27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. 28 Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. - Matthew 16:27-28
Note: Don Preston is a full preterist and therefore his teaching cannot receive full or blind acceptance. His many videos on YouTube are worthy of listening and interacting with in a timeline manner.
This is an interesting video for me. I think Mr Preston does a great job of emphasizing the vindication of the saints. But he does it to the extent that he utterly rejects the final vindication of the saints. Interesting lack of follow through in my opinion.
@3:10: This video is going back to cover the context that I spoke about in the last blog. The emphasis on suffering is incredibly important. I'm not going to stand against N.T. Wright or R.T. France but there surely are arguments against this. I don't accept those arguments but they are certainly valid.
@4:12: This parable is one of the prophetic indicators that leads me to see Christ as first a prophet to the people of His day. And only in a distant second is He the messenger to the church. I did not develop this perspective from reading the NT but actually from reading the prophets. Jesus speaks as a prophets, acts as a prophet and blends present and future condemnation like a prophet.
The church is certainly spoken to by the words of Christ. But very rarely is it being spoken to directly. As can be seen in the context of this parable the obvious recipients were the people Jesus was currently speaking to. But how does this parable differ from some of the parables in Matthew 25? I would argue that only a clear time text should mark the distinction.
@7:00: This is the plain teaching that follows up on the parable and acts as the context of the Olivet Discourse. I think we've discussed this enough in other posts.
@7:55: This is where, even though I agree with My Preston, I get scared. He simply lumps things together too easily and with little or no respect for other possible interpretations. The truth is that the context of the Olivet Discourse stands on its own. Mr Preston is really defending the context of Matthew 16 but more importantly his desire to focus all NT prophecy on A.D. 70. This of course is the false conclusion that Mr Preston comes to and it is because of small groupings like this that don't always hold water.
Yes, I agree with Mr Preston here. But we've seen him incorrectly link passages in Daniel and Revelation. Even thought I think here is correct here, I am willing to acknowledge that it is not a sure founded irrefutable link. It is simply a link that makes the most sense.
