Preterism: Olivet Discourse, 1 Thess 4-5 & 2 Thess 2

[yasdnil]

I have been studying the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13 especially, but parallels too) and I cannot find an interpretation that makes sense to me. I feel pushed by necessity to at least a partially futurist reading, as 1 Thess 4-5 appears parallel to the OD (and maybe even 2 Thess 2).

However, I know there are some partial preterists on this board. I find the preterist reading of the Olivet Discourse very consistent and the simplest. However, I do not understand the following:

1. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 seem to be parallel with the Olivet Discourse with similar language and concepts. 1 Thess 4:15 even implies that Paul is building his teaching upon it. I'm not sure how one can read the OD as AD70, but 1 Thess 4 as the future resurrection. It seems to me that hyper-preterists are more consistent here to recognize the parallels.

2. On a related note, I am not sure how the OD's Abomination of Desolation (drawing from Daniel) and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 (Daniel 11:36) can refer to separate events. If the AoD is AD70 and 2 Thess 2 remains future, why would Jesus not mention the latter event in the Discourse? Especially as the AoD is what precedes His "coming". However, if 2 Thess 2 is AD70 (and I've read a compelling argument that Dan 11:36f refers to John Giscala), then how can he be killed "by the appearance of [Christ's] coming" (2 Thess 2:8)?

The Thessalonian passages compel me to an almost entirely futurist reading of the Olivet Discourse, but this does not feel at all a natural reading of Mark 13 and parallels.

I'd certainly appreciate any help working through these connections!

 

[Conner]

Having a preterist interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 and 1 Thessalonians 4 doesn't necessarily imply hyper-preterism.

 

[Peairtach]

I don't see the conflict between a "partial preterist" interpretation of the Olivet Discourse and the eschatalogical passages in I and II Thessalonians.

Although there are often difficulties and intricacies with some of these eschatalogical issues, I would take Matthew 24:1-35 as primarily referring to the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Mosaic system.

I Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 is about the end of the world. How does I Thess 4:15 build on the Olivet Discourse?

I don't know how the man of sin is related to the abomination of desolation. There is no explicit mention of the abomination of desolation in II Thessalonians. I believe the man of sin is the Papacy. The "abomination of desolation" could have secondary applications in idolatrous practices - like the mass - being brought into the New Testament Church and desolating her and her witness; e.g., also, liberal theology and homosexuality being allowed into the Protestant Church.

It seems most likely that the abomination of desolation spoken of in the Olivet Discourse is the making unclean and desolating the Temple by the Roman soldiers including offerings to their gods in the holy of holies. A comparison of Matthew with Luke shows that Luke indicates that this is what the abomination of desolation was in our Lord's discourse.

“Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’[c] spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. (Mattew 24:15-16, NKJV)

“But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, (Luke 21:20-21)

The Papacy may continue to the Eschaton there to be ended by Christ's Second Advent, or more likely, will be ended by Christ's coming in history by His Word, Spirit, Church and Providence.

E.g.

For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. (I Cor 15:25)

Please take my eschatalogical musings with a pinch of salt, as this is a difficult area of study.

 

[JimmyH]

I do not have a firm position yet, but I found this video series by Dr Kenneth Gentry very compelling for the partial preterist viewpoint ;

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...-Series-on-Partial-Preterism-By-Dr-Ken-Gentry

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Having a preterist interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 and 1 Thessalonians 4 doesn't necessarily imply hyper-preterism.

of 1 Thessalonians 4 though? "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

How could that have been fulfilled already?

 

[yasdnil]

Many thanks for the replies.

This post summarizes well the connections between 1 Thess 4-5 and the Olivet Discourse, with Paul possibly referring to Jesus' teaching in 1 Thess 4:15 ("word from the Lord" recalling what he says in 1 Cor 7 when referring to Jesus' teaching). Beale's 1-2 Thessalonians commentary says much the same, but he doesn't read the OD from the preterist view.

http://kloposmasm.com/2015/03/04/comparing-matthew-24-and-i-thessalonians-4-5/

I contacted Kenneth Gentry and he said that though the passages appear similar, they are not parallel. I'm not sure if I can agree. In fact, I would think the partial preterist must cut the link between these two passages or they may logically need to preterize 1 Corinthians 15 too, since that is conceptually linked to 1 Thess 4. I've seen full preterists argue in this fashion: Olivet Discourse = 1 Thessalonians 4 = 1 Corinthians 15 = Final Resurrection was in AD70.

Also 2 Thessalonians 2 seems to draw from Daniel 11:36, and there are parallels from Dan 11-12 in the Olivet Discourse too (particularly the reference to the severity of tribulation).

Perhaps my problem is in seeing the OD allusions as "direct connections" rather than simple analogies.

 

[God'sElectSaint]

Many thanks for the replies.

This post summarizes well the connections between 1 Thess 4-5 and the Olivet Discourse, with Paul possibly referring to Jesus' teaching in 1 Thess 4:15 ("word from the Lord" recalling what he says in 1 Cor 7 when referring to Jesus' teaching). Beale's 1-2 Thessalonians commentary says much the same, but he doesn't read the OD from the preterist view.

http://kloposmasm.com/2015/03/04/comparing-matthew-24-and-i-thessalonians-4-5/

I contacted Kenneth Gentry and he said that though the passages appear similar, they are not parallel. I'm not sure if I can agree. In fact, I would think the partial preterist must cut the link between these two passages or they may logically need to preterize 1 Corinthians 15 too, since that is conceptually linked to 1 Thess 4. I've seen full preterists argue in this fashion: Olivet Discourse = 1 Thessalonians 4 = 1 Corinthians 15 = Final Resurrection was in AD70.

Also 2 Thessalonians 2 seems to draw from Daniel 11:36, and there are parallels from Dan 11-12 in the Olivet Discourse too (particularly the reference to the severity of tribulation).

Perhaps my problem is in seeing the OD allusions as "direct connections" rather than simple analogies.

I would have to agree here Lindsay. I would take heed to Paul's exhortation in 2 Thes 2:2-3. I realize the preterist would say the "Day of Christ" did not yet come when Paul wrote this epistle but was fulfilled shortly after. Which I disagree with and would just say consider Paul's words "Let no man deceive you by any means".

 

[Andrew P.C.]

partial preterist must cut the link between these two passages or they may logically need to preterize 1 Corinthians 15 too, since that is conceptually linked to 1 Thess 4.

This is wrong. Since full preterism denies the physical Resurrection and are not orthodox, your statement would be the following: "Either you believe this way or you have to be a full blown heretical preterist". Instead, the two passages combine if you understand that scripture teaches Postmillenialism like Gentry believes. 1 Cor. 15 cannot be a full preterist interpretation for multiple reasons. 1) Christ has not handed over the kingdom, 2) all of His enemies have not been put under His feet and, 3) the last enemy death has not been done away with.. just to name a few. 1 Thess 4 is talking about the physical resurrection which is a part of what will happen at the end.

Likewise, Matt 24 and the Abomination of Desolation is a reference to Daniel clearly stated in the passage: "“Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand)".

Also, with your second point you ask "why would Jesus not mention the latter in the discourse"? I don't know, why don't you ask Him. The Man of Lawlessness and the Abomination of Desolation are not the same thing. This is something you are trying to put together, not the preterist. Gentry, in his article on the Man of Lawlessness suggests that Nero is this man. Sproul (who is a preterist) talks about the Abomination in his study bible when he says: "The phrase is from Daniel; in Dan. 9:27; 11:31 it refers to the desecration of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes. In 168 B.C. Antiochus erected a pagan altar in the temple. According to Josephus, he also sacraficed swine there. Shortly before A.D. 70 the zealots were in the temple precincts during the war with Rome, and their presence could have been considered desecration. In A.D. 70 the Romans entered the temple with military standards, ceremonial insignia that were elements of their religion. They took away the sacred vessels, including the lampstand, and burned the temple. Sculptures of their troops carrying the vessels are visible on the Arch of Titus in Rome."

 

[MW]

A covenantal approach is much better than an event-driven approach, and will allow a preterist position without denying what yet lies in the future in relation to the second coming of Christ. If we read these passages in the light of the Old Testament eschatology as it related to the nation of Israel, and then see the day of Christ as an eschatological judgment which triumphs over the nations, many of the terms will make better sense and fit together without having to squeeze them into a timeline.

 

[a mere housewife]

I was reading Acts 6 this morning and noticed two things in particular about the testimony brought against Stephen (v.13,14) -- it sounds similar to the charges brought against Christ -- almost like an echo, but with a wider referent ('this place, the customs', whereas with Christ the testimony is focused on the temple); and it would seem clear that Stephen was anticipating some further judgment on the Judaic system.

I have wondered if the Temple can't be understood in a sort layered way -- Christ is the true temple. But around this 'epicenter' of reality is the Jewish Temple, and the world itself.

When Christ is judged, the apostles seem to seize on all the language that has spoken about judgment in the OT and in Christ's words. They realise that in Christ, judgment has happened on the temple, the Jewish system, and the world itself. The Day of the Lord has come. But just like an earthquake works itself out from the epicenter, there is still the expectation that the rest of the structure is going to experience the fall and rising again that has taken place in Christ -- so they sell their land (4:32-37), so they live in expectation of some further ripple effect of what has happened on the cross to happen in the Jewish structures -- so Peter (2 Peter 3) seems to be speaking about the future of the whole creation: the Day of the Lord will come.

It's a tentative thought (I'm only phrasing it this way because I don't know how else to say it) and I expect that it's probably already been thought of and far better and more accurately expressed. But it seems to make sense to me of the way the language of cosmic judgment is applied to Christ, and yet is also used of things that the apostles seem to be living more in expectation of than looking back on. Christ is the real cosmos, in whom all things hold together. But that means we're going to see them work out in our own history, precisely because they already happened in His? (So He kept all His own to the end -- this is already accomplished in His death and resurrection -- but it's still happening in my own life?)

edit: I was thinking that perhaps in some sense -- all? most? accusation against Christians (for behaving as Christians) echoes in wider ways the testimony against Christ. We are witnesses of judgment on the whole world in Him. We live in expectation that this land we tenant is not permanent -- expecting the dissolution not just of our own bodies but of everything; and witnessing to the hope of the whole creation's resurrection in Him.

 

[pkananen]

Alan Kurschner highlights 30 parallels between the Olivet Discourse and Paul's teaching in the Thessalonian letters. I personally hold to a futurist view with the entirety of both passages.

From his book Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord:

Jesus in Matt. 24– 25 --------- Parallels on the Second Coming --------- Paul in I & II Thess.
24: 3– 4 --------- Christ is the Source --------- I. 4: 15
24: 3, 27, 37, 39 --------- Context: The Parousia --------- I. 4: 15; II. 2: 1, 8
24: 4– 5, 23– 26 --------- Do Not Be Deceived --------- II. 2: 3
24: 6 --------- Alarmed the End Has Come --------- II. 2: 2
24: 15 --------- Antichrist’s Desolation --------- II. 2.4
24: 21– 22 --------- Opposition By Antichrist --------- II. 2: 3– 4, 8– 9
24: 24 --------- Deceiving Signs and Wonders --------- II. 2: 9– 10
24:24 --------- Elect Will Not Be Deceived --------- II. 2: 9– 14
24: 12 --------- Lawlessness --------- II. 2: 3, 12
24: 10– 11 --------- Apostasy of Many --------- II. 2: 3
24: 13, 22, 31, 40– 41 (Lk 21: 28) --------- Surviving Believers Delivered --------- I. 4: 15, 17; 5: 9; II. 1: 7
24: 22, 29– 31 --------- Persecution Cut Short --------- II. 1: 6– 7; 2: 8
24: 27, 30 --------- Initiation of the Parousia --------- I. 4: 15, II. 2: 1, 8
24: 29– 30 --------- Parousia Follows Antichrist --------- II. 2: 8
24: 27– 30 --------- Universal Perception --------- I. 4: 16; II. 1: 7– 8
24: 30 --------- Jesus with Clouds --------- I. 4: 17
24: 30 --------- Power and Glory --------- II. 1: 9
24: 31 --------- Angelic Presence --------- I. 4: 16; II. 1: 7
24: 31 --------- Trumpet Call --------- I. 4: 16
24: 31 --------- Gathering --------- I. 4: 17; II. 2: 1
25: 6 --------- Meeting (Apantēsis) --------- I. 4: 17
24: 37– 41 (Lk 17: 22– 35) --------- Back-to-Back Rapture & Wrath --------- II. 1: 6– 10
24: 37– 41 --------- "Peace and Safety” --------- I. 5: 3
24: 43 --------- Thief in the Night --------- I. 5: 2, 4
24: 37– 41 (Lk 21: 34) --------- Sudden Destruction for Ungodly --------- I. 5: 2– 3
24: 29– 30, 37– 39 --------- Initiation of the Day of the Lord --------- I. 5: 1– 3, II. 1: 7– 8
25: 10– 13 (Lk 21: 36) --------- Inescapable for the Unprepared --------- I. 5: 3
24: 32– 33 --------- Knowing the Season --------- I. 5: 1
24: 45– 46 --------- The Faithful at His Coming --------- I. 5: 4– 5, 8
24: 42– 25: 13 (Lk 21: 34– 36) --------- Be Watchful and Expectant --------- I. 5: 6– 8

Kurschner, Alan (2014-03-19). Antichrist Before the Day of the Lord: What Every Christian Needs to Know about the Return of Christ (p. 179). Eschatos Publishing. Kindle Edition.

 

[Justified]

A covenantal approach is much better than an event-driven approach, and will allow a preterist position without denying what yet lies in the future in relation to the second coming of Christ. If we read these passages in the light of the Old Testament eschatology as it related to the nation of Israel, and then see the day of Christ as an eschatological judgment which triumphs over the nations, many of the terms will make better sense and fit together without having to squeeze them into a timeline.

Mr. Winzer, I found that very insightful. Do you mind expanding on that, as it relates to the Olivet Discourse?

 

[pkananen]

A covenantal approach is much better than an event-driven approach, and will allow a preterist position without denying what yet lies in the future in relation to the second coming of Christ. If we read these passages in the light of the Old Testament eschatology as it related to the nation of Israel, and then see the day of Christ as an eschatological judgment which triumphs over the nations, many of the terms will make better sense and fit together without having to squeeze them into a timeline.

Mr. Winzer, I found that very insightful. Do you mind expanding on that, as it relates to the Olivet Discourse?

The Olivet Discourse contains a specific reference in Matt. 24:21 to Daniel 12:1-2. I would argue this is the ultimately the same future event as described in Zechariah 12-14, Joel 3, and Ezekiel 39.

 

[TylerRay]

A covenantal approach is much better than an event-driven approach, and will allow a preterist position without denying what yet lies in the future in relation to the second coming of Christ. If we read these passages in the light of the Old Testament eschatology as it related to the nation of Israel, and then see the day of Christ as an eschatological judgment which triumphs over the nations, many of the terms will make better sense and fit together without having to squeeze them into a timeline.

I found Fairbairn's commentary on Ezekiel to provide essential interpretive tools for discerning the meaning of several NT prophetic passages.

 

[MW]

I found Fairbairn's commentary on Ezekiel to provide essential interpretive tools for discerning the meaning of several NT prophetic passages.

That is an excellent commentary, perhaps because he understood typology so well and has applied it with moderation and insight.

 

[MW]

Mr. Winzer, I found that very insightful. Do you mind expanding on that, as it relates to the Olivet Discourse?

It is a large subject. Because there are many different lines of thought which can be pursued it might be best if I choose one as an example -- the destruction of the temple.

In Matt. 24:2 the Lord spoke of the stones of the temple being thrown down. The temple was the meeting place between God and man, the place where God had put His name. All its significance in redemptive history derives from this fact. It was the house of God, and this made it sacred and secure. The only way it could be destroyed is if God vacated His place. That is what the judgment oracle brings to our attention. It was not directing the reader to think of an event which physically left the temple in ruins. In light of the "woes" of chapter 23, and the fulness of retribution there pronounced, the house of Jerusalem would be covenantally "desolate." It would be divested of its sacred significance. The temple would therefore cease to be the house of God. The fact the temple was afterwards destroyed was only possible because it had already ceased to be a sacred place in covenantal terms.

 

[Turtle]

I have been studying the Olivet Discourse (Mark 13 especially, but parallels too) and I cannot find an interpretation that makes sense to me. I feel pushed by necessity to at least a partially futurist reading, as 1 Thess 4-5 appears parallel to the OD (and maybe even 2 Thess 2).

However, I know there are some partial preterists on this board. I find the preterist reading of the Olivet Discourse very consistent and the simplest. However, I do not understand the following:

1. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11 seem to be parallel with the Olivet Discourse with similar language and concepts. 1 Thess 4:15 even implies that Paul is building his teaching upon it. I'm not sure how one can read the OD as AD70, but 1 Thess 4 as the future resurrection. It seems to me that hyper-preterists are more consistent here to recognize the parallels.

2. On a related note, I am not sure how the OD's Abomination of Desolation (drawing from Daniel) and 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 (Daniel 11:36) can refer to separate events. If the AoD is AD70 and 2 Thess 2 remains future, why would Jesus not mention the latter event in the Discourse? Especially as the AoD is what precedes His "coming". However, if 2 Thess 2 is AD70 (and I've read a compelling argument that Dan 11:36f refers to John Giscala), then how can he be killed "by the appearance of [Christ's] coming" (2 Thess 2:8)?

The Thessalonian passages compel me to an almost entirely futurist reading of the Olivet Discourse, but this does not feel at all a natural reading of Mark 13 and parallels.

I'd certainly appreciate any help working through these connections!

Since you are making a comparison of Preterist and Futurist interpretations, may I ask if the confounding phrase is "this generation," as that phrase appears to provide a clue of timing or sequence.

Would there even be a Preterist interpretation but for that phrase "this generation?"

 

[Turtle]

Some propose “this generation” simply refers to that group of hearers that had a common time of life together (requiring at least a partial interpretation of short time upon the Olivet Discourse), but In my humble opinion this meaning is inconsistent with the context. Rather than dwell on those inconsistencies, I think it is helpful to consider another meaning of “generation” may be used here.

The term “generation” is also used to refer to a class of people that share a common condition of heart, motive, and manner of life (i.e. a common “type of a people”), without necessarily sharing a common time of life. Following are several verses that use the word generation in this way to showcase the “types” of a people, rather than the “times” of a people:

“There is a generation that curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother.
There is a generation that are pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed from their filthiness.
There is a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up.
There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men." ~~ Proverbs 30

"Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." ~~ Psalm 12 (In context, this generation are those who speak vanity, have flattering lips, a double heart, speak proud things, oppress the poor, etc.)

“Your own sword hath devoured your prophets, like a destroying lion. O generation, see ye the word of the LORD." ~~ Jeremiah 2

“Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.” ~ Matthew 23 (Clearly the people to whom Jesus spoke did not personally slay Abel and all the other prophets forward--Jeremiah also spoke in similar manner. The hearers were of the same generation… the same type of a people.)

“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,….And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.” ~~ Acts 2​

These verses, and others, persuade me that “this generation” can refer to the group of people that have always been killing the prophets, causing the persecutions, opposing the elect, and will continue to do so until…. the coming of the Son of Man. “This generation shall not pass until…” “This generation” will pass, but not until they have done all the things predicted, the things that the disciples are instructed to “endure until the end.”

The disciples asked “when” and “for signs”, but the answer was “what” they would suffer, from the generation that will never relent—will get worse— until made to pass, and “what” they were called to do in light of this.

 

[OneOfHisElect]

Not sure if someone has mentioned this man before but one of the best teachers of full preterism in Don K. Preston and you can find him on youtube. He is not reformed but he does know his stance on the issue and defends it very well. He certainly has me considering preterism. Hope this helps!

 

[arapahoepark]

Matthew 24:36 on is talking about his second coming answering the second question that was ask 1"when will this take place, 2 what is the sign of your coming?"

 

[Turtle]

In their questions, the disciples did not ask "What shall we do?" yet in the answer there are 10-15 exhortations.