousia of Christ. Reestablishing a governing body or element within Christianity would be in complete harmony with Eph 4:11-17. This was all brought out in detail within the debate and I saw nothing that came close to overturning that view.

To make a long story short (and it was indeed long), I did not see where my opponent in anyway made any serious inroads into our understanding of those parables and I believe that the Biblically precedented language of the wheat and weeds parable and elsewhere, notwithstanding Eph. 4:11-17, was shown to be a strong support for our view of it.

MY opponent then, in his last question, attempted a new approach, which was to undermine the idea that Christians would be under a worldwide governing body. I am not sure what the angle was but, evidently he felt that if he could destroy that view then our entire eschatology would crumble with it. As it was, all it boils down to, that I can see, is that Mike actually does believe in a LOCAL congregational governing body or element, but does not believe that there is any longer a WORLDWIDE governing body or element for Christians today.

I believe I demonstrated in my answers that the Apostles did indeed have worldwide influence in the church when it came to teachings and such. This is something that Mike would seem to acknowledge in one breath and then seem to deny in the other. I am still, at the moment, confused as to how he can admit that in the first century there was indeed a wordlwide governing element via the Apostles but yet today, such an arrangement is somehow inappropriate. I've never really received a clear answer to that.

I could go on to break down the debate in a blow-by -blow description but I really don't see the need. The debate is formatted fairly well both here at Truetheology and on Mike's blog found at apologeticfront.com

I do not believe that my opponent was successful in any way in his goal to show inaccuracy with our views expressed within the WT article under examination. In fact, after the debate, I feel even more convinced of the appropriateness of our views. I wont claim anything being EXPLICITLY proven from my side, but I will say that I believe I demonstrated that Biblical precedent surely supports our view. If my opponent actually feels that he was successful in showing our views are inaccurate, I would be shocked, and if any reader would be inclined to think him correct in that assessment, I would suggest taking another look at what was actually said in the course of the discussion.

As I have mentioned numerous times in the debate, I believe this was the wrong place to start and that for this debate to have any lasting value, we should continue the pursuit of truth in this area in the near future. I hope that my opponent will be able to concur with that and find the time to do so.

Regards,
Rotherham

Link to Mike Felker's Concluding statement: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=678&p=5653#p5653

[MikeFelker]