Preterism

[DanSSwing]

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."

Many orthodox, partial preterists also believe that Jesus ushered in the new heavens and that we currently live on the new earth, on which Jesus reigns in the midst of His enemies as the rock that struck Nebuchadnezzar's statue continues to grow to fill the earth. I'd argue that's the logical conclusion if you understand the gravity of the end of the temple system and the old covenant, the spiritual reality of the devil and his angels being evicted from heaven and dramatically involved in the life of Israel from the time of Christ through 70 AD, and the worldwide expansion of the gospel since then.

 

[DanSSwing]

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.

There's a big difference between discussing doctrine and discussing exegesis of certain passages. For example, I've read Russell (based on Sproul's and Spurgeon's recommendations) and found his exegesis of the synoptic gospels very convincing but his exegesis of John and other parts of the NT not convincing at all. (Note that even Russell claims to be a partial preterist, though he goes further towards the "full" direction that I do.)

One can believe that even ALL of the Olivet discourse is about 64-70 AD yet still believe in a future final consummation, resurrection, judgment, etc. just as one can believe that the KJV's I John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible yet still have an orthodox Trinitarian position based on other passages. The problem comes when you insist that all prophecy has been completely fulfilled and God's telos for creation has been achieved. Of course there's another problem, largely undiscussed, with completely ignoring the Biblical authors insistence that the things they are discussing are literally "about to" happen and that the specific audiences they are addressing will see it with their own eyes.

 

[Calvin Codger]

Perhaps something that delineates how many points of views exist as regards preterism within the bounds of orthodoxy?

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.

This is from Gentry's site. It letter with many well known signatories challenging Demar on his tolerance (advocacy?) for heretical hyper-preterism.
I think It clearly establishes the limits of orthodoxy when employing a preterist approach as a hermeneutical tool for interpreting certain time-bound passages.

"Those simple yes-or-no questions are now simplified and clarified even more:

Do you believe in a future bodily, glorious return of Christ?
Do you believe in a future physical, general resurrection of the dead?
Do you believe history will end with the Final Judgment of all men?

To refuse to affirm the future, physical resurrection, the final judgment of the righteous and the unrighteous, and the tactile reality of the eternal state is to refuse to affirm critical elements of the Christian faith. To contradict these doctrines is not merely to contradict a few specific biblical texts, it is to contradict indispensable aspects of the Christian faith and the biblical worldview."

 

[Southpaw]

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.

In regard to the view that Jesus is pointing to two different events, what about other prophecies that have multiple fulfillments, with the primary fulfillment being further out?

The new covenant marked a change in the way God dwells among His people. Not in 70AD, but at Pentecost, although the destruction of the temple makes it unquestionable. At Christ's return, it will make a change in the way God dwells among His people.

Both come with judgment, both mark a change in God's dwelling place with man. Similar events, similar signs?

Perhaps why the orders are changed in Luke and Matthew support the idea that these events shouldn't be separated, and that it is not one or the other, but both events in view.

 

[Southpaw]

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

I also believe that this earth will continue. But I don't think Christ's words here demand the understanding that heaven and earth will be utterly destroyed and replaced. We also, will pass away, but we believe in a resurrection, and that our new, immortal bodies will have a degree of continuity with our mortal bodies. So the earth will be made new. “Behold, I am making all things new,” and not all new things.

I see this as a future event based on Romans 8:21 and observation of the world as we know it. We are the firstfruits, the rest will come in the time God has appointed. James 1:18.

 

[Calvin Codger]

I also believe that this earth will continue. But I don't think Christ's words here demand the understanding that heaven and earth will be utterly destroyed and replaced. We also, will pass away, but we believe in a resurrection, and that our new, immortal bodies will have a degree of continuity with our mortal bodies. So the earth will be made new. “Behold, I am making all things new,” and not all new things.

I see this as a future event based on Romans 8:21 and observation of the world as we know it. We are the firstfruits, the rest will come in the time God has appointed. James 1:18.

Hi Southpaw. Its not clear to me why you associated these comments with my quoted post. I agree with the things that you said. However, what you said above is neither here nor there with regards to the post you quoted (so far as I can tell). Perhaps you could elaborate? I appreciate the discussion, brother.

 

[Southpaw]

Another

Hi Southpaw. Its not clear to me why you associated these comments with my quoted post. I agree with the things that you said. However, what you said above is neither here nor there with regards to the post you quoted (so far as I can tell). Perhaps you could elaborate? I appreciate the discussion, brother.

Sorry, it is a little unclear. My purpose was to point out that heaven and earth passing away is not equal to heaven and earth being destroyed, and we can arrive there without understanding "heaven and earth" as meaning "the temple." Hope that makes sense.

 

[Calvin Codger]

Another

Sorry, it is a little unclear. My purpose was to point out that heaven and earth passing away is not equal to heaven and earth being destroyed, and we can arrive there without understanding "heaven and earth" as meaning "the temple." Hope that makes sense.

Psalm 104:5 and Ecclesiastes 1:4 prove that the earth will not be destroyed. The NHNE It’s a creatio ex vetere, a creation out of the old and the model for that is Jesus’ own resurrection. There is a renewed earth and a renewed creation in the eternal state. I think we agree on this point?

I and probably most folks on this board would agree with this: "earth passing away is not equal to heaven and earth being destroyed" regardless of their view on Matt 24:35.

 

[MW]

In regard to the view that Jesus is pointing to two different events, what about other prophecies that have multiple fulfillments, with the primary fulfillment being further out?

There are not multiple fulfilments. Only one. We live in it and wait for it at the same time. Heb. 2:8-9. It is real, just not visible. The second coming will be with visible glory of a kingdom He already possesses. Prophecy does not separate events. It has been the tendency of prophetic interpretation to separate events but such interpretation ends up being a denial of what is already for the sake of explaining the not yet. It is best to understand the not yet as the consummation of what is already.

 

[KMK]

Many orthodox, partial preterists also believe that Jesus ushered in the new heavens and that we currently live on the new earth

Who?

 

[MW]

Who?

Calvin: "For, lo, I will create new heavens and a new earth. By these metaphors he promises a remarkable change of affairs; as if God had said that he has both the inclination and the power not only to restore his Church, but to restore it in such a manner that it shall appear to gain new life and to dwell in a new world. These are exaggerated modes of expression; but the greatness of such a blessing, which was to be manifested at the coming of Christ, could not be described in any other way. Nor does he mean only the first coming, but the whole reign, which must be extended as far as to the last coming, as we have already said in expounding other passages."

 

[DanSSwing]

Who?

Greg Bahnsen too. This is the first place I heard the idea:

63 - Revelation 20-22 (63..

Greg L. Bahnsen | The Bahnsen Institute

www.sermonaudio.com

Skip ahead to 38:56 for the exact quote.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I know I am not in the new heaven and new earth yet, although the foretaste of it is present – that is, Jesus is present as His Spirit brings Him to those with faith in His living words.

The not yet is not already, but is to come, at, as Bahnsen puts it, the consummation. At the marriage supper of the Lamb, the Lord, the church's Husband, will consummate our union with Him on the renewed, pristine earth, upon which Heaven has come down.

Isaiah 65:17 ff. has begun to be realized – the foretaste of it – but is not yet, nor will be, till that glorious consummation those who love Him long for, when the beatific vision is our ordinary ineffable joy. N'est pas?

 

[KMK]

Calvin: "For, lo, I will create new heavens and a new earth. By these metaphors he promises a remarkable change of affairs; as if God had said that he has both the inclination and the power not only to restore his Church, but to restore it in such a manner that it shall appear to gain new life and to dwell in a new world. These are exaggerated modes of expression; but the greatness of such a blessing, which was to be manifested at the coming of Christ, could not be described in any other way. Nor does he mean only the first coming, but the whole reign, which must be extended as far as to the last coming, as we have already said in expounding other passages."

Here is Calvin on 2 Pet. 3:7

"But the heavens and the earth which are now. He does not infer this as the consequence; for his purpose was no other than to dissipate the craftiness of scoffers respecting the perpetual state of nature; and we see many such at this day, who being slightly embued with the rudiments of philosophy, only hunt after profane speculations, in order that they may pass themselves off as great philosophers.

But it now appears quite evident from what has been said, that there is nothing unreasonable in the declaration made by the Lord, that the heaven and the earth shall hereafter be consumed by fire, because the reason for the fire is the same as that for the water. For it was a common saying even among the ancients, that from these two chief elements all things have proceeded. But as he had to do with the ungodly, he speaks expressly of their destruction."

Does Calvin teach two stages to the new heaven and new earth?

 

[TheInquirer]

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?

Going back to your earlier question, the Bible is full of foreshadowing and typology. Now, if you are like me, your natural inclination is to limit those devices to OT/NT relationships. However, I don’t see why that has to be a rule - thus allowing for the destruction of Jerusalem to be a type and/or foreshadowing of the earth’s destruction. I am not saying it is, but Jesus links the two in the same discussion for a reason.

 

[MW]

Does Calvin teach two stages to the new heaven and new earth?

I don't think "two stages" is an apt description. Perhaps "two perspectives" is better. Before and after Christ's coming we see things differently. The OT perspective is helpful to see it as a whole and in relation to history. But then Christ descended and ascended to fill all things. He sits at the right hand of God in heaven with all authority over heaven and earth. In that respect there are new heavens and a new earth. If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. And yet we await a visible consummation. We need the OT perspective to see where we stand in relation to God making all things new. But we need the NT perspective to see what we are still to look for.

 

[KMK]

I don't think "two stages" is an apt description. Perhaps "two perspectives" is better. Before and after Christ's coming we see things differently. The OT perspective is helpful to see it as a whole and in relation to history. But then Christ descended and ascended to fill all things. He sits at the right hand of God in heaven with all authority over heaven and earth. In that respect there are new heavens and a new earth. If any man be in Christ he is a new creature. And yet we await a visible consummation. We need the OT perspective to see where we stand in relation to God making all things new. But we need the NT perspective to see what we are still to look for.

Right. So Calvin would not disagree that there remains a new heaven and earth to come.

 

[MW]

Right. So Calvin would not disagree that there remains a new heaven and earth to come.

Yes, but in continuity with what Christ has brought about at His first coming. It is not possible to say anything more because Calvin didn't articulate an eschatological scheme. We see traces of what would come to be known as inaugurated eschatology but he didn't format it this way. It is similar to his covenant theology. We see traces of federalism but it's not systematic and explicit.

 

[KMK]

Yes, but in continuity with what Christ has brought about at His first coming. It is not possible to say anything more because Calvin didn't articulate an eschatological scheme. We see traces of what would come to be known as inaugurated eschatology but he didn't format it this way. It is similar to his covenant theology. We see traces of federalism but it's not systematic and explicit.

For the sake of precision, then, I will amend my previous description of hyper-preterism:

Hyper-preterism holds that every prophecy has been consummated: Jesus has returned and ushered in a new heaven and new earth, and we all live in our resurrected bodies now. That is heresy.

 

[MW]

For the sake of precision, then, I will amend my previous description of hyper-preterism:

That is very precise and a useful way of distinguishing it from acceptable forms.

 

[KMK]

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.)

I will grant that it is possible, or even probable, but I don't think it can be established as doctrine because it requires non-canonical, uninspired contributions from unreliable sources. What is doctrine is this:

"Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end, abrogated and taken away."

 

[Steve Ski]

I will grant that it is possible, or even probable, but I don't think it can be established as doctrine because it requires non-canonical, uninspired contributions from unreliable sources. What is doctrine is this:

"Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end, abrogated and taken away."

Good stuff.

Did you take post #28 above into consideration?

 

[KMK]

Good stuff.

Did you take post #28 above into consideration?

Yes, but the "heavenly hitching post" illustration made me think all the way back to my childhood days of watching Bonanza. Maybe something more up to date like a "cosmic tractor beam."

Post automatically merged: Jan 5, 2025

Actually, that might be dated too. I also grew up watching Star Trek TOS.

 

[George Bailey]

There are not multiple fulfilments. Only one. We live in it and wait for it at the same time. Heb. 2:8-9. It is real, just not visible. The second coming will be with visible glory of a kingdom He already possesses. Prophecy does not separate events. It has been the tendency of prophetic interpretation to separate events but such interpretation ends up being a denial of what is already for the sake of explaining the not yet. It is best to understand the not yet as the consummation of what is already.

Rev Winzer, your statement makes me realize that I have unexamined artificial mental categorizations of scriptures into "what has happened yet", "what still will happen yet", and applying categories of "fulfillment", "consummation", the use of the word "prophesies".

Can you expand a little on what the differences and relationships between what "fulfill" and "consummate" mean? For reading any NT scripture that appears to be a "prophecy" how would one view it as "has not been fulfilled", "has been fulfilled but not consummated", "has been fulfilled and consummated"?

Thank you,
Brian

 

[MW]

Can you expand a little on what the differences and relationships between what "fulfill" and "consummate" mean? For reading any NT scripture that appears to be a "prophecy" how would one view it as "has not been fulfilled", "has been fulfilled but not consummated", "has been fulfilled and consummated"?

When we interpret prophecy in relation to events fulfilment and consummation would be one and the same. But prophecy was always connected with the terms of the covenant made with Israel. The people of Israel were children of the prophets as well as children of the covenant. The prophets should be interpreted accordingly.

When we view prophecy in relation to the covenant it is evident that judgment on Israel is a fulfilment of the terms of the covenant. Through Christ and the Spirit the blessing has come to the Gentiles. Nevertheless there is a dispensation of the fulness of times. It is still in process of manifestation, and God is not finished with Israel yet. The blessing itself is secured in redemption accomplished but there is still to be a manifestation of that blessing in redemption applied.

So, it is all fulfilled. Faith in Jesus Christ declares that great fact. But nothing will be consummated until Christ appears in glory. Col. 3:3-4, "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory."

 

[Southpaw]

God is not finished with Israel yet.

Are you referring to those who are children of Abraham by faith, or ethnic Israel. If the latter, could you elaborate on how this is so?

 

[MW]

Are you referring to those who are children of Abraham by faith, or ethnic Israel. If the latter, could you elaborate on how this is so?

Rom. 11:12, "Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?"

The children of Abraham by faith do not fall. This is ethnic Israel. There is a "fulness" of Israel to come.

Rom 11:15-16, "For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches."

This concerns Israel after the flesh which has been cast away while God is reconciling the world of the Gentiles. It expects there will be a receiving of them which is likened to life from the dead.

The reason is that the root is holy. This goes back to chap. 9 where he spoke of the privileges of his kinsman after the flesh.

 

[Southpaw]

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).

Hebrews 12:27 is a reference to Haggai 2:6. But Haggai 2:6 could not be a reference to 70AD, since it is clear from the OT text that this shaking will be "in a little while." This is nearly a 600 year gap. How does the preterist know which of these temporal stamps are literal?

Does this not suggest that I do not need to force texts into a brief time span every time I see something in the text that suggests an imminent fulfillment?

 

[MW]

Hebrews 12:27 is a reference to Haggai 2:6. But Haggai 2:6 could not be a reference to 70AD, since it is clear from the OT text that this shaking will be "in a little while."

I can't follow your reasoning. The OT text is quoted in Hebrews and the "little while" is expected from the point of view of the writer of Hebrews. Why couldn't it be a reference to something about to happen, or in process of happening, when he wrote the letter?

Heb. 8:13 says, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

He was looking forward to the removal of the old economy (the priesthood and sacrifices, to which the Hebrews were tempted to return, and which were superseded by the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ). In chap. 9 he speaks of the time of reformation of the O.T. ceremonies connected with the law. In chap. 12 he has just contrasted Sinai and Sion as two different economies. It makes perfect sense that the shaking is in terms of the old economy and that the new economy of the gospel will remain.

Yet, with John Owen, we should also see the continuing significance of this. He writes,

"We shall yet further observe, that although the removal of Mosaical worship and the old church-state be principally intended, which was effected at the coming of Christ, and the promulgation of the gospel from heaven by him, yet all other oppositions unto him and his kingdom are included therein; not only those that then were, but all that should ensue unto the end of the world. The “things that cannot be moved,” are to remain and be established against all opposition whatever. Wherefore, as the heavens and the earth of the idolatrous world were of old shaken and removed, so shall those also of the antichristian world, which at present in many places seem to prevail. All things must give way, whatever may be comprised in the names of heaven and earth here below, unto the gospel, and the kingdom of Christ therein. For if God made way for it by the removal of his own institutions, which he appointed for a season, what else shall hinder its establishment and progress unto the end?"

 

[Southpaw]

I can't follow your reasoning. The OT text is quoted in Hebrews and the "little while" is expected from the point of view of the writer of Hebrews. Why couldn't it be a reference to something about to happen, or in process of happening, when he wrote the letter?

Heb. 8:13 says, "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away."

He was looking forward to the removal of the old economy (the priesthood and sacrifices, to which the Hebrews were tempted to return, and which were superseded by the priesthood and sacrifice of Christ). In chap. 9 he speaks of the time of reformation of the O.T. ceremonies connected with the law. In chap. 12 he has just contrasted Sinai and Sion as two different economies. It makes perfect sense that the shaking is in terms of the old economy and that the new economy of the gospel will remain.

Yet, with John Owen, we should also see the continuing significance of this. He writes,

"We shall yet further observe, that although the removal of Mosaical worship and the old church-state be principally intended, which was effected at the coming of Christ, and the promulgation of the gospel from heaven by him, yet all other oppositions unto him and his kingdom are included therein; not only those that then were, but all that should ensue unto the end of the world. The “things that cannot be moved,” are to remain and be established against all opposition whatever. Wherefore, as the heavens and the earth of the idolatrous world were of old shaken and removed, so shall those also of the antichristian world, which at present in many places seem to prevail. All things must give way, whatever may be comprised in the names of heaven and earth here below, unto the gospel, and the kingdom of Christ therein. For if God made way for it by the removal of his own institutions, which he appointed for a season, what else shall hinder its establishment and progress unto the end?"

I don't deny your view, although I believe that the shaking is not complete. There are still some shakable things remaining that will not endure the last judgment. I'm just pointing out that Haggai 2:6 claims that this shaking will be "in a little while" back in 521 BC. How is it only a little while if you understand the shaking to take place 591 years later as a fulfillment of Haggai 2:6?