Did Christ teach that we should watch for the end times?

[dwilkins]

Do you know of it in the early church? I know the Didache, Clement, Justin, and Irenaeus all clearly spoke of Jesus' future second coming in their day. Surely they would not have missed the idea that He already came. After all, the Apostle John lived well past 70AD and would have corrected a mistake about this.

In my response I don't seem to have made it much past the first sentence to answer your question. Quickly, I think that the Didache and Epistle of Barnabas were likely written before the fall of Jerusalem. I mentioned Justin for a moment, but I encourage you to read "Dialog with Trypho" as he says some pretty unexpected things about eschatology. Irenaeus has become less and less impressive to me as I study him. I think he probably had a good understanding of the mythology of the Valentinians, but he also had all sorts of odd ideas such as that Christ died in his 50's. I doubt that any of the Apostles lived significantly past the Roman war. John, specifically likely died about then in my opinion. I think it's most likely that all of scripture was written and compiled just as the Roman armies were invading Judah, so I don't see any of it written after that.

Doug

[Homer]

Doug wrote:

I doubt that any of the Apostles lived significantly past the Roman war. John, specifically likely died about then in my opinion. I think it's most likely that all of scripture was written and compiled just as the Roman armies were invading Judah, so I don't see any of it written after that.

Interesting, but goes far beyond the prevalent ideas about John. But then the preterist must believe certain things, such as the pre-70Ad writing of Revelations, otherwise their system completely falls apart, whereas advocates of other systems don't much care so you would think they are unbiased.

What I do not understand is the idea that 70AD was the "2nd coming". Certainly we could agree that in a sense Jesus "came" in judgment in the form of the Roman army, just as God took credit for what the Babylonians did to Israel. But the preterist is choosy about what he takes literally, as we all are.

Acts 1:9-11 (NASB)

9. And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

How does this possibly fit the AD70 scenario? Jesus had a physical body after his resurrection that could be touched and felt, that consumed food, and was seen ascending?

[robbyyoung]

Doug wrote:

I doubt that any of the Apostles lived significantly past the Roman war. John, specifically likely died about then in my opinion. I think it's most likely that all of scripture was written and compiled just as the Roman armies were invading Judah, so I don't see any of it written after that.

Interesting, but goes far beyond the prevalent ideas about John. But then the preterist must believe certain things, such as the pre-70Ad writing of Revelations, otherwise their system completely falls apart, whereas advocates of other systems don't much care so you would think they are unbiased.

What I do not understand is the idea that 70AD was the "2nd coming". Certainly we could agree that in a sense Jesus "came" in judgment in the form of the Roman army, just as God took credit for what the Babylonians did to Israel. But the preterist is choosy about what he takes literally, as we all are.

Acts 1:9-11 (NASB)

9. And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

How does this possibly fit the AD70 scenario? Jesus had a physical body after his resurrection that could be touched and felt, that consumed food, and was seen ascending?

Sorry Doug, but I'm going to jump in to add my two cents - Homer, The Apostle John post 70 A.D. debate takes a whole lot more reading and critical analysis. I suggest you start here: http://www.middleism.org/ed%20%20didjoh ... yond70.pdf - if you don't believe the references then look it up yourself. John DID NOT live past 70 A.D. in my opinion.

Acts 1:9-11 doesn't pose a problem either. I believe "This Coming" is the same discussed in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17, which took place just as Paul said during his generation, probably around 66-68 A.D.

Did you ever once consider why there was a "silent era" of the church, 70-150 A.D.? As a Preterist, I know why. The Believers were either killed, fled to Pella then all remaining survivors were raptured before judgement fell on Israel. The Nature of this event was only seen in the spiritual realm, just as it was seen in the spiritual realm in Act 1:9-11 (from the Mt. of Olives clearly visible to the surrounding area for all to see, but everyone didn't see it, did they?).

I'm sure you'll enjoy the article. God Bless!

[dwilkins]

Doug wrote:


Interesting, but goes far beyond the prevalent ideas about John. But then the preterist must believe certain things, such as the pre-70Ad writing of Revelations, otherwise their system completely falls apart, whereas advocates of other systems don't much care so you would think they are unbiased.

What I do not understand is the idea that 70AD was the "2nd coming". Certainly we could agree that in a sense Jesus "came" in judgment in the form of the Roman army, just as God took credit for what the Babylonians did to Israel. But the preterist is choosy about what he takes literally, as we all are.

Acts 1:9-11 (NASB)

9. And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10. And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11. They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

How does this possibly fit the AD70 scenario? Jesus had a physical body after his resurrection that could be touched and felt, that consumed food, and was seen ascending?

It seems to me that you have two questions in particular in this post. The first one is how the Second Coming can be exhausted by the events of the Roman war, and the second one is about Acts 1:11

To answer the first question, I think it's instructive to look at the terms actually used to describe what is impending. The phrase "Second Coming" is, like I said, made up generations later. But the phrase "Day of the Lord" (I'm assuming this is parallel to the concept of "the Day of Christ", etc.) is actually used in scripture, and as far as I know everyone agrees that it is parallel to the concept of the Second Coming. So, we'll start there. The first step is to find out what that phrase meant to the Apostles. We do this by looking at all of the uses in the Old Testament. I won't list them all here, but if you use eSword or something similar you can search on them quite easily. I suggest including a chapter before and after each reference in order to get the context. You'll find that every use of that phrase in the Old Testament, so the unambiguous precedent set for the Apostles, was that the Day of the Lord is a military invasion to punish a nation. That military is used as a tool of God to do his bidding. There are no scriptural grounds to take that term any other way. There is no reason to think that the Apostles did so. The fact that the Romans served an identical type of function to the exact audience that Christ was threatening is very powerful in my opinion. It's also important to realize that the concept of "coming in clouds" is directly associated with a Day of the Lord invasion of a military meant to be used as a tool of God in punishment. Jeremiah serves as the Old Testament precedent for this phrase,

Jeremiah 4:11-14 (NKJV)
11 At that time it will be said To this people and to Jerusalem, "A dry wind of the desolate heights blows in the wilderness Toward the daughter of My people-- Not to fan or to cleanse--
12 A wind too strong for these will come for Me; Now I will also speak judgment against them."
13 "Behold, he shall come up like clouds, And his chariots like a whirlwind. His horses are swifter than eagles. Woe to us, for we are plundered!"
14 O Jerusalem, wash your heart from wickedness, That you may be saved. How long shall your evil thoughts lodge within you?

This can be seen as the military itself being the clouds, or that there is a cloud of dust raised by the chariots. Either way, coming and clouds is associated with a military onslaught, regardless of what our fantasy definitions has set as a baseline. So, my question back is what portion of Second Coming predictions, exactly, wasn't fulfilled by the Roman invasion?

A connected topic is your second question about Acts 1:11. To start with, I'll try to break down for you how I see the elements of the verse,

Acts 1:11 (NKJV)
11 who also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as you saw Him go into heaven."

"He will come in like manner"

What does that mean? The short answer is I'm not sure. The position you are taking (and many others such as John MacArthur do as well) is that it's an obvious reference to the ontology of Christ's individuality. In other words, like manner is in a like body. But, the verse doesn't actually say that. The manner he left in wasn't his body, it was going up in a cloud. If he returned in a cloud then we'd be right back to Jeremiah as a precedent from the point of view of the Apostles. But, maybe we are talking more about the situation. Does that mean that he'll come back to a crowd that is waiting for him? Or that he'll come back to that mountain, specifically? Or does he walk in from some other location?

Isaiah 63:1-3 (NKJV)
1 Who is this who comes from Edom, With dyed garments from Bozrah, This One who is glorious in His apparel, Traveling in the greatness of His strength?-- "I who speak in righteousness, mighty to save."
2 Why is Your apparel red, And Your garments like one who treads in the winepress?
3 "I have trodden the winepress alone, And from the peoples no one was with Me. For I have trodden them in My anger, And trampled them in My fury; Their blood is sprinkled upon My garments, And I have stained all My robes.

Why is Acts 1:11 more authoritative than Isaiah 63:1?

My first conclusion about Acts 1:11 is that it's a somewhat mysterious passage, as are all of the passages that talk about the imagery of the Second Coming (almost all of which are told from the context of a dream or a vision, which should make everyone pause about their assumptions of the meaning of the imagery). I would therefore subordinate them to the clearer passages where Christ and the Apostles make concrete time predictions.

But, there is one other factor to consider about Acts 1:11. "Come" in that passage is simply erchomai, which can be mean either "come" or "arrive". There is no linguistic hint in Acts 1:11 as to the destination, however. All it has to say is that he will arrive the same way he left. Where do we think Christ went when he ascended? I think we'll all say heaven. What did he do when he got there? I think we'd all say that he sat down at the right hand of the father to reign until his enemies are made his footstool. Is that event described anywhere in scripture? I'd argue yes,

Daniel 7:13-14 (NKJV)
13 "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him.
14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed.

How did Christ arrive in heaven? On a cloud. Does Acts 1:11 have to claim anything more that this? No. If the angels had been more verbose and said, "I don't know what you're looking at, he's going to arrive on the same cloud he left on", that would not only be within the bounds of the verse itself, but would fit tightly with what the Apostles knew was a promised destiny for the Messiah. I think it's important evidence of this understanding on their part that Peter, immediately after this event, emphasizes that Christ did in fact arrive in heaven and was in fact seated at the right hand of the Father.

You may not accept that interpretation of Acts 1:11. Maybe I'm wrong and it is talking about coming in the clouds (then defined by Jeremiah) or some other element of verse 11 that we're not considering. There is nothing in the text to indicate that the angels are talking about his body. They are talking specifically about the mechanism of his moving around. So, maybe we should leave the answer of Acts 1:11 as a bit of mystery and focus on the unambiguous passages instead.

Doug

[Homer]

Doug and Robby,

So you folks believe Jesus is not coming again, that we will be resurrected but with no physicality, that all Christians either died or were raptured before 70AD? At this point I'm wondering how Christianity got started up again? As Paul said..."how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" How were the Christian scriptures preserved and who would have kept them?

You guys believe some strange stuff, and you are trying really hard to make it fit. Really, really hard.

[dwilkins]

Homer,

I'll try to answer each of your points in order. But, keep in mind that there are several camps of preterists that don't always agree with each other in some of the fine points. This might come as a bit of a plot twist, but I've tried to allude to them as we've been going along so it shouldn't be too shocking. To answer each of your points in order:

So you folks believe Jesus is not coming again,

Standard Full Preterist theory (Robby's position) would unambiguously say no. Though Robby is, I'm not a Full Preterist according to their definition (though from the point of view of the destractors of Full Preterism I might be considered one since they tend to be sort of sloppy in their thinking about how such things are categorized). The somewhat subtle difference between us is that, though I agree with them that the Day of the Lord happened in 70AD, I think it started the millennium while Robby would say that it ended it. There are at least three sub-camps in my position. The first one is what I would propose, which is that the millennium is ongoing identically to the paradigm of Amillennialists, but I don't believe the Bible describes and end to this era. That doesn't mean that there isn't an end, but just that it's not part of Biblical revelation. Duncan would say that the millennium is ongoing, but that it ends just the way the traditional premillennial system describes with the Gog and Magog war and then Great White Thone Judgement. Duncan and I propose that there was one resurrection that started at the beginning of this era and is ongoing. Gerald Haug would follow Duncan's basic approach in the beginning, but at add there is an additional resurrection at the end of that period. I have found that people who need the resurrection to be closer to their traditional understanding find Haug's approach the most comfortable. When you asked about how many times Jesus can come, you hinted at some of the disagreements that exist between these systems. Would his coming in judgment at the end of the millennium be a third coming? Well, if the term Second Coming is theologically invented and not found in scripture, then I suppose so. On the other hand (yet one more plot twist), if by coming you mean parousia, and by parousia you mean presence (the actual definition if you differentiate between that term and erchomai which means arrive), then Jesus' presence in his kingdom expressed through his management of the millennium from heaven would be his ongoing parousia seen in every day life. If you were to stick with pure Full Preterism, however, the answer would be no.

that we will be resurrected but with no physicality,

The whole topic of physicality is a very difficult one that we're almost certainly going to have to chalk up to mystery, at least for a few generations. From the point of view of physics, the physicality of something turns out to be much more difficult to define than we have been used to. Almost all of the dimensional space in the universe is empty, with only a tiny fraction of 1% of it containing "stuff" (strings, etc.). So, all "physical" things are almost completely empty and only show themselves as "physical" because the sub-1% of stuff electrically repels the other "physical" stuff (I know that's not the most precise answer, but it'll do for our purposes). But then theologically this can be difficult too. By a physical resurrection do you mean a body that can manifest itself physically if God were to will it, or do you mean an inherently fleshly body? I don't know anyone, if pressed hard enough, who thinks that resurrection bodies will be inherently fleshly according to our current definition of it. So, theologically, I'm really not sure what you mean by that. On the other hand, if you approach it from the point of view of philosophy (which is really just ancient physics), you need to remember that the philosophical school Paul was using as a lens to view the world saw everything, including spirit, as a physical thing. From Paul's point of view of science, if you were purely spiritual and invisible you'd still be perfectly physical. Since we have a completely different cosmology (Paul's was based on Stocism, western theology and science's is based on Platonism) we have a hard time making sense of the New Testament. But, then the question becomes whether or not these systems of cosmology are anthropic to begin with, so that we're simply groping for an underlying truth that we might never dogmatically discover. At this point, I'd tell you that I'm perfectly comfortable using Paul's terminology that flesh and blood cannot inheret the kingdom of God (and aren't suitable for heaven), so that you will be raised with a body composed of pneumas (which for him was invisible, but certainly physical, and so your personal physical body was simply made of pneumas).

that all Christians either died or were raptured before 70AD?

I like a great deal of the historical work that Ed Stevens has done. But keep in mind that he presents only one of three or so options on the topic of the rapture. I still actively consider his position, but I'm not completely persuaded at this point. If I were to adopt it, I'd probably be more persuaded of a 70AD rapture. But, there is also a version of resurrection that is based completely on a corporate body definition (a surprisingly old concept in theology), where the body that is raised is actually a covenantal category as opposed to a personal physical entity. In other words, the corporate body view (or CBV) says that the body of Christ as a group was nationally raised to become the new covenantally operational, or national body of believers on earth, and that all of the language associated with resurrection has to do with this. This is a long topic, and I think there is something to it when we are talking about resurrection passages such as the valley of dry bones from Ezekiel, but I'm not satisfied that it exhausts the meaning of resurrection. My position at this point is closer to Ed's, though I don't propose all of the believers on earth were snatched away. If you want more detail on it, it's kind of a long story so I'll do that later.

At this point I'm wondering how Christianity got started up again?

This is probably my biggest problem with Ed's approach. I see the break of presence of believers on earth as a significant ecclesiological crisis. Ed would answer this by saying that the first real believer might have shown up five seconds later, so there isn't necessarily the radical gap of a lack of believers that his position would imply to most people. In addition, those next believers would probably have been on the fence, but not persuaded to believe until their decision, having been evangelized by those who were taken away. In other words, they were evangelized by the believers who were raptured but just hadn't made the decision yet. But, no matter how long the gap is, since he's a Calvinist, it really presents no crisis for him at all. I think he has an interesting proposition here, but I'm not completely persuaded of it yet. However, keep in mind that what we're talking about here from my paradigm's point of view would be the difference between those who were part of the church and went through the Tribulation for a post-trib rapture, and the millennial saints who came next. I'd argue chronologically that we are the millennial saints. This group is not too tightly defined in most premillennial theology, but it would seem that there had to be a break of some kind according to regular premillennial categories. Premillennialists are not usually comfortable thinking of themselves as millennial saints, so this is not very intuitive. But, if this is true, maybe I shouldn't have such a problem with it after all.


As Paul said..."how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?" How were the Christian scriptures preserved and who would have kept them?

As far as the preservation of the scriptures goes, Ed puts a lot of effort into a theory of the compilation and preservation of the scriptures. That's a long answer, but essentially before 66AD Peter, in his function in Jerusalem as a leader in the early church, was compiling a library of the gospels and letters, and made sure that this kernal of knowledge was preserved when the Romans attacked.

You guys believe some strange stuff, and you are trying really hard to make it fit. Really, really hard.

I agree that it's a lot to wrap your head around. And, it might feel weird having grown up with a completely different point of view. But, I can't see any other way to honor the detailed, tangible statements made in scripture about the timing of the Day of the Lord without going down the liberal route of taking a low view of scripture and the people recorded in it.

Doug

[Douglas]

Doug - How do you think your understanding of end times changes your everyday walk with God? I completely agree that we all should be looking and searching for truth, and praying that the Holy Spirit leads us down a path that will reveal the truth.

I read a book by Kim Riddlebarger some years back that really challenged my understanding of this topic. Then I read a couple books by Duncan Mckenzie as well. Again these also made me ponder this subject a bit. I just finished reading your book last week, and found it also very interesting. Again, something that makes me step back and try to read what the Bible says without my preconceived biases of what I think I understand a particular passages to be saying. I enjoy searching for truth and I feel my fellowship with God is strengthened when I am searching to understand, and humble myself to to allow Scripture and the Holy Spirit to lead me into truth, even if it is different from my current understanding.

- Douglas

[dwilkins]

Doug - How do you think your understanding of end times changes your everyday walk with God? I completely agree that we all should be looking and searching for truth, and praying that the Holy Spirit leads us down a path that will reveal the truth.

I read a book by Kim Riddlebarger some years back that really challenged my understanding of this topic. Then I read a couple books by Duncan Mckenzie as well. Again these also made me ponder this subject a bit. I just finished reading your book last week, and found it also very interesting. Again, something that makes me step back and try to read what the Bible says without my preconceived biases of what I think I understand a particular passages to be saying. I enjoy searching for truth and I feel my fellowship with God is strengthened when I am searching to understand, and humble myself to to allow Scripture and the Holy Spirit to lead me into truth, even if it is different from my current understanding.

- Douglas

Interesting question. First, having grown up as a prototypically freaked out dispensationalist zionist I think my current approach helps to eliminate irrational fears about how the world is going to end. I distinctly remember a conversation I had with an adult in my church while I was in high school in the 1980's in which I mentioned that I was absolutely convinced that the world was going to end within a decade or so. What struck me was his concerned look as he said, "What give you that idea?" Of course, I had no coherent answer. But as I look back on my life I realize that my deeply ingrained mindset affected everything about how I made decisions in the first 1/2 of my life. Nothing I was did was based on anything resembling hope or ambition of any kind (selfish or otherwise). On a bigger level, this is one of the primary criticisms of that kind of thinking that Postmillennialists make on a regular basis. In the end I think that their formulation is a bit off, but their criticism turns out to be true. Dispensationalists are defeatists, and their rise coincides almost perfectly with the collapse of the church in the west. Back when the church's role was to expand the kingdom of God the influence of the church in the moral culture of the nations was intense. Once the kingdom was declared to be indefinitely delayed the moral influence of the church began to die. Now, I used to get offended enough by their allegation that dispensationalism caused complacency and hopelessness. One day I woke up and realized they are right. And, everyone I knew who was thinking the way I was had exactly the same attitude, though they would have been in angry denial if you'd accused them of it. So, on a personal level it has helped me not to be so predisposed to an outlook of doom in the destiny of the church. On the next personal level I hope to avoid this whole syndrome for my kids.

Connected tightly with this is the issue of national and international politics. Right now, our politics in the middle east is predominantly driven by Evangelicals who are persuaded that Aramageddon is right around the corner (and a good number of them are trying to help it along). There is some shrewd dealing behind the scenes that has used this mentality to make a ton of money and wield power, but the political energy comes from an attempt to help God along with Armageddon. If one were to assume that the world would still be here 100 or 500 years from now I think it would drive one to change his view on how to best handle conflict in that area.

Another element would be enrivonmentalism, something that we conservatives don't really take seriously. It may be subconscious, but I'd bet it's for all of the same reasons. If you really thought your grand kids were going to have raise their kids on this planet as it is, I'd bet you'd be interested in changing how we do things. That doesn't mean that you'd back Al Gore's carbon cartel (a simple racket on his part), but it would probably make you interested in things like Solar Freakin Roadways (or something along those lines).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlTA3rnpgzU (possibly just a pipe dream, but maybe not in 50 years).

Also,if I'm right that we are essentially the millennial saints, with the only real difference from premillennial concepts being that the kingdom is ruled invisibly from heaven as opposed to a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and a giant gold cube hovering overhead, then maybe some of the structure they propose will help us understand things like cessasionism. I lean towards a modified approach to cessasionism where God can do miraculous stuff through people at his discretion, but the universal issuance of miraculous gifts as seen in the first century has ceased. This is theologically quite hard to explain unless there is literally a different dispensation playing out now than that of the first generation seen in scripture. The end of the role of the spirit in the believers as seen in scripture is best seen, in my opinion, by sort of dramatic break or historical shift (as opposed to them just sort of winding down and disappearing). I think that my approach helps explain the mechanics behind modified cessationaism.

Most important, and finally, my approach helps me dissolve the seeming contradictions in scripture where more than 180 times God (sometimes through the Apostles) either directly or indirectly promises to fulfill prophecy in the lifetime of his Apostles. Once I became aware of, or rather, admitted to myself, that these promises needed to be taken seriously it helped me take God more at his word. Once you wake up to the tangible nature of these promises you are forced to either believe the plain statements of God in scripture or not.

Doug

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

I am reminded of the old saying about politics being like a circle; two polar opposite views somehow meet in one way or another. Seems to me that Hyperpreterism meets in some sense with Hyperdispensationalism. Both essentially see cessations of Scripture (that have been historically looked at as having some meaning or application to the entire church at all times), as being more historical in nature at best, to mere museum pieces at worst. There also seems to be a tendency to run down a mental rabbit hole of sorts, as, given a few seemingly plausible ways of interpreting the Scriptures, more and more verses are pushed into the same camp, so that those given to desire "consistency" in their thinking, will gravitate towards increasingly implausible explanations to support their need for consistency.

I have a hard time believing an historical event like this went unnoticed and that somehow all early church fathers missed it. I also have a hard time believing that the controlling ecclesiastical system that developed did so with almost a snap of the fingers, as it appears fairly well developed by the beginning of the 2nd century. Human sociological dynamics usually require some time to develop hierarchy and control. If the church was "poof" gone in 70, then we are left with a mere 40 years for the Gospel to spread to enough believers and those believers organizing churches, gradually ceding responsibility to others, appointing titled officers, etc. etc. Seems like a pretty tall order to me.

Perhaps Papias and Polycarp missed the train? Or would they have been too young? Not too young to remember the train leaving I suppose.

I also still have a difficult time with the preterist interpretation of Paul's citation of a day of judgment. What difference to the navel-considering Athenians would the judgment on Jerusalem make?

Regards, Brenden.

[dwilkins]

There's a grain of truth to what you're saying about Acts 28 Dispensationalism. Dispensationalism was driven in large part by the observations of the 19th Century theologians who realized that the time statements had to be taken seriously. Initially, it was enough to say that everything that Jesus taught about the kingdom was postponed when the Jews rejected the kingdom (somewhere around the end of his personal ministry on earth). As time went on, and generations of analysis pressed dispensationalists on why there were still time statements, and references to the Old Testament promises, showing up in Peter and Paul's writings, more and more of those writings started to be pared away (thus Acts 9, Acts 15, and eventually Acts 28 Dispensationalists). But, eventually, they ran out of room. There was no NT left. So, Progressive Dispensationalists decided that the promises were in fact applied, though only spiritually. It would only be in a later generation that they'd be applied materialistically.

All of this would have been skipped if we'd just taken the time statements literally (ironically, as their hermeneutic demands that they do with every other part of scripture).

I'm out of time before work to address the rest of your post, but I'll try to get to it tonight.

Doug