The Narrow Path Ministries

If Rom 7 speaks of a death to release one from a covenant related to an "old" marriage. Wouldn't the idea of a new covenant carry forward with the analogy to mean the new marriage (between Christ and the church) has already taken place?

Or did Paul not intend for the analogy to be taken that far?

Obviously, from my recent posts, you can probably tell I am working through where I will land on the preterist scale.

[user account removed]

dizerner wrote:Well, the way I see it is, this earthly life is compared to the 10 virgins who are waiting for the bride groom. I posted a thread asking if Preterists found that still applicable today and got no response.

Clearly there is no complete consummation while still on earth. It is after the removal of all created things that the New Jerusalem is completely established.

However, I think "he who is joined the Lord is one spirit with him." The church on earth is clearly called the bride, but has the bride completed the marriage ceremonies yet or is she just engaged, so to speak. As long as we are working to purify ourselves and fight the good fight, I would say we are still in the virgins waiting for the groom stage, but we are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, the promise that we will one day know him as we are fully known, and that he will appear to all those who are earnestly longing for him and all who have that hope are purifying themselves just as he is pure, that we may one day be "presented" as a bride, without spot or blemish.

As I see the entirety of Mt 24 to be complete, I believe the parable of the 10 virgins is also an example that has seen fulfillment. It does not have to refer to the marriage of Christ and the church, but rather can be seen simply as another example of people who were ill-equipped for the time. However, I do believe it can been seen as deeper than that.

Anyway, back to the marriage idea:

While people may come to and go out of the church in the present, cannot the church as an entity be already married to Christ. Look at a corporation in partnership with another corporation. They are legally bound to each other. As employees are hired and fired on the small scale they get to enter the partnership between the two entities, they get to benefit from the partnership, etc.

According to the NT I benefit from essentially everything related to the marriage now - eternal life, love, community, etc. - and I should already act as if I'm wed when I join the capitol C Church, but the one thing I cannot reconcile with this idea is how to address being stuck in a broken world still, with a broken body.

In so many ways, it seems as if the marriage has happened on a corporate level, and the church has been wed to Christ...

But on an individual level, I know there is more waiting for me, so it seems as if the marriage has not happened yet. Perhaps my western individualism is preventing me from appreciating the bigger picture...

[user account removed]

Romans 7 is clearly an attempt to show those who knew the Law what it meant to be free from that Old Covenant. They (the Jews who were members of the nation under the Mosaic Covenant) could now join a different covenant. It was easier for Gentiles in many ways because they didn't necessarily have as much to leave behind. But, the Jews under the Old Covenant had to find a way to escape to the New Covenant in order to escape the covenant of death. If they remained in that Old Covenant the only thing that remained for them was death via the Romans, which was typological of eternal death for men who reject God.

Membership in the New Covenant meant the chance for life. The modern church is built on the foundation of those who chose life.

dizerner wrote:Well, the way I see it is, this earthly life is compared to the 10 virgins who are waiting for the bride groom. I posted a thread asking if Preterists found that still applicable today and got no response.

Hello Dear Believer, let me humbly point out your error in dismissing prophetic time statements - over - presuppositional understanding concerning "The Nature" of event(s). Proper exegetical principals tells us to denote the historical context and audience, therefore, the entire Olivet Discourse has this lens: EMPHASIS ARE CAPITALIZED

(And as he sat upon the mount of Olives over against the temple, PETER and JAMES and JOHN and ANDREW asked him privately, Tell US, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled? And Jesus ANSWERING THEM began to say, Take heed lest any man deceive YOU...)

Over, and over again Yeshua's pronoun usage in the discourse reiterates WHEN and to WHOM these prophecies will consummate. The definitive error in discerning the truth of the matter is disregarding the emphatic audience and timing in order to appreciate "The Nature". Whether or not we come to fully understand 'The How" is irrelevant. But what we mustn't do is DENY emphatic time statements and audience relevance to which fulfillment was promised - because of our inability to know "The How" of the matter.

This line of thinking undermines inspiration and destroys the validity of the Christian faith altogether.

So with that said, let's apply this to the 10 virgins. Whatever "The Nature" of fulfillment was, the prophetic timing is crystal clear. We read in vs.13, "Be on the alert then, FOR YOU do not know the day nor the hour."

In other words, after Yeshua ended the parable, He told Peter, James, John and Andrew THEY must be on alert because THEY do not know the day or hour of this. Yeshua is reiterating His warning to THEM previously stated in Matt 24:34 & 36!

Matt 25 and other parables are describing the likeness of "How" all these things will be fulfilled in THAT GENERATION. Preterism is consistent and faithful to the inspiration of The Holy Spirit through the NT Writers. We can have the freedom to discuss and even speculate on "The How" of the 10 Virgins without denying fulfillment, going against the timing of the event, leading us into a whole different line of thinking and trouble regarding hermeneutics, where we redefine time statements outside ANY biblical support and justification for doing so. But some say, they are justified because the NT writers got it wrong, to include Yeshua Himself!

Famous C.S. Lewis quote: “It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, 'this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.' And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else. It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible."

I say differently, and you?

God Bless!