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?
Preterism and partial or orthodox preterism are worlds apart.
Indeed. Orthodox ("partial") preterism, from what I've read of it, blends easily into amillenial or postmillenial eschatologies.
The Hymenaens are a different animal altogether. I've never actually run in to any.
(As an aside, Dee Dee Warren of The Preterist Site made an interesting comment when Gene Cook interviewed her a few months ago. She said that Hymenean preterism has caught on big time among the wildest and craziest of the emergents. Hmmmmm.)
Last week's Zionism and Rapture 500 post megathreads wore me out, and I do have a life outside Freerepublic. I've got a few pings from this one, so someone thinks I might be interested. I guess I should plow through it.
Dispensationalism and the Eclipse of Christ (An Open Correspondence)
I remember that one. At the same time as that came out Dan Phillips, aka Bibchr, a "dispensational Calvinist", posted Al Mohler: Tim LaHaye is like Dan Brown on his blog. It is interesting to compare and contrast the two.
That was a concluding observation to point out that preterism is not simply a benign doctrinal falsity, that it robs people of the hope of the resurrection.
The closer one is to something, the more distinctions one is able to make. For instance, from where I sit all dispensationalists pretty much sound alike.
I'm coming late to the thread, maybe this has been hashed out.
There are those that have the label preterist that are within the bounds of orthodoxy with respect to their view of the resurrection ("partial preterist" or sometimes just preterist), and those that are not ("full preterist" or "Hymenaen preterist"). Exactly what terminology gets applied depends on who's talking and how they're trying to spin the language.
To hold the view that everything was fulfilled when God's wrath fell on Jerusalem and the temple destroyed in Anno Domini 70, necessarily means that the resurrection is something other than a resurrection of the body. That view is beyond the pale. (And, by the way, those preterists expect me to believe that this is the eternal state, that this world is nothing more than a brooder of saved souls for heaven, till the sun goes cold? No way.)
From that article: Saying that "Israel" means "Israel" is "decoding";
I’m always puzzled a bit by the insistence of the “literalists” regarding this phrase. What exactly do they mean, and what are they insisting?
The fact is that identification with “Israel” was always by covenant and never purely by race or genetic relationship to Abraham. When Abraham was circumcised in obedience to God and as evidence of his faith and identification with the covenant of grace, there were also many of his household not of his flesh who were also circumcised. By this act they became identified with “Israel”.
At the time of the Exodus and the giving of the Passover ordinance, the stipulation that any could observe provided they were also circumcised. And what was the result of that circumcision, they became identified with Israel (Ex. 12:48).
So by the time Israel enters the promised land, it’s clear they are far from a genetically related group of people.
The sojourner was to be treated as the native as long as they were identified with the covenant by circumcision and kept the other terms of the covenant.
In Ezekiel’s vision of the future temple, we find this interesting description. “Thus you shall divide this land among yourselves according to the tribes of Israel. It shall be that you will divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall be that in whatever tribe the stranger dwells, there you shall give him his inheritance," says the Lord God.” (Ezekiel 47:21-23)
Here we have a key prophecies for the futurist, the fulfillment of the so-called land promise, and we find non-Israelites receiving an equal share among the tribes. Again, confirming the principle that “Israel” always meant much more than the mere physical descendents of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. It meant all those who were in covenant fellowship with God.
So, by the time we get to the New Testament the pattern is well understood by the apostles, especially Paul. Paul could use language such as this:
Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh--who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands-- that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that He might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross, thereby putting to death the enmity. And He came and preached peace to you who were afar off and to those who were near. For through Him we both have access by one Spirit to the Father. Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, (Eph. 2:11-19)
That last phrase, household of God, is an important one. It identifies God’s people as Bethel, the house of God (Gen. 28:17; 1 Tim. 3:15; Heb. 10:21; 1 Peter 4:17). And it includes gentiles in that Bethel. Of course this is what God always intended, since the time He proclaimed Abraham the father of many nations (Gen. 17:4).
The clearest implication of this and other passages is that the Church of Jesus Christ is the expanded Israel foreseen in all the Old Testament. That is why Peter could declare, “But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.” (1 Peter 2:9,10) Peter had no fear of being called an anti-Semite for applying all the old covenant titles given to Israel to the Church. The reason being that the Church was the expanded Israel.
So where does that leave us today when people say things like “Israel means Israel”? What does that phrase connote? It was Paul who said “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom. 9:6). We see by the context that Paul’s message was a remnant of the nation Israel was the “all Israel” who was being saved even in that day. It was a remnant of those from the old covenant people who were being included by God’s gracious sovereign choice into the new covenant people. Same people. Same covenant of grace. New administration.
But what about Israel today? Some folks consider the modern nation of Israel to be the thing identified as “Israel” in the statement “Israel means Israel”. Some folks relate it to ethnic Jews. But how is a modern ethnic Jew or a modern citizen of secular Israel identified with “Israel” as we find it used in the Bible?
I would say not very well. And the reason I say that is because of the covenant. As I said at the beginning, identification with Israel was always by covenant. Therefore, identification with “Israel” today must also be by covenant. But which covenant?
Well, the fact is there is only one operational covenant today, that is the new covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ. Those who would be identified with “Israel” must be identified with the blood of the Lamb. Jews today are living, at best, under the terms of the old decayed covenant (Heb. 8:13). That covenant is no longer operative in offering a relationship to God. Yet, there are thousands upon thousands of Jews living today who are descended from people who are no closer genetically to Abraham that you or me. They became Jews long after the new covenant was established in the blood of Messiah. Are these the folks that we should think of when we say “Israel means Israel”?
As Paul wrote, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal. 3:28,29) This is also why Peter could refer to the Church as “a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people” with impunity. Peter and Paul knew the Church was the only entity in covenant relationship with God, and stood as the heir of the promises to Abraham by virtue of faith in Jesus Christ.
So I would agree with the statement that “Israel means Israel” wherever we find it in the Bible. And I can also state with confidence that “all Israel will be saved”. Not after the manner of the flesh, but according to the promise.
Here we have a key prophecies for the futurist, the fulfillment of the so-called land promise, and we find non-Israelites receiving an equal share among the tribes. Again, confirming the principle that "Israel" always meant much more than the mere physical descendents of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. It meant all those who were in covenant fellowship with God.
So, by the time we get to the New Testament the pattern is well understood by the apostles, especially Paul...
the fact is there is only one operational covenant today, that is the new covenant in the blood of Jesus Christ. Those who would be identified with "Israel" must be identified with the blood of the Lamb."
Amen.
Again with the spam. Just asked you to stop, you said you would.
You have a problem with God. You think He phrased Himself poorly. You’re out to “help” Him.
As long as that’s the case, please leave me out of it.
Not spam since I was directed to an article by you and I quoted you. I only copied you out of politeness.
Same word, different case. I picked up Luke 11:30.
Ah. I was operating off of Mat. 24:34, since that was the passage in question. In any case, you've still not explained the significance you find in the Greek haute/taute that forces a meaning of "generation" rather than "people" in all uses of the word genea.
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.
So? Why wouldn't Jonah's appearance and warning remain a sign to succeeding generations of Ninevites? After all, is not Yeshua's Resurrection a sign to us, even though it has not been repeated in our time?
. . . yet Israel did not repent and they were judged; that generation --- not some far future one.
Those specific people, yes. But again, we could still say, "that people --- not some far future one" and the sentence would still be true. So once again, you fail to demonstrate that genea must refer to a period of time rather than a people related by blood.
But that's not the phrase used in Deut 1:35 is dowr
Again, so what? You're arguing from a conclusion that you've not yet substantiated, that Deu. 1:35 is the passage being referenced by the Lord, or that He was using the Hebrew word dowr. He could have, as I've already substantiated from the LXX and you have yet to disrpove, been using the Hebrew word moledet, which is also translated genea at least twice.
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.
Is it really impossible for you to argue for preterism without creating such a blatant strawman?
I'm not suggesting that the future generation of Jews will receive the wrath of the Almighty for the sins of the first century--indeed, I believe that God will give them His special protection during that time of wrath per Rev. 7. However, I believe that the Jews as a people and the true Ekklesia as a whole will both be persecuted together in the years leading up to the Second Coming, so as to refine us and to prepare Israel to receive her proper King. That's no more God's wrath than those Christians who are dying in the Sudan are suffering God's wrath.
Indeed, I believe that God's wrath will come after (or as a part of) the Second Coming, when He will gather the Ekklesia on the clouds of heaven (Mat. 24:31, 1 Th. 4:15-17) even as defends Jerusalem from the same clouds (Joel 3:15ff, Zec. 9:14 & ch. 12-14).
Even pretrib recognizes that while God pours out His wrath on the world, He does so on Israel only to the point of bringing them to repentance and reliance on Him. Indeed, pretrib argues that this is the point of the whole 70th Week.
You seem awfully unaware of what Premill in general and Dispensationalism in particular teaches for one who is so certain that it should be rejected, if I may say so.
From post #157:
Perhaps I’m missing something, but where does Paul use genea auth in the context of 1 Cor. 1:22?
You are indeed missing something. Did I say Sha'ul used genea haute? No. I said that he took a phrase Yeshua used to describe genea haute and said that it referred to the Jews as a people, in contrast to the Greeks as a people.
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.
Indeed--and it is used to translate dowr in Psalm 95. However, as I've repeatedly demonstrated and you have yet to answer, genea can be used to translate more than just dowr from the Hebrew, and is used to translate "family" elsewhere.
You're committing a linguistic fallacy in assuming that there is always some kind of one-for-one correspondence in two words in two different languages--this despite being shown from multiple examples that such is not the case with genea, which can have two different but related meanings, both of which I submit are true in the Olivet Discourse and Yeshua's other uses of the word.
don’t need to address anything yet since you have not demonstrated from the Scripture any discernable ambiguity on Jesus’ part.
Most certainly I have, and simply sticking your fingers in your ears and singing loudly so as not to hear it (metaphorically speaking, of course) doesn't change that one whit. To repeat, I've shown,
1) That at least two mainline lexicons, Vine's and Thayer's, agree that the underlying idea of genea is one of begetting, both as in measuring time and in regards to being part of a family or people. In fact, you acknowledge that this is the case, but are reduced to arguing, "well, most translations render it my way."So far, TC, you've concentrated on the peripheral support to my argument (points 3 and 4) and have barely even attempted to counter the main argument (points 1 and 2)--and with all respect, simply citing the majority of English translations amounts to a fallacious appeal to popularity (or maybe tradition), not to an actual exegetical argument.Translations, of course, must pick one or two words to best convey the idea behind a native word, and therefore often lose the nuance or connotation a word brings, not to mention alternative possible meanings. That's why the Analytical-Literal Translation, to name one, gives "race" as an alternative translation, and why we use lexicons to better understand the original words rather than simply relying on English translations.
2) That genea is used twice in the LXX to translate moledet, "family," and that the related word genouph is used several times more to translate "family" or "people."
3) That your own counter-example backfires, since genea taute is compared to the Ninevites, a people, not to a specific generation of Ninevites. You've at least tried to argue this point, but to my mind you have not yet done so successfully.
4) That Sha'ul apparently understood the defining phrase "seeks after a sign" to refer to the Jewish people as a whole (contrasted with the Greeks as a whole) rather than simply as the trait of one generation pitted against the next. Your attempts to argue this point so far indicate that you have not understood it.
God bless.
Sure, I would agree with that. There are several cases of Gentiles being in saved throughout the OT. Caleb, Ruth and Rahab were Gentiles but chose to live under the OT legalistic system. But this system was imperfect. Naaman was also a Gentile believer but asked forgiveness for not being able to follow through with the laws (such as going with the king into pagan temples).
I wouldn't argue that the beginning of the church started at Pentacost. But it evolved. It took 10 chapters in Acts to get to the inclusion of the Gentiles.
That would make you a... dispensationalist.
Not necessarily. Progressive revelation exists within Reformed eschatologies as well.
Call it what you want. It's still dispensationalism.
I can’t be online much longer, but just a quick observation based on the last week of preterist discussion.
It seems to me that preterist theology is exactly the same as dispensational premillennial theology with an argument over when the return of Jesus took place. Preterists say 70AD, partial preterists say it was sorta 70AD, and premill’s say it’s yet future.
Take premill theology and assume Jesus returned in 70AD and Allegorize/symbolize everything that follows and the similarities are astonishing.
The dividing point is the quasi or real coming of Jesus in 70AD. Which....of course....did not happen. (Acts 1)
Whoa. I'm not a preterist - certainly not full, and probably not partial, but this cannot stand. Ac. 1 has little to add to the discussion, since it was written before 70 A.D., and only talks about the Second Coming, not the judgment and arrival of the Kingdom.
Let's not introduce extraneous proof-texts.
Acts 1 says that “this Jesus will return in “like manner.”...
Exegesis of the passage shows that means: “in exactly the same way...”
The fundamental difference between Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology in that respect is that in the former each section of the building looks markedly and jarringly different from the section beneath it.
No, it's not. Dispensationalists haven't cornered the market on progressive revelation. It predated them by a significant amount of time.
Progressive revelationists are dispensationalists.
Just for clarification, is there a reason you don't capitalize "dispensationalists" in this conversation? I'd hate to be the victim of yet another word game.
And at what point do you divide the "ages"? Are their 3 ages? 10 ages? 7 ages? What day did they start on and when did they finish?
The scriptures show God working with man and that works takes time. The great flood took 40 days and nights, the formulation of the world took 6 day (7 if you want to count the day of rest), and moving Israel out of Egypt took hundreds of years. Moving the covenant from the Jews to include all men wasn't transformed overnight at Pentecost. While Pentecost was a significant point in time and the beginning of the church, there was still a maturation process to complete. And it should be noted that it wasn't God fault. It took the Jewish believers a while to understand and accept.
I'm certainly not a dispensationalist nor do I want to be associated with that.
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.