Preterism

[Southpaw]

I recently finished reading The Last Days According to Jesus by RC Sproul. I personally stand in the Amillennial position, perhaps with much overlap with Postmil since they have much in common.

I found the book to be somewhat frustrating to read. I expected more from RC. His constant reference to J. Stuart Russell made me think that the title was misleading. To his credit it did get a little bit better toward the end of the book.

By definition, all of us would be partial preterists in the sense that we believe that some prophecy is fulfilled. But it seems that even to use the term partial preterist means taking things further than I would ever intend to go.

RC, a partial preterist, held that basically all of the Olivet Discourse and much of Revelation finds its fulfillment in 70 AD.

With so many prophecies in Scripture having a primary and secondary fulfillment, is it really necessary to divide the Olivet Discourse into categories? Is it either or, or is it both and?

Nothing has moved me from the Amil position yet. I would be interested to hear from others where they stand. How far can you go with preterism before crossing into heresy? It seems that many passages are emptied of significance at best, and resurrection hope is removed at worst.

 

[Steve Ski]

I won't presume to tell you what to believe, but I will respectfully challenge you to take a forced march through the NT from the perspective that the destruction of the temple was a really, really big deal, and was anticipated as imminent by the NT authors based on Christ's infallible prophecies.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I recently finished reading The Last Days According to Jesus by RC Sproul. I personally stand in the Amillennial position, perhaps with much overlap with Postmil since they have much in common.

I found the book to be somewhat frustrating to read. I expected more from RC. His constant reference to J. Stuart Russell made me think that the title was misleading. To his credit it did get a little bit better toward the end of the book.

By definition, all of us would be partial preterists in the sense that we believe that some prophecy is fulfilled. But it seems that even to use the term partial preterist means taking things further than I would ever intend to go.

RC, a partial preterist, held that basically all of the Olivet Discourse and much of Revelation finds its fulfillment in 70 AD.

With so many prophecies in Scripture having a primary and secondary fulfillment, is it really necessary to divide the Olivet Discourse into categories? Is it either or, or is it both and?

Nothing has moved me from the Amil position yet. I would be interested to hear from others where they stand. How far can you go with preterism before crossing into heresy? It seems that many passages are emptied of significance at best, and resurrection hope is removed at worst.

I'm not sure I understand the question. Mt. 24:1-28 was fulfilled in the first century.

Verse 29 and following concerns the end of the world and Christ's return.

The disciples' question in v. 3 clearly sets Christ up to speak of those two matters distinctly.

 

[Southpaw]

I'm not sure I understand the question. Mt. 24:1-28 was fulfilled in the first century.

Verse 29 and following concerns the end of the world and Christ's return.

The disciples' question in v. 3 clearly sets Christ up to speak of those two matters distinctly.

And yet Matthew 24:34 appears to place all of this into a more immediate timeframe. And much of what we read up to verse 28 is clearly ongoing.

I won't presume to tell you what to believe, but I will respectfully challenge you to take a forced march through the NT from the perspective that the destruction of the temple was a really, really big deal, and was anticipated as imminent by the NT authors based on Christ's infallible prophecies.

Is the second advent and last judgment a big deal? Is the judgment on Jerusalem not a foreshadowing of The Day of the Lord?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Mt. 24:1-28 was fulfilled in the first century.

Verse 29 and following concerns the end of the world and Christ's return.

The disciples' question in v. 3 clearly sets Christ up to speak of those two matters distinctly.

How do you treat Matthew 24:34?

 

[Steve Ski]

Agreed that the second advent/last judgment is/are a big deal.



I do not know if the judgment on Jerusalem is a foreshadowing of The Day of the Lord (I assume here you mean the second advent/last judgment). Is there biblical warrant for this?

 

[Steve Ski]

• John proclaimed Christ as the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world.
• God the Father said “This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him”.
• Christ completed His work, proclaimed that it was finished, died, rose, ascended and sat down.
• The Holy Spirit was poured out with attendant signs and wonders.
• Paul was converted, which, at least in human terms, was no mean feat. The man was a hardened criminal (Acts 22:4).

And yet, the apostate Jews continued to sacrifice lambs in the temple as if none of the above ever happened. I don’t want to speak for God, but wouldn’t this be infuriating? (See Matt 21:33-41.)

There are many passages in the NT which have an imminent tone. As you read them ask yourself

• Does this passage apply to a future great tribulation? OR
• Does this passage apply, sort of randomly, to the entire inter-advental age? (Quoting Kline; “prosperity and adversity being experienced in a manner largely unpredictable because of the inscrutable sovereignty of the divine will that dispenses them in mysterious ways.” OR
• Does this passage apply to the impending days of vengeance promised by Christ in Luke 21:22.

 

[Charles Johnson]

And yet Matthew 24:34 appears to place all of this into a more immediate timeframe. And much of what we read up to verse 28 is clearly ongoing.

Is the second advent and last judgment a big deal? Is the judgment on Jerusalem not a foreshadowing of The Day of the Lord?


How do you treat Matthew 24:34?

In v. 34 and 36 he is drawing a contrast between the events of the 1st century and those of the end of the world, which the disciples mistakenly thought would occur together, given how they phrased the question in v. 3.

V. 34 says certain things ("these things") will occur within a generation. Namely, the destruction of the temple and everything else described in v. 4-28. All of this took place around A.D 68 to 70, as one learns from reading Josephus and other historians.

And v. 36 contrasts "that day and hour" of Christ's second coming with "these things," stating emphatically that, unlike "these things" which will take place within a generation, "that day and hour" will take place at a time known by no man.

 

[Southpaw]

In v. 34 and 36 he is drawing a contrast between the events of the 1st century and those of the end of the world, which the disciples mistakenly thought would occur together, given how they phrased the question in v. 3.

V. 34 says certain things ("these things") will occur within a generation. Namely, the destruction of the temple and everything else described in v. 4-28. All of this took place around A.D 68 to 70, as one learns from reading Josephus and other historians.

And v. 36 contrasts "that day and hour" of Christ's second coming with "these things," stating emphatically that, unlike "these things" which will take place within a generation, "that day and hour" will take place at a time known by no man.

Thank you for your reply. I would agree that something must be done with v. 34. For hyperpreterists, the literal interpretation here is an immovable puzzle piece for which mountains will be moved in order to keep it in place.

Is there support for only "certain things" when all translations include "all these things"?

I don't have the benefit of Greek fluency, but I wondered if "genētai" would allow for a translation something like "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things begin to take place."

 

[Southpaw]

• John proclaimed Christ as the Lamb of God which takes away the sins of the world.
• God the Father said “This is my beloved Son, hear ye Him”.
• Christ completed His work, proclaimed that it was finished, died, rose, ascended and sat down.
• The Holy Spirit was poured out with attendant signs and wonders.
• Paul was converted, which, at least in human terms, was no mean feat. The man was a hardened criminal (Acts 22:4).

And yet, the apostate Jews continued to sacrifice lambs in the temple as if none of the above ever happened. I don’t want to speak for God, but wouldn’t this be infuriating? (See Matt 21:33-41.)

There are many passages in the NT which have an imminent tone. As you read them ask yourself

• Does this passage apply to a future great tribulation? OR
• Does this passage apply, sort of randomly, to the entire inter-advental age? (Quoting Kline; “prosperity and adversity being experienced in a manner largely unpredictable because of the inscrutable sovereignty of the divine will that dispenses them in mysterious ways.” OR
• Does this passage apply to the impending days of vengeance promised by Christ in Luke 21:22.

Thanks for sharing this. So you would be more inclined to see texts as speaking of one or the other, and not in any way overlapped?

Regarding imminent tone, I believe that a proper Christian mindset is one of expectant waiting, as if the Lord's return is imminent. This is proper for every generation, as it was in the early church. Many postmils will speak of our day still being the early church. I find this mindset to be errant, even if the Day is far off. It is not for us to know the times and seasons. But that day will come like a thief in the night.

 

[Charles Johnson]

Thank you for your reply. I would agree that something must be done with v. 34. For hyperpreterists, the literal interpretation here is an immovable puzzle piece for which mountains will be moved in order to keep it in place.

"Before this generation passes away" is entirely literal. But the things that had to take place before that generation passed away were only those of v. 4-28.

Is there support for only "certain things" when all translations include "all these things"?

The contrast is set up specifically by the contrast between "these" and "that." That is very common in Greek and Latin. It's like how we use "the former" and "the latter" in English.

I don't have the benefit of Greek fluency, but I wondered if "genētai" would allow for a translation something like "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things begin to take place."

There is no need to translate it that way (and it wouldn't really be linguistically sound), since "all these things" is all of these things, "these" being the events of v. 4-28, not all things whatsoever that are mentioned in the chapter.

 

[Southpaw]

"Before this generation passes away" is entirely literal. But the things that had to take place before that generation passed away were only those of v. 4-28.



The contrast is set up specifically by the contrast between "these" and "that." That is very common in Greek and Latin. It's like how we use "the former" and "the latter" in English.

There is no need to translate it that way (and it wouldn't really be linguistically sound), since "all these things" is all of these things, "these" being the events of v. 4-28, not all things whatsoever that are mentioned in the chapter.

This is really helpful, I didn't fully follow you the first time. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Thank you for your reply. I would agree that something must be done with v. 34. For hyperpreterists, the literal interpretation here is an immovable puzzle piece for which mountains will be moved in order to keep it in place.

Is there support for only "certain things" when all translations include "all these things"?

I don't have the benefit of Greek fluency, but I wondered if "genētai" would allow for a translation something like "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things begin to take place."

I don't really want to answer for anyone else, but I do want to join the conversation.

I'm amillennial, yet I think Jesus refers in vv9-34 to the disciple's original Q., i.e. to the destruction of the Temple they so much admired. I, like Charles, think "this generation" ἡ γενεὰ αὕτη refers to the generation (of years/life, 40yrs) in which Jesus' was speaking. The full or hyper preterists who adopt this view too, make the unwarranted assumption that Jesus offers no correction to the disciples' original thoughts. They apply everything Jesus says to the same limited time frame. They cannot see that Jesus teaches in order to clarify: there will be a special judgment on the current OT order that clings to their outmoded power structure, along with their followers; there will be a span of unspecified time in which these disciples and any additional generations of disciples will live in the distressing world by faith and the power of their Lord; and there will be a final future Day of Judgment when absolute differentiation of sheep from goats will be revealed.

πάντα ταῦτα (all these [things]) refers to the previous discussion. γένηται (aorist/subjuctive/middle) doesn't lend itself to a sense more in keeping with a imperfect. There is such thing as "inceptive aorist" but that points to the origin of a state of being. In my opinion, Jesus' teaching and terminology to this moment do not support such a reading; it seems forced in order to fit a preconception.

I think the poster's statement "certain things" simply refers to the fact that Jesus divides the original question. πάντα ταῦτα, v33, is accompanied by an emphatic ὑμεῖς, "YOU, when you [part of the verb form ἴδητε] see all these things." Jesus speaks to his audience before him. What things? That which has just been told them; not "...and everything I'm about to tell you."

v36, Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ ὥρας, "Concerning now (the) day THAT ONE and [that] hour...." This is language that points to the second part of the original Q., where the disciples interpreted Jesus dismissal of the Temple glory as an end-of-the-world concept. They asked v3, πότε ταῦτα ἔσται, "when these [things] will be?" and also τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς... συντελείας, "what the sign the... consummation?" and their Lord's παρουσίας [noun] "coming," a term they associated with divine judgment. "The Son of Man ἐρχόμενον coming [verb]" (v30) is judgment language, and this portion after v28 is not meant to invoke the ultimate End except by way of implication and anticipation.

To the disciples' mind, the end of the Temple (from which they envisioned Christ reigning, and they got sweet corner offices) surely marked the end of time. They did not conceive properly of an interadvential era. The preterist, for his part, judges the disciples and their former educators among their people to have not been much in error about the arrival of the Christ, and that his first and second comings were hardly separate, if by a short trip to heaven he would haste his return and completion of the physical destruction of all that earthly opposition to him so recently displayed in Jerusalem.

This was incorrect, an effect of limited vision, of not knowing the full extent of the world both its physical breadth or the time reserved for bringing future saints into it on the way into the eternal kingdom. The apostles' own experience of kingdom realities during their earthly lifetimes, and the experience of many subsequent generations of believers upon their witness prove the correctness of a revised assessment based on Jesus' teaching.

 

[Steve Ski]

Thanks for sharing this. So you would be more inclined to see texts as speaking of one or the other, and not in any way overlapped?

Regarding imminent tone, I believe that a proper Christian mindset is one of expectant waiting, as if the Lord's return is imminent. This is proper for every generation, as it was in the early church. Many postmils will speak of our day still being the early church. I find this mindset to be errant, even if the Day is far off. It is not for us to know the times and seasons. But that day will come like a thief in the night.

Let’s try some examples. Just the verses are cited here, not to be a “proof-texter”, but to avoid the temptation to underline or italicize anything, and because this Board has such a nice way of adding hyperlinks. Of course, if you dig in, please read the context.

Romans 16:20, 1 Corinthians 10:11, 1 Thessalonians 1:10, 1 Thessalonians 2:16, Hebrews 12:27, James 5:3, 1 Peter 4:7, 1 John 2:18.

I’d see most if not all of these as referring to the days of vengeance promised in Luke 21:22, or the years leading up .

This in no way takes away from imminency, at least personal imminency (Luke 12:20, James 1:11, James 4:14).

 

[Southpaw]

Thank you all for your input. I will hopefully pick this up again soon, but unfortunately I don't have the time to dive deeper today.

 

[Calvin Codger]

Hello Southpaw.

Pairing an already/not yet understanding of the new heavens and new earth with a 70 AD temple destruction of the (old) heaven and earth in Matthew 24:35 yields biblically satisfying results. In particular, this clarifies the design and meaning of the temple, accounts for the OT temple references, harmonizes Luke 17 and Matt 24, and affirms the connection between Isiah 65 and 2 Peter 3. This opens the floodgates to a clear understanding of Matthew 24 through Matthew 25:31. This results in the application of the “days of Noah” and “thief in the night” prophecies to the 70 AD destruction in all cases.

See the explanation here:

Heaven and Earth will Pass Away

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. Matthew 24:35 Matthew 24:35 mentions the passing away of heaven and earth in the context of the…

postalpundit.com

 

[Calvin Codger]

In v. 34 and 36 he is drawing a contrast between the events of the 1st century and those of the end of the world, which the disciples mistakenly thought would occur together, given how they phrased the question in v. 3.

V. 34 says certain things ("these things") will occur within a generation. Namely, the destruction of the temple and everything else described in v. 4-28. All of this took place around A.D 68 to 70, as one learns from reading Josephus and other historians.

And v. 36 contrasts "that day and hour" of Christ's second coming with "these things," stating emphatically that, unlike "these things" which will take place within a generation, "that day and hour" will take place at a time known by no man.

Hi Charles.

This approach introduces an artificial discrepancy between Luke 17 and Matthew 34.
Matt 24:17 18 warns the disciples regarding how and when to flee. Matt 24:26-27 warns the disciple not to chase after false messiahs and explains where and what to look for. Matt 24:28 describes the gathering of vultures surrounding the corpse.
If Matt 24:34-36 is the transition, then the “days of Noah” prophecy point to the second coming. However, Luke places the “days of Noah” prophecy before 70 AD (the Matt 24:17-18 AD 70 warning to flee) which creates an unsolvable ordering discrepancy. Forcing Matt 24:34-36 to be a transitional pivotal point in the discourse makes the events order-dependent.

in my opinion, it is better to understand Matt 24:1 - 25:30 as referring to 70 AD. Matt 25:30 ends the 70 AD discussion. Matt 25:31ff starts the discussion on the second coming ("end of the age"). In this case, the Olivet discourse events described by Jesus are not order dependent. They are explained in differing order in Luke and Matt but they all apply to "this generation" 70 AD destruction.

 

[Calvin Codger]

Thank you for your reply. I would agree that something must be done with v. 34. For hyperpreterists, the literal interpretation here is an immovable puzzle piece for which mountains will be moved in order to keep it in place.

Hi Southpaw. If you're interested, here is a partial preterist understanding of v34 that you might find useful.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

This approach introduces an artificial discrepancy between Luke 17 and Matthew 34.
Matt 24:17 18 warns the disciples regarding how and when to flee. Matt 24:26-27 warns the disciple not to chase after false messiahs and explains where and what to look for. Matt 24:28 describes the gathering of vultures surrounding the corpse.
If Matt 24:34-36 is the transition, then the “days of Noah” prophecy point to the second coming. However, Luke places the “days of Noah” prophecy before the Matt 24:17-18 AD 70 warning to flee which creates an unsolvable ordering discrepancy. Forcing Matt 24:34-36 to be a transitional pivotal point in the discourse makes the events order-dependent.
in my opinion, it is better to understand Matt 24:1 - 25:30 as referring to 70 AD. Matt 25:31ff starts the discussion on the second coming ("end of the age")

I'm curious about your reasoning, juxtaposing Luke 17:20-37 with the Olivet discourse of Mt.24 & 25. Other than comparable language, the incidents are completely different. In Luke, Jesus' further teaching to his disciples comes on the heels of an answer he gave the Pharisees, demanding to know details concerning the coming of his kingdom. Jesus teaching was repetitive (the better to make it memorable), but not always did his cadences and phrasing imply the exact same resulting knowledge; particularly when the contexts diverge.

The "coming of the kingdom" is phrasing applicable to various scenes. In Mt.12:28, the sense is clearly that the kingdom is COME in the immediate presence of the King. Similarly Lk.10:9, the former being healing from demon possession, the latter being healing of disease. It's rather doubtful the Pharisees' expectation for how they might see, and be convinced of Jesus' kingdom-arrival was compatible with the truth; as Jesus' reply to them seems designed to confound their visual-expectation of a glory-kingdom of earthly proportion.

Jesus' commentary in Mt.24, invoking the days of Noah, should be referred particularly to the judgment of the end of time (given the Mt. context); even if similar terminology in Luke is judged more particularly suited to reference of proximate judgment about to fall on the Jewish state of the time. There is no reason to set the two statements at odds, if the illustration is used in two contexts (not simultaneous and liable to confusion). Furthermore, if Jesus was using the Lukan teaching to testify to proximate judgments, the Matthean teaching takes something already familiar in Jesus' teaching and extends it to its ultimate reference. Again, there is no logical reason supporting the idea of "discrepancy," absent the view that the teaching in both Gospels and contexts must be all of a piece.

 

[Calvin Codger]

I'm curious about your reasoning, juxtaposing Luke 17:20-37 with the Olivet discourse of Mt.24 & 25. Other than comparable language, the incidents are completely different. In Luke, Jesus' further teaching to his disciples comes on the heels of an answer he gave the Pharisees, demanding to know details concerning the coming of his kingdom. Jesus teaching was repetitive (the better to make it memorable), but not always did his cadences and phrasing imply the exact same resulting knowledge; particularly when the contexts diverge.

The "coming of the kingdom" is phrasing applicable to various scenes. In Mt.12:28, the sense is clearly that the kingdom is COME in the immediate presence of the King. Similarly Lk.10:9, the former being healing from demon possession, the latter being healing of disease. It's rather doubtful the Pharisees' expectation for how they might see, and be convinced of Jesus' kingdom-arrival was compatible with the truth; as Jesus' reply to them seems designed to confound their visual-expectation of a glory-kingdom of earthly proportion.

Jesus' commentary in Mt.24, invoking the days of Noah, should be referred particularly to the judgment of the end of time (given the Mt. context); even if similar terminology in Luke is judged more particularly suited to reference of proximate judgment about to fall on the Jewish state of the time. There is no reason to set the two statements at odds, if the illustration is used in two contexts (not simultaneous and liable to confusion). Furthermore, if Jesus was using the Lukan teaching to testify to proximate judgments, the Matthean teaching takes something already familiar in Jesus' teaching and extends it to its ultimate reference. Again, there is no logical reason supporting the idea of "discrepancy," absent the view that the teaching in both Gospels and contexts must be all of a piece.

Hello Rev Bruce.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you.

This is my reasoning:
Luke 17:22–37 describes five Olivet-Discourse prophetic events that are identical to those found in Matthew 24. The difference between Matthew 24 and Luke 17 is the order of the events in relation to Matthew 24:35–36, a characteristic of the passages that are difficult to explain if the order of events is important. Using Matthew 24 as a reference, Luke places the analogy of Noah's ark (Matt. 24:37-39) before the events described in Matthew 24:17–18 ("let him who is on the housetop not go down"), verse 27 ("for just as the lightning comes from the east"), and verse 28 ("wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather").

I agree with you that these are likely two separate incidents. However, I do not believe Jesus would use this terminology to point to two different events. That seems arbitrary and misleading for his hearers. I believe both Luke 17:22–37 and Matt 24 point to the 70 AD destruction and they foreshadow an impending event of immense importance.

If we number the five prophetic events of Matthew 24 as 1–2–3–4–5, Luke arranges them in the order 2–4–1–5–3. It seems strange that Jesus would mix events from two separate comings, spanning 2,000 years using the same terminology.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Hello Rev Bruce.
I greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you.

This is my reasoning:
Luke 17:22–37 describes five Olivet-Discourse prophetic events that are identical to those found in Matthew 24. The difference between Matthew 24 and Luke 17 is the order of the events in relation to Matthew 24:35–36, a characteristic of the passages that are difficult to explain if the order of events is important. Using Matthew 24 as a reference, Luke places the analogy of Noah's ark (Matt. 24:37-39) before the events described in Matthew 24:17–18 ("let him who is on the housetop not go down"), verse 27 ("for just as the lightning comes from the east"), and verse 28 ("wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather").

I agree with you that these are likely two separate incidents. However, I do not believe Jesus would use this terminology to point to two different events. That seems arbitrary and misleading for his hearers. I believe both Luke 17:22–37 and Matt 24 point to the 70 AD destruction and they foreshadow an impending event of immense importance.

If we number the five prophetic events of Matthew 24 as 1–2–3–4–5, Luke arranges them in the order 2–4–1–5–3. It seems strange that Jesus would mix events from two separate comings, spanning 2,000 years using the same terminology.

Thank you for explaining. We'll leave it to the readers to sort it out.

 

[Southpaw]

Hi Southpaw. If you're interested, here is a partial preterist understanding of v34 that you might find useful.

Interesting read, but what support do you have for equating “heaven and earth” to the temple? What are NT Wright’s sources?

 

[Calvin Codger]

Interesting read, but what support do you have for equating “heaven and earth” to the temple? What are NT Wright’s sources?

I was referencing Wright and Beale. The scriptures are the source.

Old Testament “heaven and earth” cosmic decreation language provides the context through which the disciples would have understood the Olivet discourse and in Matthew 24:35 in particular. Likewise, the Old Testament cosmic decreation passages provide the interpretive antecedent that guides our understanding of similar language in the New Testament. In Isaiah 51:15–16, we read “I am the Lord your God, who stirs up the sea so that its waves roar—the Lord of hosts is his name. And I have put my words in your mouth and covered you in the shadow of my hand, establishing the heavens and laying the foundations of the earth, and saying to Zion, ‘You are my people.’” Here, God likens his covenantal relationship with His people to the creation of the heavens and the earth. If the institution of God’s covenant with his people is likened to the creation of the heavens and the earth then it follows that the dissolution of this covenant is likened to heaven and earth passing away. That is, the dissolution of the Old Covenant and the AD 70 destruction of the temple is likened to heaven and earth passing away. In short, the establishment and the destruction are described with the heaven and earth phraseology. In reference to the impending destruction of the First Temple and burning down of the city of Jerusalem (587 BC). Jeremiah 4:23 says, “I looked on the earth, and behold, it was without form and void; and to the heavens, and they had no light.” Here, Jeremiah portrays this judgment as a reversal of the creation process. Jerusalem and the temple cease to exist and this is likened to the earth being once again without form and void. The literal earth is not predicted to pass away. In fact, it never passes away. In Psalm 104:5 David said that God “laid the foundation of the earth, that it shall not be removed forever.” And in Ecclesiastes 1:4 Solomon said, “A generation goes, and a generation comes, but the earth remains forever.” In Matthew 24:35 Jesus is not speaking of a literal passing away of the heavens and earth, but of the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple and all of the associated rituals and ceremonies.

 

[KMK]

Nothing has moved me from the Amil position yet. I would be interested to hear from others where they stand. How far can you go with preterism before crossing into heresy?

Hyperpreterism holds that every prophecy has been fulfilled, Jesus has returned and ushered in a new heaven and new earth, and we all live in our resurrected bodies now. That is heresy.

AD 70 can bear a lot of weight, but not "the eternal weight of glory."

 

[Steve Ski]

Hyperpreterism holds that every prophecy has been fulfilled, Jesus has returned and ushered in a new heaven and new earth, and we all live in our resurrected bodies now. That is heresy.

AD 70 can bear a lot of weight, but not "the eternal weight of glory."

Would you (or anyone) agree that Christ came in judgment to superintend the final deconstruction of the OT sacramental/sacrificial system ca 70 AD?

(No, I'm not suggesting anything like the consummation/final judgment.)

 

[Charles Johnson]

Hi Charles.

If Matt 24:34-36 is the transition,

You've misunderstood brother. I said v. 29 is the transition, and v. 1-28 are about 70. A.D.

v. 34-36 are comparing and contrasting.

 

[Calvin Codger]

You've misunderstood brother. I said v. 29 is the transition, and v. 1-28 are about 70. A.D.

v. 34-36 are comparing and contrasting.

Ok, gotcha Charles. That is also how DA Carson sees it.
In order to get there, Matt 24:34, "Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place" must be construed to mean "until all of these things begin to take place." Although I love Carson, I cannot accept that approach. It seems like some gymnastics to keep the premillennial position intact. Do you think the original hearers of this message from the Lord would have understood it this way?
I respect your opinion Charles. Thank you for pointing this out.

 

[MW]

How far can you go with preterism before crossing into heresy?

The way preterism has come to be taught it has been linked with the events culminating in A.D. 70. I think the instinct is right but the focus is wrong. The prophecies have been fulfilled but it is in terms of the covenant God made with the nation of Israel. What takes place in 70AD only relates to the consequences of the fulfilment, not the fulfilment itself.

The prophecies speak to life in covenant with God. There is an "ideal" at their root. Land, temple, priests, and sacrifices are at the hub of that ideal life. The heavens and the earth are witnesses to the covenant. Therefore cosmological language is used to describe the fulfilling of covenant sanctions on the nation.

The covenantal curses have fallen on the nation of Israel. The covenantal blessings are all in the possession of the "saints." The New Testament epistles deliberately use this word to describe the recipients of grace and peace from the God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Daniel's Son of man has taken the kingdom and given it to the saints. It is all realised on one level. But then it is in "heavenly places." We await the personal appearing of the Son from heaven to consummate it. These things are not-yet.

So on one level preterism is fully correct. On another it is misdirected.

 

[Steve Ski]

In Rev 2:5, Rev 2:16 and Rev 3:3 Christ threatens to come to judge the 1st century churches. These verses establish the fact that Christ is not tethered to a heavenly hitching post, he can come at will before the consummation/final judgment.

In Matt 10:23 Christ promises he will come after the disciples have been brought before governors and kings and before they finish going through the towns of Israel. Granted, the initial context is Matt 10:5, but there is a progression from their immediate sending out to their spirit-filled (Matt 10:20) post-resurrection sending out.

 

[Southpaw]

Thank you to everyone for their contributions to this thread. I have looked carefully at each post, and certainly have some takeaways that I won't forget. Eschatology has been an area of focus in the current season of my life. I have always held an amil view, and I don't expect that to change, but several times I have opened my mind to reviewing other perspectives, especially postmillennialism.

 

[Laborer for the Lord]

Let's say there's someone amongst us board members (two guesses as to who, lol) whose responsibilites precludes them from wading into the deep waters of the eschatological literature that's been inundating the Church in recent decades. What is a good beginning springboard resource, either commentary or otherwise, for walking through the Olivet Discourse as well as other New Testament passages as parsed through the lens of Preterism and Amillennialism? In other words, what would you consider the best primer on inaugurated eschatology? Perhaps something that delineates how many points of views exist as regards preterism within the bounds of orthodoxy?