Seven Steps Skipped to Achieve a Futuristic Interpretation of
Prophecy and Cancel Out the Earliest Christians' Genuine Expectations
Eisegeses is a technical word that means the very opposite of exegesis (a proper explanation of the Word of God). Instead of arriving at a proper conclusion, in eisegesis the interpreter gets out of the Scriptures (not what it intends) but what he or she wants it to say. This word eisegesis is a noun; its plural is eis·e·ge·ses [ahy-si- jee -seez] /ˌaɪ sɪˈdʒi siz/. an interpretation, especially of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter's own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.1
In the matter which is before us today, we would like to examine seven steps which have to be skipped in order to achieve an interpretation of the New Testament that literally overshoots, detours or bypasses nearly every genuine and true expectation that was taught by Jesus and the Apostles and believed and eagerly hoped for by all the earliest Christians in Judæa, the Diaspora and the Roman Empire, all the way up to the third decade of the second century.
Confronting a Prejudicial Aversion to the Historic Extent of the Ancient Jewish State
by Mark Mountjoy
New Prologue and My Sincere Apology to Max R. King (Dated June 7, 2020)
After publishing this piece several weeks ago it came to my attention, through a review of The Nichols-King Debate, that I had unintentionally misrepresented Max R. King's actual beliefs and position on the meaning of the millennium. What you see below is the conventional view that the millennium of Revelation 20 fits into the A.D.30 to A.D.70 period, but that is not Max King's position, if I now rightly understand what he was saying at his 1973 debate with Gus Nichols, he believes something slightly different.1
I want to say I am sorry for ascribing to this brother something he apparently does not believe. I also want to point out that the very fact that he does not hold to the view that the Revelation 20 millennium began on the Day of Pentecost, releases him from a lot of the problems embracing that stance entails. It lets me and everyone else see that he actually perceives going that far back does not solve the problems Revelation 20 makes us have to face.
Reading Gus Nichols' comments and objections to Max King's explanation of the millennium seems to indicate that King really believes the millennium of Revelation 20 began sometime around A.D.66, or at any rate, before A.D.70. Now, this, too, makes no sense, but it is (in its own odd way) an improvement from going all the way back to Pentecost and then standing there as if that makes sense. Having Satan bound in A.D.66 might be explained by pointing out his apparent fall from heaven during the Revolt (as pictured for us in Revelation 12:9-15).
But it still fails to account for a time during the civil war when Satan could legitimately be "absent." There is no absence in the texts of Revelation 12 or 13 or any other chapter before 20 where we can, with any authority say, Satan was in the bottomless pit from this chapter to that chapter.
No such window of absence here exists!
So the upshot of this apparent King solution, though it relaxes the tension of claiming an entire inter-advent period stretching from Pentecost/ 6 Sivan, ca. A.D. 33 to the Destruction A.D.70, still comes off as unintelligible in light of anything said from Revelation 12:9 up to Revelation 20:5-6.
Finally, moving the beginning the millennium up to A.D.66 still can't explain to us why active, militant Jewish hopes for their Messianic future and their decisive militarism under Lucious Quietus and, finally, Emperor Hadrian, was so hardy and robust. And it still does not tackle, head-on, the phenomenon of Bar Kokhba. It also does not explain why there was a serious renewed Jewish persecution of the second-century Church.
Finally, it cannot tell us why the Jewish State vanished in the second century (not the first). Just as the Bible indicates, that momentous occasion happened in a "historically juxtapositional angle" from the A.D.70 catastrophe. So the standard explanation can only look on in silence and simply refuse to integrate these developments into the Revelation narrative, and that, to us, is silent complicity. To us, it is an unfortunate strategy that ends up denying closure and doctrinal legitimacy to a subject that, short of a complete exegesis to the very last verse, could prove troubling to Christian efforts to have these issues taken seriously.
In the final analysis, stopping short of the ultimate end, the subject is left hanging with open questions that invite speculations that can end up leading to tangents that go far and away from the complete founding of the great mountain that fills all the earth (Daniel 2:35).
The ability to stand back and look at our own assumptions objectively and with as little sympathy as possible is, in my opinion, a great asset in developing models that, when inspected by others, meet standards of logic, congruity, and predictive value. For without logic what we promote could actually, on the face of it, look and sound crazy, and under pressure from closer inspection, it could actually hold no water (and really be crazy!).
If the model lacks inner congruity, we can unintentionally end up denying what we definitely are saying, and affirming what we vehemently deny. In terms of predictive value, a theory cannot be true if, for example, it claims finality of Jewish ambitions within the framework of a first-century window (e.g., A.D.66-70), only to ignore, denigrate and bypass an almost complete, but a grander replay of those same dreams, hopes and ambitions a mere seven decades later (A.D.132-136). The troubling issue we are going to address in this talk is the prejudicial aversion to the historic extent of the ancient Jewish State, found mainly in Full and Partial Preterist circles.
Our need to address this important problem arises because the Bible actually indicates the necessity of what ended up happening to Judæa in at least twelve places: Daniel 2:35 cf. Revelation 20:11; Daniel 7:12; Daniel 12:6-7; Micah 3:12; Matthew 12:43-45; Matthew 22:1-14; 24:22 and Mark 13:20; Luke 2:34 and John 5:43 and Revelation 10:1-4. In the context of Revelation 20 itself, the order of Satan's binding and releasing completely discredits Brother King's claim that the timeline of the devil's incarceration stretched from some unknown starting point in A.D.66 and ended in A.D.70; the suggestion is not even there!
Abiding by King's schedule, therefore, will effectively mitigate and stunt the full scope and grandeur of the Revelation of Jesus Christ and make it appear as if contradictory and nonsensical events and conclusions pile up and ricochet, backward and forwards, up and down and around between A.D.33 and A.D.70. We want Christians, all over the world, to understand that nothing could be further from the truth!
by Mark Mountjoy
The Bible, God's Word, has a lot to say about work, its meaning for man and its importance to God himself. Very often we are tempted to think of work as an endeavor to earn and accrue money and to have the resources to support our necessities, and responsibilities, entertainment and recreation, but in the eyes of God work is much more than that. In this short essay we want to examine eight aspects to discover what work ethics are according to the Bible.
According to the BIble, when we work, we work for God, not man.
"Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye
service, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God;
And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.
But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons" (Colossians 3:22-25)
God's Word also says,
"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh,
with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
Not with eye service, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him" (Ephesians 6:5-9).
God's will is not only for the good conduct of employees, but also for bosses and employers.
Page 12 of 32