Posted on 04/12/2007 8:31:50 AM PDT by xzins
WHY I AM NOT A PRETERIST The word "preterist" is taken from the Latin word meaning "past." This view denies any future fulfillment of the book of Revelation and sees the events it describes as already having been fulfilled within the first century after Christ. There are several different forms of Preterism. Full Preterism views all of the prophecies of the Bible as having already been fulfilled in their entirety since the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. Full Preterism is a very recent innovation that has no adherents in any of the writings of the early church. Partial Preterism maintains a future return of Christ, but views His "coming in the clouds" as described in Matthew 24:29-31 as having been fulfilled in A.D. 70 with the fall of Jerusalem. 1. Jesus and Preterism.
With regards to Preterism, I am reminded of the words of Jesus when He said to the disciples, "The days shall come when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see it. And they will say to you, 'Look there! Look here!' Do not go away, and do not run after them. For just as the lightning, when it flashes out of one part of the sky, shines to the other part of the sky, so will the Son of Man be in His day." (Luke 17:22-24). It seems to me that the Preterist is one who is pointing to the A.D. 70 event and saying, "Look there! Look here!" But there is going to be no mistaking the coming of the Son of Man when He finally returns. By contrast, none of the believers of the early church viewed the 70 A.D. fall of Jerusalem as fulfilling the promise of the return of Christ. This brings us to our next point.
2. The Church Fathers and Preterism.
It is clear from a reading of the apostolic and church fathers that ALL of them expected a future return of Jesus Christ. It would be strange indeed if the entire church failed to understand the fulfillment of so many of the New Testament prophecies on such a major point. This is especially striking when we remember the promise of Revelation 1:7 that tells us, He is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. A preterist interpretation calls for this to be a reference to the "tribes of the land" of Israel, even though Israel was never described in such a way elsewhere in the Bible. But such an interpretation would demand that the Jews who suffered through the A.D. 70 event would have recognized that their sufferings were a punishment for their treatment of Jesus since the prophecy is not merely that they would mourn, but that they would mourn "over Him." Just as there is no evidence that anyone in the church ever recognized the fall of Jerusalem as the return of Jesus, so also there is a complete absence of evidence that the Jews ever recognized the coming of Jesus in those events.
3. The Resurrection and Preterism.
Fundamental to full Preterism is the idea that there is no future physical resurrection of the dead. But the pattern for our resurrection is that of Jesus. The big idea presented in 1 Corinthians 15 is that Jesus arose from the dead. This was not merely some sort of spiritual resurrection. The point is made throughout this chapter that His resurrection was bodily and physical. Furthermore we are told that His resurrection serves as the paradigm for our own resurrection. But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep (1 Corinthians 15:20). He is the firstfruits and we are the "later fruits." When Paul came to Athens, he was mocked by the Greeks for believing in a physical resurrection. Such mockery would not have been forthcoming had he held that the resurrection was only going to be of a spiritual or mystical nature. But he went out of his way to side himself with the Pharisees who believed in a physical resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:6-8). In denying any future resurrection at the coming of Christ, the preterist also finds himself out of accord with the words of Paul when he says, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed" (1 Corinthians 15:51). The reference to sleep is used throughout this epistle as a euphemism for death (11:30; 15:6; 15:18; 15:20). While Paul says of the coming of the Lord that it will be a time when all do not die, the preterist is left with the rather obvious historic truth that everyone who lived in the first century did indeed die. When it comes to the resurrection, the Bible teaches that Jesus is our prototype. His resurrection is the forerunner and the pattern for our own resurrection. This point is made in 1 Corinthians 15 where Paul says that if there is no resurrection then even Jesus has not risen. The resurrection of Jesus was a physical resurrection. He was able to stand before His disciples in His resurrection body and say, "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." (Luke 24:39). 1 John 3:2 says that when He appears, we shall be like Him, because we shall see Him just as He is. Therefore we can conclude that our future resurrection will be of a physical AND spiritual nature.
4. Preterism and the Lord's Supper.
One wonders whether the Full Preterist is completely consistent in his views. After all, most Full Preterists continue to partake of the Lord's Supper in spite of the fact that Paul said that the eating and drinking serves to "proclaim the Lord's death UNTIL HE COMES" (1 Corinthians 11:26).
5. Preterism and the Promise of a Soon Coming.
Preterists like to point out that Jesus and the disciples stated that the kingdom was near and at hand. What they often ignore is that this same formula was used in the Old Testament in instances where the eventual fulfillment was a long way off. An example of this is seen in Isaiah 13:6 where, speaking of a coming judgment against the city of Babylon, the prophet says, "Wail, for the day of the LORD is near! It will come as destruction from the Almighty." Isaiah writes these words in the 8th century B.C. but it is not until 539 B.C. that Babylon fell to the Persians. The preterist attempts to make a similar case via the words of Jesus in Matthew 24:34 where Jesus says, "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place." What is conveniently ignored is the earlier context of Jesus' words in the previous chapter.
"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,
Notice that it was "this generation" that murdered Zechariah, the son of Berechiah." The problem is that this murder took place 400 years earlier as recorded in 2 Chronicles 24:20-21. This tells us that Matthew's use of the term "generation" means something different than a mere life span of the people who were living at that time.
6. Preterism and the Angels at the Ascension.
Another problem facing the preterist is seen in the promise that was given to the disciples at the ascension of Jesus. The event took place on the Mount of Olives.
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.
The promise that was given by the angels is that Jesus would come again in exactly the same way as they had watched Him go into heaven. This had not been a spiritual ascension, but a physical and visible one. It is for this reason that Christians throughout the ages fully expect a future physical and visible return of Christ.
7. Preterism and the Judgment of the World.
When Paul preaches to the Athenians on the Areopagus, he declares to them that God has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed (Acts 17:31). The Preterist interpretation of this verse is that it points to the A.D. 70 fall of Jerusalem, yet that fall would have absolutely no impact upon the Athenians who had gathered to listen to Paul. He says that they ought to repent because of this coming judgment and such a warning is nonsensical if it only refers to a local judgment in a far away land.
There are some eschatological differences that exist between Christians that I consider to be relatively benign and within the realm of Christian orthodoxy. This is not one of them. To the contrary, the teaching of Preterism comes uncomfortably close to the spiritual gangrene that is described by Paul in 2 Timothy 2:18 when he speaks of those who have gone astray from the truth saying that the resurrection has already taken place, and thus they upset the faith of some. I have yet to meet a Preterist whose focus is upon church ministry or the spreading of the gospel or the building up of the church. To the contrary, those with whom I have thus far come into contact seem to have as their primary focus the spread of this particular teaching. I cannot help but to be reminded of the litmus test suggested by Jesus: You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they?
What part of "BY NO MEANS do I belive He returned...in the consumation of His Kingdom" was unclear to you? (I'm guessing it's the bolded part)
same thing happens to me when I say eschatology - it sounds like an expensive word doesnt it?
So other than a (relatively minor) argument over whether the Millennium is yet future and a (major) argument over whether God is actually going to keep His promises to Israel, what exactly differentiates you from a futurist?
Thank you for proving my point that thusfar those arguing against partial preterism have no clue what partial preterists really believe.
As an amillennialist, I believe the "millennial kingdom" is a present reality. I understand the "thousand years" literally...which is to say in the literary form in which it was employed (as opposed to the contemporary misapplied "literal" means of interpreting something in the plain indicative sense regardless of which literary genre it is presented in). Christ is seated on the throne and is bringing all things into subjugation according to a timeline unknown to us. At a future time He will come in a visible and obvious manner to bring about the full consumation of His Kingdom and judge all men.
Please keep in mind that the millennial and preterist issues , while very closely related, are distinct issues. Both amillennialists and postmillennialists are typically partial preterists but clearly differ on the issue of the millennial kingdom.
See, I believe that the Lord "Came" in 70 AD too, in the same sense that He "Comes" any time He passes judgment. He "came" in the same sense to Ninevah, for example.
But if you agree that He did not come in such a fashion that the dead in Him were Resurrected, and if you believe that the Adversary will be released to deceive the whole world just before that, there's not much functionally separating you from a premillennialist. The only major matter that remains is whether God pulled a "bait-and-switch" in His promises to Israel.
Not as expensive as epicaricacy ;)
Haven't heard from you in awhile. How are ya?
William Gurnell wrote his massive book The Christian in his Complete Armor to assert the pointlessness of external hopes. While the Scottish covenanters were being martyred by the thousands, Gurnell deserted the field and cultivated his interior garden.
You're closer to being a partial preterist than you probably realize :)
The problem here seems to be that some here are looking at the Olivet Discourse and portions of Revelation and seeing their own Dispensational interpretation of those prophesies, then projecting them onto the preterist view that much of this has been fulfilled and asking how we can possibly believe they have been fulfilled when they clearly have not been as they understand them.
One of the fundamental hermeneutical differences here is whether one chooses to interpret the statements regarding timeframe as figurative or the statements describing the fulfillment as figurative. Dispensationalists take the former path and preterists take the latter.
As I stated earlier, I have yet to see anyone provide anything even approaching a reasonable argument as to why Matt 24:34 does not refer to the original audience of people who heard Jesus speak those words.
I believe that you can make the argument that what happened in 70AD was an allusional fulfillment inasmuch as it foreshadowed the events which will take place at the end of the age. It was not literally fulfilled since Jesus did not return. However what happened was a foreshadowing of the last days on a very very very small scale.
What Jesus is referring to in the Olivet Discourse is something that will occur on the grandest scale possible.
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened. (Matthew 24:21-22 KJV)
That has not happened yet. Not even on a minor scale. Remember we had a flood which killed off everyone except 7 people and Jesus is referencing something much worse than the flood!!!! WWII was nothing compared to what is coming.
We'll know it when we see it.
I assume the Apostles would have known it if they had seen it. If it happened, they didn't even notice.
It is important that they are Christians. As Christians, they would certainly write of anything so monumental as the return of Christ in 70AD. They would write of armies of heaven surrounding Jerusalem. They would write of unusual celestial events.
But, they didn't. Nor did they comment on it in their era.
And, apparently, they didn't comment on it to Josephus, either. And Josephus is not averse to commenting on Christians. He does so in a number of places in his writings.
And Josephus is not a Christian.
Let's suppose that Josephus, a non-Christian, were our ONLY source for strange events in life of a prophet of that time.
Would we attribute those to Jesus and found an entire Christian doctrine simply on Josephus comments about strange antics of a prophet that he once heard some things about?
Let's say that there were a number of followers of this Nazarene who were prolific writers, who were present, but who didn't write about even one of those things that were mentioned by Josephus.
Would we make them part and parcel of our own teachings?
I seriously doubt it.
The bottom line remains.
Not one writer of the time and NO CHRISTIAN writer of those early centuries of the church EVER mentioned the return of Christ in 70 AD.
It’s fair to point out that you as an amil and me as a postmil are much closer on the matter of the “thousand years” than to the premil (of any flavor).
I too believe the millennium is a present reality. I affirm all the things you said about Jesus present place as ruler of the nations seated on the throne of David in heaven.
Perhaps we might disagree on the necessity of gospel progress as it affects the nations of the world, but that is minor issue, IMO.
What distinguishes the futurist from us is mainly the suggestion that God has postponed His wrath being poured out on "this generation" of Jews (those to whom He was directly addressing) to a generation far in the future. The futurist seems to have no regard for the fact that such a notion would violate God’s own holy law. But them many futurists are antinomian and have little regard for the law of God. Attached to this is the odd requirement that all these ancient civilizations and forms be revived in order to “literally” make this all happen.
Which is to say . . . not literally, and you're engaging in redefining words to suit your position.
as opposed to the contemporary misapplied "literal" means of interpreting something in the plain indicative sense regardless of which literary genre it is presented in
Exactly what "genre" is that? The only true apocalyptic genre we have is in Scripture (Daniel, parts of Zechariah and Ezekiel, Revelation)--everything else is just the blatherings of men trying to mimick God's true Word. So what then are you comparing Revelation to in order to determine whether to take "1000 years" literally or not?
Christ is seated on the throne and is bringing all things into subjugation according to a timeline unknown to us. At a future time He will come in a visible and obvious manner to bring about the full consumation of His Kingdom and judge all men.
I'm still not seeing any major differences between your position and the premill's. We believe that Messiah rules from Heaven as well--however, as is patently obvious to anyone with eyes in their head, not all is as it should be yet, is it? You've just tacitly admitted that not all things are yet in subjugation to the Messiah. The premill acknowledges the same fact of our present existence, and looks forward to the day when Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus Christ, will rule the world "with a rod of iron" directly from David's throne in Jerusalem, as the prophets have promised.
Oh, and if you don't know that premill's believe that God is ultimately in control just as much as preterists do, then it is you, not I, who doesn't understand the position you are criticizing.
Please keep in mind that the millennial and preterist issues , while very closely related, are distinct issues.
I agree, which is why I will often clarify by saying "futurist" instead of just "premill." Likewise, Dispensationalism is simply a theology within premill futurism, not the whole enchilada.
Already been dealt with here.
This is why we do not like to have to repeat ourselves.
sigh...
Was that an indication of frustration with trying to come up with a dispensational interpretation of Matthew 16:28?
“Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Oh ok. Now I know. You've had a Teshuva of sorts.
No, I simply choose to use the traditional meaning of the word rather than the contemporary meaning of it. The notion that Dispensationalists are interpreting prophesy "literally" certainly can't mean they are interpreting it "as it is written" because time and again they completely ignore the literary genres involved in the writing. But whatever...I'm not going to spend a dozen posts arguing with you over the meaning of "literal." Suffice it to say that I take the literary type and form of the prophesies into account when I interpret them.
I'm looking at it scripturally. There is no lens that I am using.
Scripturally, we're told that the coming will be a visible, real, undeniable climax of the age.
Every eye will see him, nations will mourn, sheep & goats will be divided.....
And it will be AS A KING WHO WENT ON A LONG JOURNEY; in other words, great time will have passed. The time of the Gentiles will have Jerusalem trodden under foot for a great period.
tis
And if that were the only definition of genea, you might have a point. However, as Vine's and Thayer's lexicons both point out, genea refers primarily to the "begetting," and can refer to a family or race just as easily to a period of time from one begetting to the next. The futurist therefore understands it to refer to the Jewish people as a whole, not simply to the 40-year generation between the Cross and the destruction of the Temple.
Nor is this a stretch from the word's normal usage in Greek. As Thayer's points out, it is used in this sense in the LXX of Gen. 31:3—Then the LORD said to Jacob, "Return to the land of your fathers and to your family, and I will be with you."—to translate “family” (Heb. moledet).
The word genean is used the same way in Num. 10:30 and the related word genou is used to translate “family” in Est. 2:10 and “people” (om, og) in Gen. 11:6, 17:14, 34:16, etc.
In other words, the Jews would certainly not pass away until all is fulfilled. This premise is supported both by history and the statements of God through His prophets: “’If those ordinances depart from before Me,’ saith YHVH, ‘Then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before Me for ever. . . If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done,’ saith YHVH,” (Jer. 31:36-37) “and so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written . . . for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.” (Rom. 11:26, 29) It is also supported by Messiah’s use of the parable of the fig tree.
Robert Mounce agrees in his commentary on Matthew that this is a possible interpretation, though he leans towards simply recognizing the fall of Jerusalem as one of multiple fulfillments of this prophecy, similar to how this work views the Abomination of Desolation being fulfilled by Antiochus and yet being future to us as well (pp. 227f).
Personally, I agree with him, since the Hebrew word moledet has the same ambiguity in its usage as genea, meaning both "a generation" and "a family/related group of people." I think Yeshua was employing a pun, emphasizing both Jerusalem's near-term judgment, but also promising the continuation of the Jews until His more distant Second Coming.
In any case, it's clear that the preterist argument that "this generation" can only refer to 70 AD has no exegetical legs to stand on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.