The Preterist Hermeneutic

Status
Not open for further replies.
So again, you might not agree, but if you think that preterists hold to their convictions because they are simply the most plausible, then I don't think you truly understand the position.

I am not in this to agree or disagree but to fully understand the the preterist position.

You say that you believe the Bible teaches the preterist position...
You say that when you are in the pulpit you have no trouble saying 'Thus saith the Lord'...
And then show the actual interpretation of the text (for example matt 24) is that these things were going to happen in their lifetime, and they in fact happened in the destruction of Jerusalem.

But, in fact the Bible does not teach that the fulfillment happened in the destruction of Jerusalem. However, Josephus et al mentions the destruction of Jerusalem.

Therefore the preterist uses Josephus to interpret the time texts of Matt 24 and does not see this as a conflict with WCF chapter 1.
 
you said:Doesn't the Preterist do the same thing? Doesn't the Preterist say, "The Bible teaches that Matt 24 was fulfilled in 70 AD." Well, actually, that is not what the Bible teaches. The preterist teaches that, but the Bible does not.
I have never been to Jerusalem. Jesus said the temple would be destroyed within a generation,,,,,Believing what Jesus said,I can come to understand that the temple is no longer standing.
If Josephus,,,Fox news,,, or anyone else reports on it as a fact,should I despise it as a non biblical source?
I do not think the postmill idea's are based on secular records, but rather scripture. They should be debated on it's merits.
It does not hurt if extra biblical sources are cited to confirm what the theologian proposes,,,if it is used for this purpose.
When a secular archeologist uncovers something,like a hittite city, no one seems to question that as much. Is it not similar?

The scenarios you propose, if I understand them, seem to be more about apologetics than doctrine.

Also, are you saying that preterism and postmilleniumism (is that even a word?) are one and the same?
 
,,Ken, If postmillenial writers are correct, and they work through MT.24,and Lk 21,, applying it to the fall of Jerusalem, then why would you take issue with the results.
Most amillennial writers seem to agree that the events of 70ad. were clearly spoken of and fulfilled.
you asked;The scenarios you propose, if I understand them, seem to be more about apologetics than doctrine.

Also, are you saying that preterism and postmilleniumism (is that even a word?) are one and the same?
__________________
I am saying that if they [postmill,,partial preterists ] are correct in how they explain these chapters,,,the discussion should be more on what parts of scripture are yet to be fulfilled,and what is our role in this physical world now.
Is the gospel going to overcome the evil,,,or as the Amill writers teach that although we always truimph in Christ,,dark days of gloom and apostasy lurk on the horizon.
I think the discussion moves beyond Josephus.
The doctrine impacts us everyday. Your view of it affects almost every area of your christian life. Until recently I think amillennial believers have been very quiet on these issues. They can easily refute the dispensational ideas, but it seems to me that some of the current writers[Gentry, Demar, Matthison] raise substantial scriptural challenges.
Professor David Engelsma is one of the few men I have seen in print that seem up to the challenge of working through these writings verse by verse.
I guess that is what I am trying to get across. Have you read much on these writers? If you have I do not think that you would say that they shrink back from offering scriptural proof of their positions.
 
,,Ken, If postmillenial writers are correct, and they work through MT.24,and Lk 21,, applying it to the fall of Jerusalem, then why would you take issue with the results.
Most amillennial writers seem to agree that the events of 70ad. were clearly spoken of and fulfilled.
you asked;The scenarios you propose, if I understand them, seem to be more about apologetics than doctrine.

Also, are you saying that preterism and postmilleniumism (is that even a word?) are one and the same?
__________________
I am saying that if they [postmill,,partial preterists ] are correct in how they explain these chapters,,,the discussion should be more on what parts of scripture are yet to be fulfilled,and what is our role in this physical world now.
Is the gospel going to overcome the evil,,,or as the Amill writers teach that although we always truimph in Christ,,dark days of gloom and apostasy lurk on the horizon.
I think the discussion moves beyond Josephus.
The doctrine impacts us everyday. Your view of it affects almost every area of your christian life. Until recently I think amillennial believers have been very quiet on these issues. They can easily refute the dispensational ideas, but it seems to me that some of the current writers[Gentry, Demar, Matthison] raise substantial scriptural challenges.
Professor David Engelsma is one of the few men I have seen in print that seem up to the challenge of working through these writings verse by verse.
I guess that is what I am trying to get across. Have you read much on these writers? If you have I do not think that you would say that they shrink back from offering scriptural proof of their positions.

This has been a long thread, and I am not sure if you have read all of the posts and I can understand why. (My Presbyterian brothers can get a little wordy :D ) But I have stated over and over that I am not arguing against preterism. I myself lean toward a preterist interpretation of Matt 24. I came to preterism like most people, through the writings and sermons of DeMar and Gentry.

My concern is with what you just wrote:

The doctrine impacts us everyday. Your view of it affects almost every area of your christian life.

If this is true, then my question is, does the preterist interpretation rely on Josephus to the point that it undermines the 'scripture interprets scripture' principle as it is contained in WCF chapter 1?

Is it a problem when a preacher stands in the pulpit and says, "Thus saith the Lord! The Bible teaches that the prophecy of Matt 24 was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in the year 70 AD." Because the Bible simply does not teach that. The Bible teaches that the prophecy would be fulfilled within that generation. The prophecy speaks of the destruction of the Temple. The prophecy speaks of Jerusalem being surrounded by armies. But the only reason the preterist believes that the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Army in 70 AD was indeed that event is because of extra-biblical sources.

All I am asking is... Is that apporpriate for the establishment of, as you say, a doctrine that impacts us everyday. Your view of it affects almost every area of your christian life."?
 
Ken,

I think one of the biggest problems in this discussion is that you have not sat down to think about how you are using words like hermeneutic, interpretation, fulfillment and evidence. As I have already said, preterism is not a hermeneutic it is an interpretation. Furthermore, the preterist does not use Josephus as an interpreter, Josephus is not the basis for the interpretation, he is merely evidence.

Furthermore, I don't know why you think that a preterist would say that Jesus taught that the temple was going to be destroyed in a.d. 70. A preterist would say that Jesus prophecied that the temple was going to be destroyed. They would then say that prophecy was fulfilled in a.d. 70.

This is no way undermines the hermeneutic set forth in the WCF.
 
I wish to point out that a non-preterist such as Kim Riddlebarger can have a preterist interpretation of certain texts. For example, Kim has written:

I have written on this matter in my book A Case for Amillennialism. Here is a section which deals with your question (taken from pages 168-173)

In verse 15 of the Olivet Discourse, Jesus answers the disciple’s original question about the destruction of the temple, “when will these things happen?” When will the temple be destroyed? Jesus now speaks of a period of great tribulation unsurpassed throughout the history of Israel. Dispensational writers argue that this passage must be interpreted in light of Daniel 9:27, which is assigned to a future seven-year tribulation period. If true, Jesus is here speaking of some distant future event yet to come. According to John Walvoord, “Christ was not talking here about fulfillment in the first century, but prophecy to be related to His actual second coming to the earth in the future.”

But there are good reasons to think that Jesus is speaking about the events of A.D. 70. Recall that the disciples’ questions are prompted by Jesus’ comments about Israel’s coming desolation and the destruction of the temple. That this is Jesus’ answer to the disciple’s question about the destruction of the temple is clear from the parallel passage in Luke 21:20, where Luke writes “so when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, you know that its desolation is near.” Roman military action associated with the destruction of the city and the desolation of the temple are clearly linked. Add to this the fact that Jesus switches subjects from the preaching of the gospel to all the nations to the frightening prophecy of an abomination which will render the temple “desolate.” As D. A. Carson points out, the details of what follows are too limited “geographically and culturally” to extend this beyond A.D. 70. It is very clear, therefore, that Jesus is describing what lies just ahead for Israel, desolation, and for the temple, its destruction. And what he has to say is not good news.

In verse 15, Jesus now evokes a theme drawn directly from Daniel 11:31 and 12:11, which speaks of an idolatrous image which will be set up on the altar of the temple, at the time of the destruction of the city. It is this abominable image which thereby renders the temple “desolate.” The abomination of desolation is a Greek transposition of a Hebrew word and conveys an idea of something being detestable to God. It is frequently used in reference to pagan gods and the articles used in connection with the worship of them. As Cranfield points out,

The significance of the Hebrew participle is that the abominable thing causes the temple to be deserted, the pious avoiding the temple on its account. Daniel 12:11 appears to be fulfilled in part when Antiochus Ephiphanes set up a heathen altar in the temple in 168 BC. Jesus' use of the phrase implies that for Him the meaning of the prophecy was not exhausted by the events of Maccabean times; it still had a future reference. The temple of God must yet suffer a fearful profanation by which its whole glory will perish.
Says Jesus, “so when you see standing in the holy place ‘the abomination that causes desolation,’ spoken of through the prophet Daniel,” not only is the desolation of the temple associated with the messianic prophecy of the seventy weeks of Daniel 9 in view, but so is Israel’s not too distant past, when in 163 BC, Antiochus Ephiphanes profaned the temple during the Maccabean wars by erecting a pagan statue in the Holy of Holies. Every Jew knew this story. They also knew what such an abomination entailed: the temple would be rendered “unclean.” This is the image that Jesus evokes to characterize what will happen to the temple yet again, only this time so as to make the profanation of the temple by Antiochus pale by comparison.

When Jesus evokes images from the prophecies from Daniel 9, 11 and 12, in effect, he now claims to be the true interpreter of Daniel’s mysterious vision, and that the prophecies of Daniel about an abomination extend into the future, and were not fulfilled by the events of 163 BC. When you see this abomination standing in the temple rendering it unclean, Jesus warns his disciples “let the reader understand.” This is, no doubt a reference back to chapter 8 of Daniel’s prophecy, in which Daniel was struggling to understand the meaning of the vision about the time of the end. Therefore, by uttering these words, “let the reader understand,” Jesus is saying that he will explain the mysteries which Daniel struggled to explain, but was never able to fully comprehend. This also means that the desolation of the temple by Antiochus is but a foreshadowing of another desolation yet to come which fulfills Daniel’s prophecy of the desolation of the temple, a desolation which will be far more horrific and which foreshadows the coming destruction of the city of Jerusalem. This was every pious Jew’s greatest fear–the temple would become desolate once again and the people of Israel would be hauled off into captivity, to suffer and die in a land not their own. This is exactly what Jesus predicts.

But Jesus not only warns of a desecration of the temple, he warns of a great calamity to come upon the entire nation–a calamity which, by the way, comes to pass when the temple is desecrated. When you see this happen, says Jesus in verse 16, “then,” that is, at the time you see the abomination in the temple, “let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.” The moment the temple is profaned, it is time to go! The apostolic church remembered these words of our Lord, and when it became clear that Rome was going to use great force to put down the ever-growing Jewish rebellion in the latter part of A. D. 66-67, those Christians remaining in Jerusalem did indeed begin to relocate to the hill country to the northeast in the Transjordan, the same place where the Jews hid safely during the Maccabean wars.

In fact, this crisis will come to pass so quickly and the consequences will be so great that Jesus warns his disciples, “let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath.” We hear the echo in these words of the warning given to Lot, when Sodom and Gomorrah are destroyed–don’t look back. But there are cultural reasons for these words as well. Jewish dwellings of the first century were often built so that they utilized the roof area as a kind of porch. If the abomination occurs when you are on your roof relaxing, don’t go down into the house to pack. Flee! Don’t even stop to pick up clothing! Things will be so dreadful that women who are pregnant, or who have small children, will have an especially difficult time. The disciples are even exhorted to pray that this will not happen during bad weather–during the winter–or on the Sabbath, when the Sabbath observance of many Jewish Christians would make travel very difficult.

Riddleblog

I think this quote underscores Gabriel's comment that "preterism is not a hermeneutic it is an interpretation".

Dr. Riddlebarger would probably agree with the notion that these judgment passages against national Israel must have been fulfilled in that generation because of his overall understanding of God's justice and mercy, e.g., that judgment does not extend beyond "the third and forth generation" (Exo. 20:5). This is one reason why he would reject the futurist (dispensationalist) view of a judgment yet to come upon national Israel.

The Reformed (orthodox) preterist and non-preterist use the same hermeneutics to approach the Scripture. We may differ on the conclusion of interpretation for particular texts, but the means to get there should be essentially the same.
 
I wish to point out that a non-preterist such as Kim Riddlebarger can have a preterist interpretation of certain texts. For example, Kim has written:



I think this quote underscores Gabriel's comment that "preterism is not a hermeneutic it is an interpretation".

Dr. Riddlebarger would probably agree with the notion that these judgment passages against national Israel must have been fulfilled in that generation because of his overall understanding of God's justice and mercy, e.g., that judgment does not extend beyond "the third and forth generation" (Exo. 20:5). This is one reason why he would reject the futurist (dispensationalist) view of a judgment yet to come upon national Israel.

The Reformed (orthodox) preterist and non-preterist use the same hermeneutics to approach the Scripture. We may differ on the conclusion of interpretation for particular texts, but the means to get there should be essentially the same.
:amen:

That is the reason why I originally looked at this thread. The title "The Preterist Hermeneutic" was strange. I never have thought that a preterist had a different hermeneutic than anyone else. I think a major issue in theological discussions today is the use and misuse of theological terms. I think that this is clearly evident in this discussion, in it's relation to the hermeneutic set forth in the Westminster Standards. We must first understand a position, and how they are using their theological language. Then we can evaluate that position on Biblical grounds. But if we are both using different theological vocabulary, there is bound to be disagreement.

Not only is the term "hermeneutic" misapplied in this discussion, a particular problem is the confusion between interpretation and fulfillment. One cannot give a true interpretation of these text that says Jesus taught that these prophecies would be fulfilled in a.d. 70. He simply taught that they would be fulfilled in that generation. But they were in fact fulfilled in a.d. 70. This has nothing to do with interpretation, but simply historical fulfillment. This distinction has been confused, and has given rise to the belief that preterism is a distinct hermenuetic relying on extra biblical sources to establish it's interpretation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top