Paul's Allusions to Olivet Discourse - a Problem for the Preterists?

[Pate]

It seems rather obvious that Paul repeatedly refers to Jesus's Olivet Discourse in 1. Thessalonians 4-5. It seems to me that of all the NT texts, this is the most difficult one to deal with from the preteristic perspective. It is beyond question among orthodox preterists that when Paul writes in 1. Th 4:15-17: "For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of {the} archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.", he is referring to an event that's still in the future (obviously from Paul's perspective, but also from our own perspective).

But then he tells in the 5th chapter that "Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you.
For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night...", it is most natural to interpret him as talking about the timing of this future event that he just mentioned. But reading the 5th chapter, it's not difficult to find allusions to the Olivet Discourse, and those allusions ("labor pains upon a woman with child", "that the day would overtake you like a thief", "let us not sleep as others do") are from passages that refer to things which are seen to be already fulfilled by the events leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. And given the many references to the olivet discourse, the interpretation that 1Th 4:16 also contains a direct reference to the olivet discourse begins to seem tempting. When Paul writes: "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of {the} archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." in a text that contains many references to the olivet discourse, is it plausible to say that this passage has nothing to do with Matt. 24:31 in which Jesus says: "And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other."?

Perhaps I should add that this may actually be more of a problem to inerrancy than to pretermism as such. The olivet discourse and Revelation still seem to fit the preteristic interpretation very nicely. Thus, the question seems to arise: What if Paul just misunderstood Jesus's teachings here?

[dizzle]

I have written on this before but I cannot cut and paste it without violating the work product of the person I was responding to in private. I hope in the future I can rewrite it and post it here.

In all honesty this is one of the more difficult issues for orthodox preterism. However, it is not insurmountable whatsoever upon careful examination. There are two passages that I hold to be most problematic and this is one,but then again, not insurmountable.

I used to think the Kingdom parables were a bad problem, now I see them as a large preterist strength.

[Pate]

I hope in the future I can rewrite it and post it here.


Okay, thanks, I'll look forward to that.

[GhostontheNet]

In the mean time, JPHolding's treatment of this subject is also readily available at http://www.tektonics.org/paulend.html juxtaposed with http://www.tektonics.org/olivet01.html . The main thrust of his argument is he connects the interactions between these two passages with 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, interpreting the latter as a clarification of this very question. In this scenario, Paul using Luke's gospel doesn't realize Matthew uses the term Parousia in the Olivet discourse, hence he's managed to cause them to think that the events are one in the same; double with similar language between the two at times. The Thessalonians would conclude after this and some other passages that the end of history was near, causing obvious problems. Hence Paul adds a note in 2 Thessalonians that he does not mean the event he described is soon. As to 1 Thessalonians 5, it is all too easily added to a Preterist scenario. The first sentence marks a shift in topic and off the top of my head the passage in Josephus talking about Jeshua son of Ananias parading about saying "Woe! Woe To Jerusalem!" and similar things "In a time of exceptional peace" years before the war even started comes to mind. Josephus also writes that this Jeshua was flogged due to an "irritation at this dismal cry".

[dizzle]

IIRC, JP and I differ a little bit on our apologetic of these passages....

[kendemyer]

Dear Pate,

While I disagree with some of which you said, I do agree with you that this is a rather large problem with preterism. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Here are some pearls.

Sincerely,

Ken

[dizzle]

Ken you do know that gravedigging threads is considered very poor forum behaviour don't you? And you don't look good in a skirt and pom poms.

[kendemyer]

TO: Dee Dee

I did you a service. You never did reply to the gentleman in the thread. Now TWEB readers can hear your reply.

Sincerely,

Ken

[dizzle]

I don't have the time to do a substantive reply at the moment. Pate has no issue with that. There are a ton of threads I never responded to for lack of time. And I don't think Pate will appreicate being used in this manner by you.

[dynomite]

It seems rather obvious that Paul repeatedly refers to Jesus's Olivet Discourse in 1. Thessalonians 4-5. It seems to me that of all the NT texts, this is the most difficult one to deal with from the preteristic perspective. It is beyond question among orthodox preterists that when Paul writes in 1. Th 4:15-17: "For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep.
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of {the} archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.
Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.", he is referring to an event that's still in the future (obviously from Paul's perspective, but also from our own perspective).

But then he tells in the 5th chapter that "Now as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you.
For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night...", it is most natural to interpret him as talking about the timing of this future event that he just mentioned. But reading the 5th chapter, it's not difficult to find allusions to the Olivet Discourse, and those allusions ("labor pains upon a woman with child", "that the day would overtake you like a thief", "let us not sleep as others do") are from passages that refer to things which are seen to be already fulfilled by the events leading to the destruction of Jerusalem. And given the many references to the olivet discourse, the interpretation that 1Th 4:16 also contains a direct reference to the olivet discourse begins to seem tempting. When Paul writes: "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of {the} archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first." in a text that contains many references to the olivet discourse, is it plausible to say that this passage has nothing to do with Matt. 24:31 in which Jesus says: "And He will send forth His angels with A GREAT TRUMPET and THEY WILL GATHER TOGETHER His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other."?

Perhaps I should add that this may actually be more of a problem to inerrancy than to pretermism as such. The olivet discourse and Revelation still seem to fit the preteristic interpretation very nicely. Thus, the question seems to arise: What if Paul just misunderstood Jesus's teachings here?

Hey Pate,

Here is my basic take:

First, Jesus in the Olivet Discourse is not talking about "the resurrection" in Mt. 24:31, b/c he is not talking about "the resurrection" in Mt. 23:37 and I believe the most natural flow of the discouse is to take these two statements as being parallel.

Second, as with all issues, one's hermeneutic is going to tie into our understanding of language like "trumpets", "gathering", "resurrection", etc. One book that may be helpful is Kline's "Kingdom Prologue" that can be found at www.twoagepress.org. I think Kline's "intrusive eschatology" hits the issue on the head and demonstrates why there are various events that can be considered a "parousia", "judgment", etc., and use language that is similar to, but not describing the final judgment.

So, in all, I believe that Jesus and Paul are discussing two different, but related, eschatological horizons. The language that Paul and Jesus use both describe the coming of royalty, but, I believe, they are describing different events.

That's not exegetical per se, but gives the paradigm that will drive my hermeneutic. Jesus is not talking about the resurrection of the dead, but Paul is and that is why I see them as two different events.

Dynomite