Preterism and Evangelism [Preterists only, please.]

[Origen]

DeeDee & Co.:

I'm delving into the realms of preterism, and I'm highly impressed. Actually, N.T. Wright's work has been reinforcing the view for me (though who knows whether that is his intention). Combine that with Malina and Pilch's note that the Mediterranean culture of the 1st century was present-oriented, and I'd say preterism has to be the most historically accurate.

Of course, I haven't done a ton of research yet. Holding and Dee Dee's articles are pretty much the foundation of my knowledge of preterism, although I need to study them more extensively.

Here's my problem: What is the preterist stance on evangelism?

A standard text for motivating evangelism is Matt. 24:14 -

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

I understand that, under preterism, "all the world" means the Roman empire and "the end" means the end of the age the law and the beginning of the age of the Messiah.

Now, I don't believe "the end of the world" is a good enough motivation for evangelism no matter your eschatology - I, rather, echo people like John Piper who talk about "God's passion for His glory" and our mission to spread it. However, even Piper himself points to the above verse as the result of this mission.

So, then, if the majority of prophecy has been fulfilled, Jesus has executed judgment on Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and we are simply awaiting His return, what are we supposed to be doing, and why?

Think of this post as support for a newbie preterist, not a challenge.

Thanks,
Origen

[Sheepdog]

I presume twiddling our thumbs isn't an adequate answer :wink:

We are to still evangelize, and i have two reasons for that. First, the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19) itself has no temporal conditions on itself, so it can be presumed we are to continue making disciples of the nations until commanded otherwise (i'd presume this wouldn't occur until the final judgement, after which there would be no further point AFAICT). Second, Paul commends us to be imitators of him as he imitated Christ. Paul was a very vocal evangelist, so that implies we ought to be evangelists as well.

[spiritmech]

The confusion probably arises from the identification of evangelism with judgement. Just because there is no longer any earthly judgement does not mean there won't be judgement in hell. That's what we are trying to "save" them from when we evangelize.

SM

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

DeeDee & Co.:

I'm delving into the realms of preterism, and I'm highly impressed. Actually, N.T. Wright's work has been reinforcing the view for me (though who knows whether that is his intention). Combine that with Malina and Pilch's note that the Mediterranean culture of the 1st century was present-oriented, and I'd say preterism has to be the most historically accurate.

Of course, I haven't done a ton of research yet. Holding and Dee Dee's articles are pretty much the foundation of my knowledge of preterism, although I need to study them more extensively.

Here's my problem: What is the preterist stance on evangelism?

A standard text for motivating evangelism is Matt. 24:14 -

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

I understand that, under preterism, "all the world" means the Roman empire and "the end" means the end of the age the law and the beginning of the age of the Messiah.

Now, I don't believe "the end of the world" is a good enough motivation for evangelism no matter your eschatology - I, rather, echo people like John Piper who talk about "God's passion for His glory" and our mission to spread it. However, even Piper himself points to the above verse as the result of this mission.

So, then, if the majority of prophecy has been fulfilled, Jesus has executed judgment on Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and we are simply awaiting His return, what are we supposed to be doing, and why?

Think of this post as support for a newbie preterist, not a challenge.

Thanks,
Origen

Well preterism isn't a whole cloth, there are different flavors, just as in futurism and historicism. So what I am giving is the interpretation of one preterist (namely me).

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

To understand this verse you need to understand the bold part (or to understand it as I do, I could be wrong, but you asked for opinions :wink: )

Remember that Jesus said that He could rebuild the destroyed temple in three days. John tells us He was talking about His body when He said this.

This statement was brought up at His "trial" (Mark 14:58) and at the crucifixion (Mark 15:29). Coincidence? I think not. By saying that He could rebuild the temple in three days with His body, Jesus was, in effect saying He was replacing the Temple as the focus of worship, and claiming to be the Jewish Messiah.

This was the phrase that was used to condem Him at his trian and to mock Him at His crusifixion. This was His claim to Messiahship. This was the "crime" for which He was executed.

Why was it necessary to destroy the temple? Judgment, of course, but why was the temple so central to the Olivet Discourse?

Because Jesus claimed that He would replace the Temple as the central focus of worship (Jn 4:21-23). The temple was destroyed to validiate Jesus' claim of Messiahship.

With that said, let us look at the verse:

And this gospel of the kingdom [where Jesus is the Messiah Who will replace the temple] shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; [so all nations (Roman Empire) will be a witness to Jesus' claims of messiahship, and will witness the destruction of the temple as validation thereof] and then shall the end come.

In other words, that verse is not a command to evangelize but a statement that all the world (RE) will be told of the Gospel and witness the validation of Jesus' claim to Messiahship.

Edit to add:

To answer your actual question. Yes, we should evangalize, but not based on that verse.

[Origen]

Hm, thanks for the thoughts.

Sheepdog, your post was especially helpful.

Faramir, I'm referring to orthodox preterism, but I haven't delved too deeply into this stuff, so I'm unaware of disputes within orthodox preterism itself. Is there a thread that outlines them? From what school of preterism do you come?

FYI, I didn't care about eschatology in the least until I first read about preterism. Now I have a legitimate reason for getting annoyed with wacky end-times prophecy! Thanks TWeb! :woohoo:

Origen

[Xavier]

The biggest split is probably early date versus late date preterism...

Early Date preterists believe High Tide on Prophetic events to be centred around the Fall of the Temple in AD 70. Late Date preterists believe High Tide on Prophetic events to be centred around the Fall of the Roman Empire (dates varying -- 333 traditional). [Disclaimer -- I've yet to meet a flesh and blood late-date preterist.]

Preterists also have no implied stance on the Millennium either. While most Preterist are Post-millennial, some are Pre-Mill and some are A-Mill.

Interpretations of various scripture is also not agree upon 100%. There's a general scope from which observations are made, but nothing that would force you to believe one way or another.

Yours,
Xavier

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Faramir, I'm referring to orthodox preterism, but I haven't delved too deeply into this stuff, so I'm unaware of disputes within orthodox preterism itself. Is there a thread that outlines them? From what school of preterism do you come?


I wouldn't say there are "schools" of orthodox preterism, per se, just differences of opinions about certain verses. For example some preterist say that there is a split in Mt. 24 with part talking about AD 70 and part talking about the future, others say it is all AD 70. Some preterist are amil, some are post.

So when you ask a question like, "how do preterist interpret this verse"? Unless it is a keystone verse for the preterist position like Mt. 24:34 (this generation), you are likely to get different interpretations. All fit within the 'big picture' of orthodox preterism, but there may be some disagreement as to the details.

IOW, Dee Dee may disagree with my interpretation of Mt. 24:14, but we are still both orthodox preterist. And I guess we are too much in the minority to let minor disagreements become "disputes" and different "schools".

I just did not want you to get 20 different answers and wonder which one is the real preterist answer. (And by preterist I mean orthodox preterist. IMHO there is no other kind. I prefer using the term Pantelist to refer to those out side of orthodox preterism. Pantelist who call themselves preterist are a pet peeve of mine. IOW, if you were politely questioning my orthodoxy, no fear. I am orthodox. Unorthodox would not be allowed to post in the eschatology forum, nor would they be made admin assistants at TWeb.)

[Origen]

Hm...thanks. What about these big web sites like "eschatology.org" and "eschatology101.com"? They seem to be full preterism sites (pantelism). For example, how do we answer this claim:

Regarding eschatology specifically, we hold the view commonly known as the consistent preterist view. We use this word only in its fullest sense and eschew any notion of "partial" preterism. That is a contradiction in terms and is just another form of futurism. Either biblical eschatology has been fulfilled or it has not. Fulfilled is fulfilled. Partial fulfillment is not fulfillment. Let's quit watering down words!

What are some good orthodox preterism sites?

Is there a good article that's just a primer on all this eschatology (defining the terms, offering basic arguments, etc.)?

Thanks,
Origen

[studyhound]

Hm...thanks. What about these big web sites like "eschatology.org" and "eschatology101.com"? They seem to be full preterism sites (pantelism).They are heretical, yes.

For example, how do we answer this claim:

Regarding eschatology specifically, we hold the view commonly known as the consistent preterist view. We use this word only in its fullest sense and eschew any notion of "partial" preterism. That is a contradiction in terms and is just another form of futurism. Either biblical eschatology has been fulfilled or it has not. Fulfilled is fulfilled. Partial fulfillment is not fulfillment. Let's quit watering down words!
They are just trying to hi-jack the term, the orthodox Preterist (us) are the true holders of the term.

What are some good orthodox preterism sites?

American vision (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive.asp)
Dan Trotter (http://courses.coker.edu/dtrotter/contra/preterism/index.html) - acouple a of articles and lots of good audio (not mp3 streaming)
Kenneth Getry (https://host186.ipowerweb.com/%7Ekenneth1/resources.htm)
and DDW's site when its up

Is there a good article that's just a primer on all this eschatology (defining the terms, offering basic arguments, etc.)?

Sheepdog did a nice piece here (http://www.john15.net/pd4x.php?r=eschatology):

[Hitch]

DeeDee & Co.:

I'm delving into the realms of preterism, and I'm highly impressed. Actually, N.T. Wright's work has been reinforcing the view for me (though who knows whether that is his intention). Combine that with Malina and Pilch's note that the Mediterranean culture of the 1st century was present-oriented, and I'd say preterism has to be the most historically accurate.

Of course, I haven't done a ton of research yet. Holding and Dee Dee's articles are pretty much the foundation of my knowledge of preterism, although I need to study them more extensively.

Here's my problem: What is the preterist stance on evangelism?

Im all for it.,

A standard text for motivating evangelism is Matt. 24:14 -

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.

I understand that, under preterism, "all the world" means the Roman empire and "the end" means the end of the age the law and the beginning of the age of the Messiah.

Now, I don't believe "the end of the world" is a good enough motivation for evangelism no matter your eschatology - I, rather, echo people like John Piper who talk about "God's passion for His glory" and our mission to spread it. However, even Piper himself points to the above verse as the result of this mission.

So, then, if the majority of prophecy has been fulfilled, Jesus has executed judgment on Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and we are simply awaiting His return, what are we supposed to be doing, and why?

Seems an odd question for anyone, we are to make disciples,in every nation. Why? Because Jesus so commanded and followed with the example of Paul and others, recorded for our benefit. All of which is nothing less than complete cultural conquest.

Think of this post as support for a newbie preterist, not a challenge.

Thanks,
OrigenHmmmm

[Hitch]

What are some good orthodox preterism sites?

I dont know about any web sites, but its obvious you're serious about learning so I will strongly recommend Gentry's work, specificly;

He Shall Have Dominion. and

Before Jerusalem Fell


There are plenty of titles and authors, but Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion gives a fine and uplifting overview to the obvious question: 'No Rapture,no Great Tribulation ,No Antichrist what could there possibly be to look forward to'?

And Before Jerusalem Fell answers many objections wrt the dating of the Apocalypse. I know of no one ,in our camp who is familiar with these works and does not consider them foundational.

Take care

H

[dizzle]

DeeDee & Co.:

:hi:


I'm delving into the realms of preterism, and I'm highly impressed. Actually, N.T. Wright's work has been reinforcing the view for me (though who knows whether that is his intention).

I don't think it is his intention but a lot of people are coming around to preterism through him. The really good thing is that his very same work also dismantles hyper-[heretica]-preterism in that his work on the resurection shows that it can by no means mean what that quasi-gnostic view requires.


Combine that with Malina and Pilch's note that the Mediterranean culture of the 1st century was present-oriented, and I'd say preterism has to be the most historically accurate.


I have yet to dive into any of that.

I am sorry I don't have time to get to the actual question but i wanted to just let you know I was reading and was glad to be of help in my articles.

[Origen]

Hello Hello -

I don't think it is his intention but a lot of people are coming around to preterism through him. The really good thing is that his very same work also dismantles hyper-[heretica]-preterism in that his work on the resurection shows that it can by no means mean what that quasi-gnostic view requires.

Yeah, considering the fact that N.T. Wright argues for an apocalyptic Jesus who really did believe judgment was coming soon, Christians only have two answers: "Uh, it did" or "Woops, Jesus was wrong." :smile:

And yeah, I hadn't thought about the fact that he also advocates the second bodily return of Christ and the consummation of all things, which dismantles pantelism. I'm still on his work on the people of God and Jesus himself, so I haven't gotten much read/listened to on the resurrection.

I have yet to dive into any of that.

Eh, not much to dive into -- I was just referring to something Malina & Pilch say on the opening pages of The Handbook of Biblical Social Values: “Mediterranean culture, or culture in the Bible, favors...being over doing...present or past time orientation over future" (p. xxiv).

I am sorry I don't have time to get to the actual question but i wanted to just let you know I was reading and was glad to be of help in my articles.

No worries, your posse has done a great job. I'm glad you have an orthodox preterism web site - a simple Google on "eschatology" shows its necessity, particularly in battling pantelism.

Hitch, thanks for your recommendations of Gentry's work. I'll check it all out. :yummy:

Take care,
Origen