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?
No, there were several dispensations before THAT ONE.
The fact that you agree that the Gentiles were not included in the church from Adam to Christ is evidence that you are a dispensationalist.
Like it or not every Christian is a dispensationalist. God worked differently at different times with different peoples.
I didn't know I was supposed to do that. Is there a style book for debates here?
I'd hate to be the victim of yet another word game.
Always playing the victim, eh? Or you you a Victim?
Typically, if one is referring to an actual recognized system it is capitalized, versus a generic usage of a term.
Always playing the victim, eh? Or you you a Victim?
*sigh* Yeah, cause I always play the victim.
To give you an example, there have been plenty of discussions surrounding "prevenient grace." In the strictest sense of the term, Calvinists believe in grace which is prevenient (comes before) faith. However, the intent and function of that prevenient grace is entirely different from that of the Arminian version, which is commonly referenced as Prevenient Grace because it refers to a specific type.
So, in this case I am asking for clarification. If you are using "dispensation" in the generic sense, then it might be reasonable to apply the term to Covenant Theology. However, if you're referring specifically to the system known as Dispensationalism then the term does not apply at all.
So, you can ridicule me if you wish, but I was simply asking for clarification of terms so that we can have something approaching a productive conversation. I don't think that's too much to ask, do you?
From my vantage point:
You have been unable to demonstrate from the text how Jesus was ever “consistently ambiguous” as you have claimed. Your “analysis” is based on merely quoting one verse from Christ where He uses the phrase “this generation”.
You have failed to appreciate that the word “generation” alone is different in context and meaning that the phrase “this generation” or “that generation” or “this evil and adulterous generation”. You have only resorted to interpretation by lexicon rather than actually dealing with the text of the Bible.
In keeping with your lexicon justification, you have failed to deal with the phrase “this generation” in Deut. 1:35 and how it was particular to the generation of Jews that died in the wilderness for their sin against God. The parallel to events in Jesus’ day with the sin of the Jewish nations is striking. Again, the significance of the phrase vs. a mere lexicon analysis of the word is necessary to get Jesus’ correct meaning.
You have failed to appreciate the contrast of “this generation” of Ninevah vs. “this generation” of the Jews and the significance that Jesus placed on the prophetic image of Jonah to that generation vs. Himself to “this generation”. The clear meaning of Jesus is that that generation of pagan Ninevites actually repented at the preaching of Jonah ("Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"), but “this generation” of Jews refused to repent when one greater than Jonah had appeared with an even greater sign, His own resurrection from the dead after three days. The prophetic result; “this generation” of Jews would be destroyed.
As I pointed out, Paul’s mention of “asking for a sign” wrt the Jews does not change the meaning of the gospels or make Jesus “consistently ambiguous”. That specific generation of sign-seeking Jews was about to feel the wrath of God because they had been given the only sign they needed to believe the gospel and repent.
You have failed to recognize the significance of God’s commandment in Exodus 20:5 and Deut 34:7 regarding punishment to the “third and fourth generation” and how that obviates any future judgment of divine wrath against the Jewish “race”.
These seem to be major items that really need to be addressed before we can move on.
I don't believe will you find any writings prior to the 1800s that would state God works differently at different times with different people. God works exactly the same way in exactly the same manner with each person throughout time. He saved you and I exactly the same way He saved Abraham and Paul; through His grace by the faith He has given us. There has always been only ONE chosen people of God.
But there WERE Gentiles included from Adam to Christ. Naaman and Nebuchadnezzar are examples. There is no evidence they "kept the Law" but they certainly were believers. Nebuchadnezzar gave his personal testimony in scripture. They simply had a different set of problems but they were saved in the same fashion; through grace by faith.
What about the even bigger picture that I pointed out here?
When Abraham circumcised all the members of His house, “gentiles” were included in that covenant promise and identified with the Church.
When Moses was told to circumcise any stranger who wanted to participate in the Passover, “gentiles” were included in that covenant promise and identified with the Church (Exodus 12:). By the time Israel entered the promised land, it’s clear they are far from a genetically related group of people. Lots of “gentiles” were now part of “the Church” (Israel).
And the fact that the “land prophecy” of Ezekiel 47:21-23 included “strangers” is also evidence that “the Church” (Israel) was always intended to include gentiles.
God's people have always been identified primarily by covenant, not by race. That's the real basis for identifying Israel and the Church.
Dispensationalists miss this big picture.
If Israel and the Church have always been indistinguishable, then why are you putting bacon on your cheeseburger? Why are you worshipping on Sunday?
Israel as a nation was the visible covenant people of God. With the life, death and resurrection of Christ, God expanded the scope of His covenant to all tribes, tongues and nations. The sabbath finds its fullness in Christ, who is our rest (See Heb 3-4).
The scope of God's covenant people has been expanded, but the nature of it has never changed (See Rom 4:13, 9:8; Gal 3:7-9,29)
The scope of God's covenant people has been expanded, but the nature of it has never changed (See Rom 4:13, 9:8; Gal 3:7-9,29)
Amen.
And this has been the majority opinion of the historic and orthodox Christian church for 2,000 years.
I did not say “indistinguishable”. Why the need to put words in my mouth?
We can certainly distinguish between the people of God under the old covenant and the people of God under the new covenant. But that does not make them two different people, just one people under two different “dispensations” (i.e., administrations of the same covenant of grace. I have used that word properly in this case. There are two “dispensations” in the Bible, not seven or ten or thirteen. We refer to them as the Old Testament and New Testament).
The old covenant was marked by shadows, types, and predictions.
The new covenant is marked by substance, anti-types, and fulfillment.
The old covenant worship was via a human priesthood in a physical temple with bloody animal sacrifices that all pointed forward to the anticipated Messiah.
The new covenant worship is marked by a remembrance of that Messiah by name, Jesus Christ, who came into the world to redeem a people from their sins. Animal blood is gone because the True Lamb as appeared. The human priesthood is gone because the true High Priest after the order of Melchizedek has appeared. The physical temple is gone because the true temple that was raised up in three days has appeared.
The old covenant was marked by separation along nationalist lines with “strangers” being included on special occasions. Food and clothing laws were given to highlight this nationalist distinction.
The new covenant is marked by inclusion of all the nations of the world becoming part of Christ’s kingdom. We no longer need to eat certain foods or wear certain clothes to be marked as Christ’s people. The only “food” by which we are identified is the Lord’s Supper of bread and wine, His body and blood shed for our sins. "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.” (Matt. 28:18-20)
But at the very core, the very essence, the thing which made them one is the promise to Abraham that he would be the father to many nations, and the fulfillment by the blood of the Lamb shed from before the foundation of the world. “And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:29)
The new covenant was made with “the house of Israel and the house of Judah” even while the old covenant was decaying and fading away (Heb. 8). That’s why Peter proclaimed the Church as the expanded Israel of God.
“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; 10 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)
The apostles were not mistaken on the relationship between the two. “But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near [to the commonwealth of Israel] by the blood of Christ.” (Eph. 2:13)
The old covenant was marked by shadows, types, and predictions.
The new covenant is marked by substance, anti-types, and fulfillment.
The old covenant worship was via a human priesthood in a physical temple with bloody animal sacrifices that all pointed forward to the anticipated Messiah.
The new covenant worship is marked by a remembrance of that Messiah by name, Jesus Christ, who came into the world to redeem a people from their sins. Animal blood is gone because the True Lamb as appeared. The human priesthood is gone because the true High Priest after the order of Melchizedek has appeared. The physical temple is gone because the true temple that was raised up in three days has appeared.
AMEN!
Anyone who believes otherwise would have to rip the book of Hebrews out their Bibles.
The Old Testament was preparatory as God's instruction to all men that works of any kind, no matter what they entail, cannot save them. The New Testament was revelatory of the fact that the ONLY righteousness that can and does save any man is the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
The Bible may read progressively to our human perception, but all Scripture was written in an instant and declared true from before the foundation of the world by the predestining mind and purpose of God. Christ on the cross is the center and fulfillment and meaning of every thought and action on earth for all time.
And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." -- Colossians 1:16-18"For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
I didn't have time to respond to that piece but that was one of the best analysis I have read of who the true Israel is. It's very difficult to argue with logic although many do. Your reward will be in heaven.
I didn't know I was supposed to do that. Is there a style book for debates here?
Ha! The rule is "whatever you can get away with".
4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
Chapter 7
A discussion which you ducked out of, quite abruptly.
I hate to be a pest, but I’m still waiting for you to interpret 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.”
Reminds me of Jesus’ question during the encounter with the chief priests, “The baptism of John--where was it from? From heaven or from men?" And they reasoned among themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say to us, 'Why then did you not believe him?'” 26 But if we say, 'From men,' we fear the multitude, for all count John as a prophet." 27 So they answered Jesus and said, "We do not know." And He said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things." (Matt. 21:25-27)
If you say that this “coming of Son of Man in His kingdom” is about some far future event, the Second Coming, then His words make not sense to those people and Jesus was acting as a deceiver. But if you say that it is in reference to an event witnessed by those people in that generation, then you have conceded the possibility, even probability, regarding my point and the phrase “coming with clouds” in Matthew 24 also being witnessed by those people in that generation.
So, which is it, or is there some other possibility?
Beginning with rudeness is no way to start what could be an honorable discussion.
You have absolutely no knowledge of other responsibilities I have. Is it possible that I had other meetings scheduled, deadlines to meet, folks to visit in hospitals, family members in need, and/or a host of other important things to do?
It was rude of the way you left in such a hurry without so much as an “I’ll be baaack!” I saw you posting on other threads and thought maybe you were dissing me.
You have absolutely no knowledge of other responsibilities I have.
Hey, no problem. I thought you were back in the hunt.
Take as much time as you need. I look forward to your studied response on the topic at hand and passage in question.
Apology accepted. I don’t always get a chance to make a final post.
Tax deadline tonight. I’m deep into Schedule C.
Pray for me.
Will do. Have fun with Uncle Sam.
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.