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?
I would add the phrase "assuming it were true". As has been demonstrated the assertion is not true. See here. There were a number of early Christians who say AD70 as at least a partial fulfillment of some prophecies (making them partial preterists of sorts).
Believe it or not, your canned response on another thread to another poster a week ago does not settle the controversy. Hard to believe, isn't it?
Now, TC, please resist the temptation to post to me again on this thread. I did not ping you to my post, please don't ping me to yours.
Thank you.
Actually, it's just a matter of recognizing how Biblical prophecy works: The prophet references a near-term event that encompasses the overarching theme of the prophecy but which may not perfectly fulfill all of the details, but also refers to a future event which more completely and literally fulfills the details, usually in one of the Messiah's Comings.
A prime example in in the Olivet Discourse itself, when Yeshua refers to the Abomination that causes desolation. Every Jew knew that this referred to the idol Antiochus set up in the Holy of Holies in the time of the Maccabees--and yet our Lord spoke of it in reference to a future event. Sha'ul spoke of this same future event in 2 Th. 2:4.
I've found that most of the tension between the eschatological views vanishes when one realizes the simple truth that Biblical prophecy is about pattern more than prediction and is therefore cyclical rather than linear.
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.
It's not just that; no matter how one tries to legitimately interpret the text, there are certain details that have never been fulfilled. Titus never fulfilled the Abomination of Desolation, for example, and there is no source that indicates that "every eye" or even every Jewish eye saw the Messiah "coming" in the destruction. To the Romans it was just another victory, and the Jewish sources mostly blame the Zealots.
Either the prophecies are false, or they aren't yet completely fulfilled.
As you well know, Jesus did not just use the word "genea". He used the phrase "this generation" (genea tauth). An important consideration.
E.g., in Luke 11:30 we read, “For as Jonah became a sign to the Ninevites, so also the Son of Man will be to this generation (genea tauth).”
Jonah was not a sign to every generation of Ninevites (the entire race). He was a sign to that generation only. And thus the parallel to Jesus’ reference to the Jews of His day.
This is how Jesus consistently used the phrase.
And, as I argue here the phrase has context and meaning to the Jews of that day. Jesus used the phrase consistently to refer to that generation of Jews. He was picking up on the phrase from the Old Testament (see Deut. 1:35).
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Reading the mind of another poster - such as attributing motives to him - is "making it personal."
Thanks for the ping!
Not really--and it's genea haute, fyi. It could just as easily mean "this race" as "this generation."
Jonah was not a sign to every generation of Ninevites (the entire race). He was a sign to that generation only. And thus the parallel to Jesus’ reference to the Jews of His day.
Actually, that reference works contrary to your intended interpretation, since it parallels "Ninevites" (a people) with genea, suggesting the latter is also in reference to a people rather than a period of time. In fact, Jonah was indeed a sign to future generations of Ninevites--they disregarded the sign, so God sent His judgment.
This is how Jesus consistently used the phrase.
Actually, the way Yeshua used the phrase is consistently ambiguous about whether He is referring to a people or a period of time, except where it favors the "people/race" interpretation. For example:
Mat 12:39 But He answered and said unto them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas . . ."He was picking up on the phrase from the Old Testament (see Deut. 1:35).1Co 1:22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
The phrase "this people" has equal grounding in the Tanakh (cf. Isa. 6:9), so again you're not proving your case--a necessary case, for preterism--that genea haute can only mean "this generation" and not "this people."
And on that note, I've got to go soon. I may have time for another brief exchange, but hopefully no one will take it amiss if I vanish for a bit.
Actually, the way Yeshua used the phrase is consistently ambiguous about whether He is referring to a people or a period of time
How does quoting one verse by Jesus and one by Paul demonstrate Jesus was "consistently ambiguous" with the phrase? Jesus was perfectly consistent in speaking of Jonah to that generation, the ones who actually saw Him come forth from the earth after three days.
Paul obviously is speaking in more general terms of Jews vs. gentiles. But Paul's usage does not make Jesus’ words ambiguous in the least.
“Why I Am Not A Pederast”
Hmmmm....I construed physical with bodily return but in thinking about this I see where you're leading. Yes, you're absolutely correct.
lurking mostly - have been earnestly preparing for a summer spent fishing on the fingerlakes here in NY.....recapturing my youth - There are two reserviors just south of here that are the public water supply for Rochester - they are undeveloped and not easily accessable - underfished - but lovely as well...saves me a drive to the adirondacks
If that's the case people wouldn't have been arguing about this for 2000 years. Oops excuse me. I guess dispensationalists have only be around for 150 years, and even then in small minorities.
Just pointing out that the same phrase used to describe "this generation"--seeking after a sign--is later used by Sha'ul to describe the Jews as a people. I've also shown from your own example that the genea haute was compared to a people, the Ninevites, so you are in error to say that I presented only one supporting point.
I would also point out that even you must acknowledge that "this generation" implies the Jewish people rather than simply a unit of time, since God's judgment most assuredly did not fall on "this generation" of the Romans, for example, in 70 AD. That is, you must understand the term to mean "this generation of Jews" even within your own interpretation--I'm simply pointing out that you go beyond the meaning of the term or phrase to limit Yeshua's words to that generation only of the people He was addressing.
Let's put this back on you: Can you show where in Yeshua's use of the term "this generation" it is impossible to understand Him as referring to the Jews as a people rather than of a specific period of time? If you can't show the impossibility of such an interpretation, than preterism's chief proof-text is shown to be mere pretext, and you have to concede the argument.
Jesus was perfectly consistent in speaking of Jonah to that generation, the ones who actually saw Him come forth from the earth after three days.
Simply restating your position does not constitute a valid argument unless you also address my points.
But Paul's usage does not make Jesus’ words ambiguous in the least.
And your insistence to the contrary does not erase an ambiguity that is acknowledged in at least two major lexicons, one of which I provided a link to, or to the use of the word genea in the LXX.
Please address all of my points on the use of the word genea or concede that it can indeed refer to a people as well as to a unit of time.
Have a great weekend!
I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. The Gentiles were not officially included until Cornelius, and even then there was discussions.
Same word, different case. I picked up Luke 11:30.
Actually, that reference works contrary to your intended interpretation, since it parallels "Ninevites" (a people) with genea, suggesting the latter is also in reference to a people rather than a period of time. In fact, Jonah was indeed a sign to future generations of Ninevites--they disregarded the sign, so God sent His judgment.
I think you are mistaken. The message of Jonah preached to Nineveh was, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!" Nineveh did repent and God spared the city, i.e., that city at that time. There was no future Jonah to preach to the city at some later date.
Jesus is specifically contrasting the city-wide repentance of that generation of Ninevites with the then living generation of Jews who would not repent at the greater than Jonah. Even though Jesus came with a sign, "three days and three nights in the heart of the earth", yet Israel did not repent and they were judged; that generation --- not some far future one.
The phrase "this people" has equal grounding in the Tanakh
But that's not the phrase used in Deut 1:35 is dowr {dore}, and is not translated as "people" or "race". E.g., "And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation." (Exodus 1:6) “And when Aaron lighteth the lamps at even, he shall burn incense upon it, a perpetual incense before the LORD throughout your generations. “ (Ex. 30:8) The phrase seems to be time-limited in the singular or more all encompassing when used in the plural form
The Hebrew am (Isa. 6:9) fits that bill for the more general "people".
There is also the matter that God does not extend His wrath beyond the "the third and fourth generation" of those who hate Him (Ex. 20:5; 34:7).
To suggest, as futurists do, that a far future generation of Jews are destined to receive the wrath of God (Luke 19:41-44; 21:22) is a great injustice to the Word of the Almighty.
It is clear that the “this generation” to which Jesus refers is the generation UPON WHOM all those signs come.
This’ll happen, that’ll happen, the other’ll happen...and on the generation that all that comes, “this generation will not pass until all these things be fulfilled.”
Which is why Jesus says, “Watch.”
It is also a point about which full preterists and futurists agree. ALL of those things will happen.
Every eye did not see the 70 AD return, all nations did not mourn, and, in short, no one ever commented on it.
And, of course, Jesus, Peter, and Paul all indicated that Jesus return would be after a very long time.
So much that Peter had to IN 65 AD, to people concerned with the promise of a “soon” coming, illustrate with: “A day with the Lord is as a thousand years...”
Perhaps I’m missing something, but where does Paul use genea auth in the context of 1 Cor. 1:22?
In fact Paul never uses the phrase “this generation” in the epistles. So, while it may be true that Paul is indicating a general condition about signs and Jews, that does not change Jesus’ specific words directed at that immediate generation of Jews. And Paul hardly makes Jesus’ “consistently ambiguous”. Citing one verse by Jesus as an example of ambiguity hardly does the word justice.
To add insult to your injury, let me quote Hebrews:
“Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, 'They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.'” (Heb. 3:10)
The context makes it clear the subject -- “that generation” (genea ekeinh) -- is the specific generation of Jews who wandered and died in the wilderness because of their sin against God. Not the entire race or people of the Jews. This confirms the correct understanding of Deut 1:35 as well as Jesus’ use of the phrase.
So, speaking of “exegetical legs” we are still waiting to see your.
Please address all of my points on the use of the word genea or concede that it can indeed refer to a people as well as to a unit of time.
I don’t need to address anything yet since you have not demonstrated from the Scripture any discernable ambiguity on Jesus’ part. You really need to address all my items before I truly have to respond. E.g., in the light of Exodus 20:5 why is God permitted to bring His wrath upon a far future generation of Jewish people.
I would say that The Gentiles were included as early as the OT on the basis of grace through faith.
For all practical purposes, Abraham was just another guy (nations) until he was separated by God. If he was an Iraqi the day before, then what were the other Iraqis the day after?
What do you think “The Court of the Gentiles” is about in the Temple? Jesus said, “My House shall be called a House of Prayer for the ETHNOI (Gentiles) but you have made it a den of thieves.”
They were cheating, buying, and selling....bad.
They were also doing so in the location for Gentile worship....also bad.
Gentile worship?
Didn’t think that happened until Pentecost.
Thank you for posting that. I was looking for my book by Josephus and couldn’t find it! Now I can relax! :-)
Just to add more thing to your conundrum, I was speaking from the text of the Bible to counter that you missed the point on the phrase "this generation".
Lexicons, while helpful, only give a range of possibilities for the meaning of a word. I have never denied that “genea” can mean something like “race”, although it is difficult to discern that meaning from most examples in the NT. However, you’ll note that most translations give “generation” (“the whole multitude of men living at the same time”, Thayer) as the meaning (KJV, 37 times, NAS 42 times). It is never translated “race”. Once the KJV translates it “nation” and once the NAS translates it “kind”.
But I’m unaware of any lexicon that deals with the phrase “this generation”. Possibility and probably are two different things. Merely quoting a lexicon is not definitive. Ultimately the meaning is left to the interpreter.
I see no ambiguity necessary or implied in Jesus' use of the phrase. And until I get something substantive from you that actually deals with Jesus' words, I'll stick by that view.
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.