Question for preterists: how does partial preterism not lead to full preterism?

[Gavin]

One of the things I struggle with in thinking through preterism is how does partial preterism not lead to full preterism? It seems to me that a lot of Russel's argument regarding passages like Matthew 24 can also be applied to passages dealing with events that partial preterists believe are still future, like the rapture and final resurrection, etc.

Perhaps a couple of examples will help.

First, I Thessalonians 4:13-18 (dealing with the rapture):

13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.


It seems to me that a lot of the arguments Russel uses to confine passages like Matthew 24 to the first century can be applied to this passage. Paul says in verse 15, "we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord" - sure sounds like he is expecting some of the Thessalonians and possibly himself to still be alive at the Lord's coming. Moreover, except for the dead in Christ rising, the coming of the Lord in verse 16 sure sounds a LOT like how it is described in Matthew 24. If not, if Paul is using the "universal we" here, then this sure seems to me to limit the kinds of passages and arguments we can use to argue for preterism elsewhere.

If Paul is simply wrong about the timing of the Lord's coming, how does this bear on his authority as an apostle and author of Scripture?

Am I correct in thinking that traditional partial preterists do believe the rapture is still future?

Next, Matthew 24:36ff.

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.


Here I am just curious - do most of you preterists out there understand this passage as referring to the same events as the previous 34 verses? Because I have read some people who argue Jesus is moving on to talk about a new event in verse 36. I am just wondering what most people think here. If verse 36 is talking about the same thing as the previous verses, the destruction of the Jewish temple and surrounding events in 66-70 AD, then how can Jesus really predict the timing of this coming without knowing when it is ("nor the Son")? Does he have a general knowledge that it will be soon, but not a specific knowledge about the exact timing? How do people understand the terms "day" and "hour?"

Thirdly, I Corinthians 15

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.


I would love it if someone gave me a preterist interpretation of this passge.

What would be really helpful to me is if someone could provide me with an exhaustive list of major eschatological events that have already occured, and major eschatological events that have not yet occured, and how we differentiate between them based on Scripture.

I am not advocating full-preterism here, I know its problems. I am just wondering how to interpret these passages and how to differentiate the "already" and the "not yet" in a preterist model. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Gavin

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

One of the things I struggle with in thinking through preterism is how does partial preterism not lead to full preterism? It seems to me that a lot of Russel's argument regarding passages like Matthew 24 can also be applied to passages dealing with events that partial preterists believe are still future, like the rapture and final resurrection, etc.

Perhaps a couple of examples will help.

First, I Thessalonians 4:13-18 (dealing with the rapture):

13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.


It seems to me that a lot of the arguments Russel uses to confine passages like Matthew 24 to the first century can be applied to this passage. Paul says in verse 15, "we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord" - sure sounds like he is expecting some of the Thessalonians and possibly himself to still be alive at the Lord's coming. Moreover, except for the dead in Christ rising, the coming of the Lord in verse 16 sure sounds a LOT like how it is described in Matthew 24. If not, if Paul is using the "universal we" here, then this sure seems to me to limit the kinds of passages and arguments we can use to argue for preterism elsewhere.

If Paul is simply wrong about the timing of the Lord's coming, how does this bear on his authority as an apostle and author of Scripture?

Am I correct in thinking that traditional partial preterists do believe the rapture is still future?

Next, Matthew 24:36ff.

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.


Here I am just curious - do most of you preterists out there understand this passage as referring to the same events as the previous 34 verses? Because I have read some people who argue Jesus is moving on to talk about a new event in verse 36. I am just wondering what most people think here. If verse 36 is talking about the same thing as the previous verses, the destruction of the Jewish temple and surrounding events in 66-70 AD, then how can Jesus really predict the timing of this coming without knowing when it is ("nor the Son")? Does he have a general knowledge that it will be soon, but not a specific knowledge about the exact timing? How do people understand the terms "day" and "hour?"

Thirdly, I Corinthians 15

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.


I would love it if someone gave me a preterist interpretation of this passge.

What would be really helpful to me is if someone could provide me with an exhaustive list of major eschatological events that have already occured, and major eschatological events that have not yet occured, and how we differentiate between them based on Scripture.

I am not advocating full-preterism here, I know its problems. I am just wondering how to interpret these passages and how to differentiate the "already" and the "not yet" in a preterist model. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Gavin
Those same things led Chilton over to full preterism

"Some of you know my sort of gradual movement into full preterist position...I recently ran across a passage in ‘Paradise Restored’, that now I look at and think; that should have pushed me over the cliff, twelve years ago into full preterism! I don’t know why it didn’t! I don’t know what I would have done if somebody had come to me and said, ‘David Chilton, look at what you said!’ What I’m getting at is, here I am as a full preterist..." (David Chilton, Conference on Bible Prophecy, Oklahoma City, 1997)

[eschaton]

I think you're actually right about that Gavin.

[dizzle]

Gavin I wanted to acknowledge that I saw this, I just don't have the time at the present - I do hope to throw some things out at you. Usually when I get this question, I spend some time on the phone with people as it is quite complex to put into words. 1 Cor 15 though is the key in my opinion.

And for the record Bill, that is not what Chilton meant IIRC, he referred to a specific page number in his book, and I read the page, and it was not these issues. One must be careful in claiming specific passages led Chilton to apostasize, I don't think that is accurate or fair. Chilton apostasized after a very major medical event that he even admitted affected his cognitive abilities in odd ways as well as his behavioural status. He simply cannot be proffered without qualification and those that knew him well said that there was something not exactly right with him after his massive heart attack.

Hopefully I can add something more to this in the near future.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

One of the things I struggle with in thinking through preterism is how does partial preterism not lead to full preterism? It seems to me that a lot of Russel's argument regarding passages like Matthew 24 can also be applied to passages dealing with events that partial preterists believe are still future, like the rapture and final resurrection, etc.

Perhaps a couple of examples will help.

First, I Thessalonians 4:13-18 (dealing with the rapture):

13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.


It seems to me that a lot of the arguments Russel uses to confine passages like Matthew 24 to the first century can be applied to this passage. Paul says in verse 15, "we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord" - sure sounds like he is expecting some of the Thessalonians and possibly himself to still be alive at the Lord's coming. Moreover, except for the dead in Christ rising, the coming of the Lord in verse 16 sure sounds a LOT like how it is described in Matthew 24. If not, if Paul is using the "universal we" here, then this sure seems to me to limit the kinds of passages and arguments we can use to argue for preterism elsewhere.

If Paul is simply wrong about the timing of the Lord's coming, how does this bear on his authority as an apostle and author of Scripture?

Am I correct in thinking that traditional partial preterists do believe the rapture is still future?

Next, Matthew 24:36ff.

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.


Here I am just curious - do most of you preterists out there understand this passage as referring to the same events as the previous 34 verses? Because I have read some people who argue Jesus is moving on to talk about a new event in verse 36. I am just wondering what most people think here. If verse 36 is talking about the same thing as the previous verses, the destruction of the Jewish temple and surrounding events in 66-70 AD, then how can Jesus really predict the timing of this coming without knowing when it is ("nor the Son")? Does he have a general knowledge that it will be soon, but not a specific knowledge about the exact timing? How do people understand the terms "day" and "hour?"

Thirdly, I Corinthians 15

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.


I would love it if someone gave me a preterist interpretation of this passge.

What would be really helpful to me is if someone could provide me with an exhaustive list of major eschatological events that have already occured, and major eschatological events that have not yet occured, and how we differentiate between them based on Scripture.

I am not advocating full-preterism here, I know its problems. I am just wondering how to interpret these passages and how to differentiate the "already" and the "not yet" in a preterist model. Thanks for any help you can provide.

Gavin

Gavin:

I would love to discuss this with you, and will if Dee Dee does not have the time.

But Dee Dee is the expert in this area, and she is much better at articulating this than I am.

However, 1 Cor. 15 is key. Read that, study that.

[Hitch]

What would be really helpful to me is if someone could provide me with an exhaustive list of major eschatological events that have already occured, and major eschatological events that have not yet occured, and how we differentiate between them based on Scripture.

Ok but you're not going to like it.


The First Advent has come and gone. A primary function of the First advent is to end the bloody sacrfices through the sacrfice of Christ. This inagurates the historical kingdom.

The second Advent inaugurates eternity.

take care

Hitch

[Ted]

Just for grins, Ed Stevens, a full Preterist (Neo-Hymenaean!) calls me a partial preterist, largely because I show the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24-27 as fulfilled in AD31. (The destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 is part of the prophecy, but not within the 70 weeks.)

Those of you who have looked at my posts are aware that I am generally Historicist in my approach (prophecy unfolds throughout history), and have consistent approaches to all the texts listed in the OP. Thus, I find no threat at all of sliding into full Preterism. It simply fails in a number of ways to comport with the clear teachings of scripture.

Ted

[dizzle]

Ted it is such a relief to have such a reasonable historicist here. It seems like Ed is playing the typical word games of the NeoHymeanean crowd. Ted you might be interested in something I wrote on that very topic:

Back to the Futur(ists) (http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=156)

[Sheepdog]

One of the things I struggle with in thinking through preterism is how does partial preterism not lead to full preterism? It seems to me that a lot of Russel's argument regarding passages like Matthew 24 can also be applied to passages dealing with events that partial preterists believe are still future, like the rapture and final resurrection, etc.

Perhaps a couple of examples will help.

First, I Thessalonians 4:13-18 (dealing with the rapture):

13Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 15According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. 18Therefore encourage each other with these words.


It seems to me that a lot of the arguments Russel uses to confine passages like Matthew 24 to the first century can be applied to this passage. Paul says in verse 15, "we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord" - sure sounds like he is expecting some of the Thessalonians and possibly himself to still be alive at the Lord's coming. Moreover, except for the dead in Christ rising, the coming of the Lord in verse 16 sure sounds a LOT like how it is described in Matthew 24. If not, if Paul is using the "universal we" here, then this sure seems to me to limit the kinds of passages and arguments we can use to argue for preterism elsewhere.

i would have no problem extending this out into a general "we." i understand what you mean about that biting us in the butt elsewhere, but as with many cases like this, you pick your poison. in this case, Paul is addressing a specific concern, that is presumably the Thessalonicans worried about either what will happen to the dead, or else the still living, at the second coming. Paul addresses this concern in a straight forward manner. whether or not it was to come in Paul or the Thessalonicans' times is not the subject of the matter. furthermore, Paul goes on immediately after this passage to remind the people that "the day of the Lord" will be like a thief in the night (1Th 5:1ff). i think that alone counter-balances the implication that Paul expected the bodily return of Christ in his life time (he knew better than to assume that, but he had to leave it open as a possibility... i suspect it was just cumbersome to qualify things as "unless the Lord tarries" when he'll elaborate on that caveat anyways.)

each passage should be exegeted on it's own merit. there are many passages i won't force a strict Preterist interpretation on.

Am I correct in thinking that traditional partial preterists do believe the rapture is still future?

i guess it depends on what you mean by "rapture" in the first place. i don't believe in the sort of "rapture" meant in the popular sense. this very passage, as a matter of fact, is what i'd use against the popular rapture doctrine. Paul uses a particular word in 4:17 for "to meet," which "was a technical term in the ancient world. It refered to the meeting of a delegation of citizens from a city with an arriving dignitary in order to accord that visitor proper respect and honor by escorting him back to their city." (Arnlold, Clinton E. ed. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. vol. 3. p. 423. Zondervan, Grand Rapids; 2002) We (living and resurrected saints) will indeed meet Christ in the air, but as a procession to welcome and accompany Christ on his return back to earth.

Next, Matthew 24:36ff.

36"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[f] but only the Father. 37As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; 39and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. 40Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. 41Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

42"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. 43But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. 44So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.

Here I am just curious - do most of you preterists out there understand this passage as referring to the same events as the previous 34 verses? Because I have read some people who argue Jesus is moving on to talk about a new event in verse 36. I am just wondering what most people think here. If verse 36 is talking about the same thing as the previous verses, the destruction of the Jewish temple and surrounding events in 66-70 AD, then how can Jesus really predict the timing of this coming without knowing when it is ("nor the Son")? Does he have a general knowledge that it will be soon, but not a specific knowledge about the exact timing? How do people understand the terms "day" and "hour?"

i do not split the Olivet Discourse into two events. as i've noted elsewhere, there would be no way for Jesus to even describe the events surrounding the coming judgement on Jerusalem unless he had some sort of prophetic knowledge of when it would occur. He didn't need to know when precise day and hour (i interpret those as literal days and hours :wink:) in order to know that it would come within a specific, finite time frame.

Thirdly, I Corinthians 15

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.


I would love it if someone gave me a preterist interpretation of this passge.

a lot of bad guys get beaten up, and we win! :teeth:

we recently had a thread on this passage (Postmil vs. Amil (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=79442)). I'm still up in the air on the passage, beyond that it is still future (since dominions, authorities, and powers that oppose Christ are still around).

What would be really helpful to me is if someone could provide me with an exhaustive list of major eschatological events that have already occured, and major eschatological events that have not yet occured, and how we differentiate between them based on Scripture.

that would be nice, wouldn't it?

all i can do is say exegete each individual passage as is appropriate. beyond that, my Revelation chronology was, anything prior to the Millennium is AD 70 and prior, and anything after the Millenium is still future. but that was my amil position, and i'm shifting to postmil, so i don't have a good chronology at the moment.

[dizzle]

I'm hoping to respond to this this weekend, I'd don't want people to think that I've just abandon Gavin to the wolves, we have corresponded a bit, but I do want to put some stuff up publicly.

and also so that this doesn't get buried in a later post, hyper-preterism is in error that becomes blatantly apparent when one really looks at things systematically and not isolated proof-texts. In fact, I think the evangelical over-reliance on the proof-text method in dealing with cults for example, specifically those dealing with the deity of Christ, has made us easy prey for pseudo-Christian cultic interpretations such as hyper-preterism. When one looks at things a bit more systematically and how various beliefs interact with each other, it becomes more obvious. I highly encourage anyone who is exploring this issue to carefully go through many of the articles I have on this page:

http://www.preteristsite.com/praeteristresources.html

also I would suggest going through the anti-hyperpreterist blog entries I have catalogued here:

http://www.preteristsite.com/deedeewarren.html

particularly the ones that show some of the similarities of really downright cultic beliefs such as in the pieces entitled "All All along the Watchtower" and "An Eddy in the Waters"

[GhostontheNet]

Partial preterism does not lead to hyper preterism for exactly the same reason Revelation's threat to some of the Asian churches that he will come and judge them harshly if they don't shape up doesn't mean that their disobedience will trigger the second coming and for the same reason Isaiah 19 doesn't threaten the second coming when it says
"Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud
and comes to Egypt;
and the idols of Egypt will tremble at his presence,
and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them."

For if this passage cannot be about Christ's return because the order of judgments in the chapter.

[John Reece]

Gavin,

I would pass on to you a recommendation made to me by D. A. Carson many years ago: that is, Jesus and the Old Testament, by R. T. France, available here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573830062/qid=1152385303/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6367370-1539235?s=books&v=glance&n=283155).

[dizzle]

I just ordered it finally

[Sheepdog]

I'm hoping to respond to this this weekend, I'd don't want people to think that I've just abandon Gavin to the wolves, we have corresponded a bit, but I do want to put some stuff up publicly.

are you intimating that i'm a wolf? :tongue:

[dizzle]

grrrrrr

No, you're a sheepdog

[spiritmech]

Who is SheepDog then? I can't keep my Famous Preterists in TWeb History straight.
sm

grrrrrr

No, you're a sheepdog

[Gavin]

Gavin,

I would pass on to you a recommendation made to me by D. A. Carson many years ago: that is, Jesus and the Old Testament, by R. T. France, available here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1573830062/qid=1152385303/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-6367370-1539235?s=books&v=glance&n=283155).


Hey John,

Its great to hear from you, I hope all is well with you. I took a look at France's book this past semester. If I remember correctly, he was one of the ones who divided Matthew 23:1-35 from 36ff. Also, his approach seemed to me to border on historicist or idealist at times, unless I am thinking of a different book. Anyway, I remembered you recommending that book to me a while back, which is why I looked at it. It was the first book I ever read on preterism and I have forgotten most of it, but I remember it being helpful.

gavin

[Gavin]

I am reading your site, dee dee. Except I keep getting distracted by the xena pictures. Forever I will associate preterism and xena. You can proud you have impacted me in at least this way.

While I am reading, does anyone want to give me a preterist interpretation of revelation 11:3? Thanks.

[dizzle]

Remember that for the articles, there is a "plain text" link at the top of each one so you can view it in a xena-less template.

once I get time I am going to be switching to a new Xena pic, I have just been so busy

[Gavin]

I read your initial article that Frost responded to.

I went through several thoughts in this order.

1) Its just common sense that we are not living in the new heavens and new earth in which death has been defeated.

2) Full preterism is the definition of over-realized eschatology.

3) The fact that Christ's resurrection was bodily is the death knell for full preterism.

However, my initial concern in this thread is still present. If partial preterists are going to be consistent, shouldn't they stop using the kinds of arguments for partial preterism that would also validate full preterism, if applied to alternate passages? For example, Sproul quotes approvingly Russel's arguments on Matthew 24 regarding the relevance of these warnings to the original audience (e.g., "when you see" [15], "those who are in Judea" [16], etc. But if these kinds of arguments are applied to I Thessalonians 4, bad things happen . . . . Am I being unfair here?

Dee Dee, do you believe Matthew 24:35ff. refers to events future or past? Also, what do you do with Revelation 11:3?

Back to hanging out with xena . . .

[A Cup of No]

On a somewhat related note: is it wrong to say that Paul expected the parousia in his lifetime, and was wrong? I think it is understandable concerning how seriously the gospel was impacting, and how far it was spreading in such a short time. Perhaps Paul thought he was seeing the fulfillment of the ideas he penned in 1 Cor 15? Just a thought.

[Hitch]

On a somewhat related note: is it wrong to say that Paul expected the parousia in his lifetime, and was wrong? I think it is understandable concerning how seriously the gospel was impacting, and how far it was spreading in such a short time. Perhaps Paul thought he was seeing the fulfillment of the ideas he penned in 1 Cor 15? Just a thought.Hmmmmm Pete knew he would die before all this happened and I think Paul did as well but I cant come up with the reference off hand.


Sorry

H

[GhostontheNet]

On a somewhat related note: is it wrong to say that Paul expected the parousia in his lifetime, and was wrong? I think it is understandable concerning how seriously the gospel was impacting, and how far it was spreading in such a short time. Perhaps Paul thought he was seeing the fulfillment of the ideas he penned in 1 Cor 15? Just a thought.
It's exactly 1 Corinthians 15 that makes me strongly suspect that Paul did not expect the Second coming in his lifetime because he would have known that however quickly and far impacting it was upon things, it was not yet close to rendering all governments and earthly authorities entirely obsolete and ready to be dismantled (though in one sense the cross itself already acomplished this), whom he calls the enemies of God to be destroyed drawing from Psalms 2 and 110. He would have seen pieces of progressing torwards that fulfillment, but never the entire fulfillment itself.

[Sheepdog]

Who is SheepDog then? I can't keep my Famous Preterists in TWeb History straight.
sm

i'm the holder of the official Sheepdog trademark, complete with franchise rights. i'm just ghosting as a Tuck for the moment.

[Sheepdog]

I read your initial article that Frost responded to.

I went through several thoughts in this order.

1) Its just common sense that we are not living in the new heavens and new earth in which death has been defeated.

2) Full preterism is the definition of over-realized eschatology.

3) The fact that Christ's resurrection was bodily is the death knell for full preterism.

However, my initial concern in this thread is still present. If partial preterists are going to be consistent, shouldn't they stop using the kinds of arguments for partial preterism that would also validate full preterism, if applied to alternate passages? For example, Sproul quotes approvingly Russel's arguments on Matthew 24 regarding the relevance of these warnings to the original audience (e.g., "when you see" [15], "those who are in Judea" [16], etc. But if these kinds of arguments are applied to I Thessalonians 4, bad things happen . . . . Am I being unfair here?

Dee Dee, do you believe Matthew 24:35ff. refers to events future or past? Also, what do you do with Revelation 11:3?

Back to hanging out with xena . . .

i don't think you are being unfair. prima facie, consistency would demand that sort of interpretation. however, once we start considering the differing contexts, differing genres, differing writing styles, i think you can see why i say we ought to interpret each specific, individual passage on it's own merits. and that doesn't speak of Pauline passages which would demand that, on the pain of straining gnats and swallowing camels, this is be taken straight forward and therefore has to be interpreted futuristicly (after all, we have yet to take a flight to meet Jesus in the air).

Sproul himself was famous for the remark, "consistency is the hobgoblin of lesser minds."

[Armor of God]

From what I've seen, the "consistency" claimed by full preterism is somewhat intellectually lazy. They tend to take a passage and anything that even seems to be related to mean the same thing, even when closer readings show that different references are being made.

This is where I think partial preterism is actually more consistent. Like Sheepdog said, It actually looks at each passage and it's context to determine when it takes place, and where it fits within the overall framework.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Sproul himself was famous for the remark, "consistency is the hobgoblin of lesser minds."

Famous, maybe, but not original, and (if that's exactly what he said) he misquoted it (perhaps deliberately):

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

The (where's Waldo?) Curtmudgeon

[dizzle]

It seems to me that a lot of the arguments Russell uses to confine passages like Matthew 24 to the first century can be applied to this passage. Paul says in verse 15, "we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord" - sure sounds like he is expecting some of the Thessalonians and possibly himself to still be alive at the Lord's coming. Moreover, except for the dead in Christ rising, the coming of the Lord in verse 16 sure sounds a LOT like how it is described in Matthew 24. If not, if Paul is using the "universal we" here, then this sure seems to me to limit the kinds of passages and arguments we can use to argue for preterism elsewhere.

This is one reason why I do not agree with the overemphasis that some preterist place upon the pronouns "you" and "we" (though I think there is a contextual and qualitative difference between those two which I will address separately).

With regards to "you" I do not think that it can bear the weight that some preterist such as Gary DeMar place upon its, and I do not do so. I believe the use of "you" is important, but not in isolation, but rather judging by the context, because I believe that although it does indicate primary relevance to the original audience, I do not think that the Bible can be limited in such a way to only have relevance to the original audience, and as long as there is in fact relevance to the original audience, then it is improper to use that personal pronoun to limit it in that way. However, due to the time specific and unrepeatable nature of the issue under discussion in events such as the Olivet discourse, I feel that the use of "you" is in fact important, but it is not solely based upon the fact that it is the personal present pronoun, if that makes any sense.

With regards to "we", I think by examining the usage throughout the entire New Testament, the entire body of believers is being referred to, and it is highly improper to limit it to simply the people who first read Paul's letter. Would it not be applicable to the children of the original readers that read that same letter 10 years later, and the event had not happened yet? I just don't think that is theologically supportable or necessary. I believe that Paul is referring to the universal church, and as he was presently a live when he was writing the letter, it is just linguistically natural to include himself among the living, but does not limit himself to among the living. It is in things such as this that I believe the hyperpreterists are hyperliteralists in reverse.

i would have no problem extending this out into a general "we." i understand what you mean about that biting us in the butt elsewhere, but as with many cases like this, you pick your poison. in this case, Paul is addressing a specific concern, that is presumably the Thessalonicans worried about either what will happen to the dead, or else the still living, at the second coming. Paul addresses this concern in a straight forward manner. whether or not it was to come in Paul or the Thessalonicans' times is not the subject of the matter.

I think you have that correct. We cannot expand the context beyond what the text is saying.


Am I correct in thinking that traditional partial preterists do believe the rapture is still future?

Seeing how orthodox preterists believe that the event known as the "rapture" is the general resurrection, then yes you are correct. If you would like to know some rationale about why I reject the designation of the "partial preterist" then please see the following link:

Back to the Futur(ists) (http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=156)

This is the link I had already given to Ted earlier.

Here I am just curious - do most of you preterists out there understand this passage as referring to the same events as the previous 34 verses? Because I have read some people who argue Jesus is moving on to talk about a new event in verse 36. I am just wondering what most people think here. If verse 36 is talking about the same thing as the previous verses, the destruction of the Jewish temple and surrounding events in 66-70 AD, then how can Jesus really predict the timing of this coming without knowing when it is ("nor the Son")? Does he have a general knowledge that it will be soon, but not a specific knowledge about the exact timing? How do people understand the terms "day" and "hour?"

I waver back and forth between that issue. At one point, I was pretty dead set that there was no division, but at this point, I am still unsettled. Lately I've been exploring the position that it does refer primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem but intentionally has echoes or ripples that extend outwards. I think that preterists (and I use that term to exclusively refer to orthodox preterists and not hyperpreterists) can sometimes run into the error of reverse hyperliteralism. I have blogged on this somewhat as follows:

Hello Parker! (http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=38)

I discussed some of the pro and con points of a division in my Matthew 24 commentary beginning at this point:

It's Not the End of the World! ~ beginning with verse 24:36 (http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html#matt2436)

Thirdly, I Corinthians 15

22For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. 23But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. 24Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.


I would love it if someone gave me a preterist interpretation of this passage.

I'm not sure how extensive you are looking for, and how much persons have already answered this question. This passage is, IMHO, very clear, and very devastating to hyper-preterism, and actually any form of premillennialism (for clarity's sake I want to make it abundantly explicit that I am not comparing the two, for one is clearly orthodox, and the other is clearly unorthodox). What I would like to do is give you a link to take a look at because basically I don't wanna have to retype the wheel when someone else has already done so, and then perhaps we can springboard off of this article. The article is particularly helpful for not only gives a preterist interpretation (consistent with a postmillennial outlook, and also the outlook of many amillennialists such as member Theonomy), but in an appendix Strawbridge also deals with hyper-preterism:

AN EXEGETICAL DEFENSE OF POSTMILLENNIALISM FROM I CORINTHIANS 15:24-26: The Eschatology of the DIXIT DOMINUS (http://www.wordmp3.com/gs/postmill.htm)

Also dealing directly with hyper-preterism is the following article by Hofstetter:

1 Corinthians 15 (http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/hoffrez.html)

and
Hyper-Preterism and 1 Corinthians 15 (http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/show.dml/145135)
Let me know if after reviewing this background information there are additional issues to address, but I think this is exactly what you were looking for.
What would be really helpful to me is if someone could provide me with an exhaustive list of major eschatological events that have already occurred, and major eschatological events that have not yet occurred, and how we differentiate between them based on Scripture.

Dan Trotter tackles this a bit in, IIRC, the tape called “The Three Thessalonian Passages” located on this page:

Trotter Tapes (http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/trotterindex.html)

I think part of the issue here is a tendency to view the “coming” in the New Testament in AD70 as a discreet “event.” I don’t. I have an unusual view for today (which I find now validated in some older commentaries and mentioned favourably by Greg Bahnsen) that the entire inter-advental period is the “coming” of Christ which is bookmarked by two physical appearances. We can talk about that a bit more, but I believe this understanding is KEY to avoiding Hyperpreterism with its nonsensical “consistency” (the only thing it is consistently is consistently heretical in its ultimate conclusions). That being said, I think you are asking about passages referring to events associated with the “Second Coming” – I once listed this (as not exhaustive but a good start in a former debate I was in):

The primary passages about the end of history in the NT are:

1 Corinthians 15
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
Romans 8
John 5:28-29
Romans 14:10-12
Matthew 12:41-42 (and it's Lukan parallel)
John 6:39-54
John 12:48
Acts 17:31
Acts 1:9-11
Philippians 2:5-11
1 John 2:28 - 3:3
Philippians 3:20-21
Romans 6:5
2 Cor. 4:14
Acts 24:14-15
John 6:39-54
Luke 20:35
Matthew 10:26-28
2 Cor. 5:6-10
1 John 4:17

The primary NT passages that began in the first century and describe events up through the end of history are

Revelation 20 and 21
Matthew 24:31
Matthew 25:31-44
Matthew 28:19
Ephesians 1:20-21
Hebrews 2:5-8

I am sure that there are more, but this should suffice for now. The differentiations between those that are past, such as Matthew 24 are these in part:

There is no reference to judgment upon the first century apostate Jews but instead refer to the resurrection and defeat of all foes

The time frames given are nonexistent or open as opposed to definite and unrepeatable statements that place events in the first century.


However, my initial concern in this thread is still present. If partial preterists are going to be consistent, shouldn't they stop using the kinds of arguments for partial preterism that would also validate full preterism, if applied to alternate passages? For example, Sproul quotes approvingly Russell’s arguments on Matthew 24 regarding the relevance of these warnings to the original audience (e.g., "when you see" [15], "those who are in Judea" [16], etc. But if these kinds of arguments are applied to I Thessalonians 4, bad things happen . . . . Am I being unfair here?

Yes in a way I think this is unfair, though caution should indeed be warranted. However, to borrow a phrase from Gentry “exactness of terminology doesn’t necessitate exactness of referent” (or something close to that). I note this example:

As is the case with Paul’s usage of the word sarx, the term “body of Christ” is used with different conclusions. It can denote Christ’s personal, literal body, in which he dies, rose from the dead, went to heaven, and will come again; the Church; and the bread in the Lord’s Supper. Though the three are related, they are not identical.

Generally the terminology indicates more likely that the events are certainly related but not necessarily identical.

I wanted to touch a bit on your questions on 1 Thess 4 as well by quoting something I wrote once to a correspondent on this issue:

The Thessalonians passage is an obvious parallel to Acts 1:11. Christ comes down from Heaven. It is the opposite of what is taught in Matthew, but the two events are conceptually related. I could find similarities in language of the Thessalonians passage with multiple OT judgment passages but that would not make the OT passages be speaking of the resurrection, nor the Thessalonians passage be speaking of a national temporal judgment. The contexts are completely different. We cannot fall into the trap of brute consistency of language determining our hermeneutics.
I would like also to leave you with this quote from Jay Adams in “Preterism: Orthodox or Unorthodox” (I HIGHLY recommend that book along with C. Jonathin Seraiah’s “The End of All Things”)
But the descent of the Lord Jesus as He comes back to earth will not merely be a coming into the air. At that time He will assemble His own by calling them forth from the grave (or changing them if still alive) so as to meet Him in the air. Why do the believers go out to meet Christ as He returns to Earth? Certainly not to hang around in the air for seven more years before He actually comes to earth. No. The word “meet” is a specialized term used in only two other places in the NT (mentioned below). It does not refer to the sort of meeting which takes place when two persons happen to meet when walking down the street. Nor does it refer to a called meeting – say, of a church board of elders. It is a specialized term meaning “to meet in order to escort back.”

He has several other gems in this chapter but that is what really caught my eye.

Yes the two passages are similar and yes they are related, but is exactly where they differ that is the issue. After all we are allegedly only 2% different in our DNA from chimps, but I think we would be pretty cognizant of the difference despite the similarity.

[Ted]

Tuck,

You may wish to revisit the “thief in the night” passages. Every one of them is directed toward the impact of the Day of the Lord on the wicked. In contrast, the saints see the signs of the times. For them, the parousia is not sudden and unexpected.

Next, your reference to Clinton’s comment about apantesis is contradicted by a host of other commentators. Further, we must note that “bring” in 4:14 is a theological translation. (See Matt 26:46, Mark 1:38, Acts 8:32, and so on) The basic thrust of ago is to “take along side” without reference to direction. Thus, “take” or “bring” is equally valid in isolation, and the direction must be inferred from context. 4:14 lacks any internal context to help, so we must look externally. John 14:1-3 tells us that Jesus’ parousia is to “receive” the saints. And this is the universal expectation of the NT and the ANF. So the idea of going out to receive the returning king is completely backward. Rather, the king is returning to receive us. We rise to meet him and are then transported to the Father’s house (John 14:2).

To me, this seems to definitively remove any hope for the “full-Preterist” position.

With regards to "we", I think by examining the usage throughout the entire New Testament, the entire body of believers is being referred to, and it is highly improper to limit it to simply the people who first read Paul's letter. Would it not be applicable to the children of the original readers that read that same letter 10 years later, and the event had not happened yet? I just don't think that is theologically supportable or necessary. I believe that Paul is referring to the universal church, and as he was presently a live when he was writing the letter, it is just linguistically natural to include himself among the living, but does not limit himself to among the living. It is in things such as this that I believe the hyperpreterists are hyperliteralists in reverse.
Brilliant observation! (emphasis added)

Ted

[John Reece]

With regard to John 14, I have a question.

In terms of being with or not with the Lord, where now are the disciples to whom Jesus was speaking when he said he would return and take them (Peter, James, John, et. al.) to be with him?

[Gavin]

Dee Dee, thanks for your thoughtful response, I have taken some time to think it over and read the links you posted. I am going to respond selectively with a few lingering questions/concerns/thoughts from what we have talked about, and also raise a few new issues.

With regards to "we", I think by examining the usage throughout the entire New Testament, the entire body of believers is being referred to, and it is highly improper to limit it to simply the people who first read Paul's letter. Would it not be applicable to the children of the original readers that read that same letter 10 years later, and the event had not happened yet? I just don't think that is theologically supportable or necessary. I believe that Paul is referring to the universal church, and as he was presently a live when he was writing the letter, it is just linguistically natural to include himself among the living, but does not limit himself to among the living. It is in things such as this that I believe the hyperpreterists are hyperliteralists in reverse.

This addresses the use of the first person plural, “we;” but what about the phrase “we . . . who are left till the coming of the Lord” (15), designating those believers who stand in contrast to the Thessalonican believers who have passed away? I have a more difficult time imagining that Paul is thinking of the universal church when he says this. I am trying to imagine Paul sitting in Corinth writing or dictating this letter to the Thessalonians and using the phrase, “we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord” intending to refer to the universal church which includes believers not only from all over the ancient world but those removed from Paul by multiple millennia. On the face of it, it seems to me that to view verse 15 as a reference to the universal church is to divorce the letter from its historical context as a letter written to specific people. This raise an important issue – what about other first person plural references throughout this letter as well as the whole Pauline corpus? Are some references to Paul and his contemporary audience, and others references to universal church? How do we differentiate between these two? Clearly something like 1:10 is not the universal church – so how do we differentiate this from 4:15 apart from our pre-constructed theological paradigm?

If Paul was referring to the actual Thessalonican believers, then the only other option that I can see is that Paul was wrong about the timing of the parousia. Perhaps he expected a the complete second coming, when all that really was to come was a partial coming in judgement typologically anticipating the complete parousia? What do you think about this? Certainly Paul could be an apostle an be wrong, apostolicity was no guarantee of infallibility (Galatians 2:11). But as a writer of inerrant Scripture, could Paul be wrong? This delves into all kind of issues regarding Paul and his view of his own writings. Was he aware that he was writing Scripture? Was he aware that his letters, though written ad hoc to specific contemporary churches, would have an audience of the universal church? Was he writing to multiple audiences – his ad hoc first century audience, on the one hand, and the universal church, on the other? If he was mistaken about the timing of the parousia, which is a significant theological miscalculation, how does this bear on views of inerrancy? I remember reading one evangelical scholar mentioning that Paul was wrong in some of his eschatological expectations, and breezing over this as if it were no problem, but it seemed kind of awkward to me.

Even if you don’t think Paul was mistaken about the timing of the parousia, do you think one can believe this without denying inerrancy?

I waver back and forth between that issue. At one point, I was pretty dead set that there was no division, but at this point, I am still unsettled. Lately I've been exploring the position that it does refer primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem but intentionally has echoes or ripples that extend outwards. I think that preterists (and I use that term to exclusively refer to orthodox preterists and not hyperpreterists) can sometimes run into the error of reverse hyperliteralism. I have blogged on this somewhat as follows:

Hello Parker! (http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=38)

I discussed some of the pro and con points of a division in my Matthew 24 commentary beginning at this point:

It's Not the End of the World! ~ beginning with verse 24:36 (http://www.preteristsite.com/plain/warrenend.html#matt2436)

Those links were helpful, the point about hyperliteralism is a good one, that helps me. Now when you refer to “the position that it does refer primarily to the destruction of Jerusalem but intentionally has echoes or ripples that extend outwards,” what about if we were to do this with other passages? If we were to do this Matthew 24:1-35 and the book of revelation, wouldn’t this come rather close to a historicist or even possibly idealist interpretation?

Actually, its funny, this is similar to the point my dad (futurist) made to me when discussing preterism, as a point against preterism. He said, “son, there are many things in the olivet discourse that were fulfilled in the first century, such as the destruction of the jewish temple. But the clouds, the trumpets, the angels, the signs in the heavens, the gathering, etc. – these are things that the destruction of the temple foreshadowed, but they won’t really occur until the end of history at the full parousia.” In this way he tries to deal with both the time frame references as well as the alleged futurity of some the events described. (For clarity’s sake: understand that I am not saying I agree with this.)

Let me try to state plainly what I am thinking in one sentence. Does not the reality of dual fulfillment of prophecy (which you are rightly argue for from passages in Isaiah in your evaluation of Parker) present the possibility that the events of Matthew 24:1-34 be fulfilled in two events, the first being the destruction of the jewish temple and associated events, in which the son of man comes in a very vague sense, the second being the more obvious and final coming at the end of history, of which 70AD is a typological anticipation? Some might even go so far as to say that the destruction of the temple was the first fulfillment, and the coming of the son of man was the second fulfillment. I don’t think this division works because of Matthew 10:23 and 16:28, but I still think people can mess with preterism and chop out bits of Matthew 24 from the past by using the dual fulfillment argument.

I'm not sure how extensive you are looking for, and how much persons have already answered this question. This passage is, IMHO, very clear, and very devastating to hyper-preterism, and actually any form of premillennialism (for clarity's sake I want to make it abundantly explicit that I am not comparing the two, for one is clearly orthodox, and the other is clearly unorthodox). What I would like to do is give you a link to take a look at because basically I don't wanna have to retype the wheel when someone else has already done so, and then perhaps we can springboard off of this article. The article is particularly helpful for not only gives a preterist interpretation (consistent with a postmillennial outlook, and also the outlook of many amillennialists such as member Theonomy), but in an appendix Strawbridge also deals with hyper-preterism:

AN EXEGETICAL DEFENSE OF POSTMILLENNIALISM FROM I CORINTHIANS 15:24-26: The Eschatology of the DIXIT DOMINUS (http://www.wordmp3.com/gs/postmill.htm)

Also dealing directly with hyper-preterism is the following article by Hofstetter:

1 Corinthians 15 (http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/hoffrez.html)

and
Hyper-Preterism and 1 Corinthians 15 (http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/show.dml/145135)
Let me know if after reviewing this background information there are additional issues to address, but I think this is exactly what you were looking for.

Thanks, that’s great, I read the first two articles. I Corinthians 15 is huge, I am beginning to understand that.

I would define myself as either optimistic amill or postmill, I am not exactly sure how the two differ. I definitely think the millennium is the entire inter-advental period, not some time towards the end of it, which I know clashes with Gentry’s postmill. But I understand not all postmills posit this.

Yes in a way I think this is unfair, though caution should indeed be warranted. However, to borrow a phrase from Gentry “exactness of terminology doesn’t necessitate exactness of referent” (or something close to that). I note this example:

As is the case with Paul’s usage of the word sarx, the term “body of Christ” is used with different conclusions. It can denote Christ’s personal, literal body, in which he dies, rose from the dead, went to heaven, and will come again; the Church; and the bread in the Lord’s Supper. Though the three are related, they are not identical.

Generally the terminology indicates more likely that the events are certainly related but not necessarily identical.

Point well taken.

The Thessalonians passage is an obvious parallel to Acts 1:11. Christ comes down from Heaven. It is the opposite of what is taught in Matthew, but the two events are conceptually related. I could find similarities in language of the Thessalonians passage with multiple OT judgment passages but that would not make the OT passages be speaking of the resurrection, nor the Thessalonians passage be speaking of a national temporal judgment. The contexts are completely different. We cannot fall into the trap of brute consistency of language determining our hermeneutics.

That’s helpful.

Three new questions (sorry to dump all this on you, just reply to what you want):
1) what is the preterist view of revelation 11:3? No one has replied to this yet.
2) You mentioned Matthew 12:41-42 as a passage referring to the end of history, not 70 AD. This passage seems to refer to the timing of the judgment of “this generation” i.e. the generation of Jews who rejected their true messiah. Doesn’t this seem take the steam out of an argument for preterism from Matthew 23:36, as well as the general preterist view that the judgment on “this generation” occurred in 70 AD? Or am I confusing an earthly judgment with eternal judgment?
3) This question will show how ignorant I am about preterism. What do preterists mean when they say that Jesus came in the clouds in 70AD? I know its symbolic, but do they simply mean that the roman army came, and Jesus used them to judge, so he “came” through the roman army? Do any or all preterists actually believe Jesus appeared to Jews from the clouds while they were being attacked? I remember reading some passage in Josephus (sproul quotes it) in which Josephus records that many reported seeing an army in the clouds during the siege.

These are all questions, ruminations, attempts to find the truth along the process of learning, not arguments from a defined and set position.

gavin

[dizzle]

Hello Gavin, I will get to respond to your points, but likely will be a weekend project again. I have so little time during the week, and I just got back from an outpatient surgery (for which I am very glad that there is an incorruptible body in my future)

I Corinthians 15 is huge, I am beginning to understand that.

It is, IMHO one of the most important passages in the NT. So much ground is covered there. My husband jokes with people who ask me theological questions about anything, he says, "No matter what, her answer is 1 Corinthians 15." :hehe:

[Armor of God]

Gavin,

I'll take a stab at 1 and 3, but 2 I'm still trying to figure out myself. I hope DD or Faramir or someone else will follow my response if need be, because I'm still kind of cutting my teeth when it comes to preterism. Guess you gotta start somewhere though...hope you don't mind being my guinea pig. :)

1) what is the preterist view of revelation 11:3? No one has replied to this yet.
Rev. 11:3 speaks of the 2 witnesses that "prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth" (ESV). I'm sure there are different understandings of this, but from what I can tell, all agree that 2 is necessary because of outlines in the OT that require 2 witnesses to be brought against someone for justice to be carried out (Deu 17:6). Where it gets dicey is who the 2 witnesses actually are. Some preterists believe it just represents the Church on earth. Others say it's the OT and NT. Personally, I liken them to the Church, since it was a definite witness of God, and it survived attempts to stamp it out by both Jews and Nero. The 1260 days may be the 3 and 1/2 years that Jerusalem was under seige, or it may refer to the short time of struggle before the Church exploded and really started gaining ground. Jesus' ministry was about 3 and 1/2 years, so I've heard some preterists draw parallels between that and the entire church age to explain the 3 and 1/2 years mentioned here.

I'm sure that muddies the water a bit more.

3) What do preterists mean when they say that Jesus came in the clouds in 70AD?
The language to describe this "coming" hearkens back to the OT in several places, especially Daniel 7:13 and surrounding verses. Consider Daniel's point of view in his vision...he is in heaven and seeing Jesus come up to the Ancient of Days (God). It's the same concept here. Jesus is coming up to receive His kingdom and vindicate Himself and the prophets. In other words, the destruction on Jerusalem was the sign that Jesus was now in control.

As far as the army in the clouds that Josephus records, this could be in reference to the "signs" and "wonders" associated with the false Messiahs in Matt. 24:23-26. I don't think this army was Jesus in the clouds or anything that would provide a visual clue to the destruction to come, but I guess it could have been an ill omen nonetheless.

Hope this helps a little.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Since Armor of God got 2 out of 3, the least I could do is take a stab at #2.



2) You mentioned Matthew 12:41-42 as a passage referring to the end of history, not 70 AD. This passage seems to refer to the timing of the judgment of “this generation” i.e. the generation of Jews who rejected their true messiah. Doesn’t this seem take the steam out of an argument for preterism from Matthew 23:36, as well as the general preterist view that the judgment on “this generation” occurred in 70 AD? Or am I confusing an earthly judgment with eternal judgment?


Yes. Pretty much what you said. You are confusing earthly judgment with eternal judgment.

Once again (as always), context is the key.

Mt. 12:41-42:41The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. 42The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.

Here we have the men of Nineveh and the Queen of the South rising (meaning they are somehow not risen at the time of speaking) at the judgment.

And since we know from the OT that the men of Nineveh heard Jonah, and the Queen of the South went to Solomon centuries before the first century, we know that they are dead. This is consistent with the idea of an end of the world resurrection/judgment.

Now Mt. 23:36, in isolation, could also be talking a future (to us as well as the disciples) judgment. However, let's once again, look at the context.

Immediately following this verse is Jesus' lament over Jerusalem, and immediately following that is Chapter 24 (and remember the chapter divisions are later add ons not part of the original text).

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Great reply Armor of God. I would like to add just a little.

Gavin,

I'll take a stab at 1 and 3, but 2 I'm still trying to figure out myself. I hope DD or Faramir or someone else will follow my response if need be, because I'm still kind of cutting my teeth when it comes to preterism. Guess you gotta start somewhere though...hope you don't mind being my guinea pig. :)


Rev. 11:3 speaks of the 2 witnesses that "prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth" (ESV). I'm sure there are different understandings of this, but from what I can tell, all agree that 2 is necessary because of outlines in the OT that require 2 witnesses to be brought against someone for justice to be carried out (Deu 17:6). Where it gets dicey is who the 2 witnesses actually are. Some preterists believe it just represents the Church on earth. Others say it's the OT and NT. Personally, I liken them to the Church, since it was a definite witness of God, and it survived attempts to stamp it out by both Jews and Nero. The 1260 days may be the 3 and 1/2 years that Jerusalem was under seige, or it may refer to the short time of struggle before the Church exploded and really started gaining ground. Jesus' ministry was about 3 and 1/2 years, so I've heard some preterists draw parallels between that and the entire church age to explain the 3 and 1/2 years mentioned here.

There are several different preterist interpretations of the two witnesses. I am currently leaning towards them being "The Law and the Prophets" but "Jesus and John the Baptist" are contenders as well.

The 1260 days does equal about 3 1/2 years and could be in reference to the time Jerusalem was under seige. However, in scriptural parlance, the number 7 is the number of completeness and 3 1/2 is half of 7 signifying incompleteness.

Revelation is such a complex books, that there are several passages that have several possible interpretation (and some preterist David Chilton most notably) believes that all (or nearly all anyway) of the possible interpretations are correct. :shrug:

The language to describe this "coming" hearkens back to the OT in several places, especially Daniel 7:13 and surrounding verses. Consider Daniel's point of view in his vision...he is in heaven and seeing Jesus come up to the Ancient of Days (God). It's the same concept here. Jesus is coming up to receive His kingdom and vindicate Himself and the prophets. In other words, the destruction on Jerusalem was the sign that Jesus was now in control.

As far as the army in the clouds that Josephus records, this could be in reference to the "signs" and "wonders" associated with the false Messiahs in Matt. 24:23-26. I don't think this army was Jesus in the clouds or anything that would provide a visual clue to the destruction to come, but I guess it could have been an ill omen nonetheless.

Hope this helps a little.


I agree that Daniel 7 is key to uderstanding the first cloud reverence in v. 30, of significance is the "Son of Man" language identical to that in Daniel.

I interpret the second cloud reference in Mt. 24:30 more in line with the judgment passages (especially but not limited to Is. 19) where it describes God, coming in clouds, in judgment against a nation.

I hope that helps. (For more detailed post on Mt. 24:23-31, see the current thread in the basket ball court with me and jwarrened (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=80079&page=1&pp=16)).(I lay out the foundation for my understanding of those verses in post #8)

[dizzle]

Gavin, btw, on a cautionary note, out of the forum preterists, I have a bit of a more relaxed position I think than the others (and a change from my former position) on the issue of what you call "dual fulfillment" (and yes that is the phrase I use in my blog but think that is a bit imprecise now in hindsight). So don't take my words as representative of all orthodox preterists, I am likely in the minority, but I do think that such stridency/rigidity is not particularly biblical or historical, and can lead to the mindset that is stock in your garden variety hyperpreterist. I know what is controversial and my comrades may even find it a bit insulting, I am sorry, but that is the conclusion I have come to so far.

I think that we preterists at times get the mindset analogous to that materialist scholar who said that they cannot let a divine foot in the door. I think sometimes we act like we can't allow a futurist foot in the door. I don't think preterism is threatened by that.

[Gavin]

Thanks for the replies, Armor and Faramir, and take your time Dee Dee.

I have been thinking about revelation - contextually, John is talking about the trampling of the temple by the Gentiles (11:1-2). Since they are both killed by the beast and then lie "where also their Lord was crucified" (8), it seems to me that Jbaptist and Jesus are improbable possiblities for the identity of the two, since Jesus is referred to as "their Lord." I have a tough time seeing the witnesses as the law and prophets, or OT and NT, too, due to the way the witnesses are described in the succeeding verses - fire comes out of their mouths, they are killed, etc. This seems like a tough passage.

I am listening to gene cook's debate right now.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Thanks for the replies, Armor and Faramir, and take your time Dee Dee.

I have been thinking about revelation - contextually, John is talking about the trampling of the temple by the Gentiles (11:1-2). Since they are both killed by the beast and then lie "where also their Lord was crucified" (8), it seems to me that Jbaptist and Jesus are improbable possiblities for the identity of the two, since Jesus is referred to as "their Lord." I have a tough time seeing the witnesses as the law and prophets, or OT and NT, too, due to the way the witnesses are described in the succeeding verses - fire comes out of their mouths, they are killed, etc. This seems like a tough passage.

I am listening to gene cook's debate right now.
You will get no argument from me, the two witness passage is very difficult, and which is why my answer was very non-committal. There is a thread here somewhere that talks about this verse in detail, I will see if I can find it and give you a link (you may note that I am just a spectator in that thread, this verse is not my strongest position).

Edit to add: Here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=26592&highlight=witnesses) is the link. I think I will go a re-read this thread as well for my own benefit.

[eschaton]

Thanks for the replies, Armor and Faramir, and take your time Dee Dee.

I have been thinking about revelation - contextually, John is talking about the trampling of the temple by the Gentiles (11:1-2). Since they are both killed by the beast and then lie "where also their Lord was crucified" (8), it seems to me that Jbaptist and Jesus are improbable possiblities for the identity of the two, since Jesus is referred to as "their Lord." I have a tough time seeing the witnesses as the law and prophets, or OT and NT, too, due to the way the witnesses are described in the succeeding verses - fire comes out of their mouths, they are killed, etc. This seems like a tough passage.

I am listening to gene cook's debate right now.

Gavin,

There are many allusions in Revelation to OT texts. Have you ever checked any OT verses similar to those in Revelation 11?

[Gavin]

hi eschaton,

nope, do you know of any relevant ones?

gavin

[John Reece]

Gavin,

A survey of O.T. references in Revelation is here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=8404).

[eschaton]

hi eschaton,

nope, do you know of any relevant ones?

gavin

Hi Gavin,

I think Reece is right to point out OT allusions. The book of I Enoch also has many
similarities to Revelation and was referred to by Jude in the NT and in the Epistle of Barnabas.

Here is an expansion of the Law and Grace view using the allusions to Zechariah.
Enoch, and severalm Pauline epistles in the NT.

Enoch 32:1 And after these fragrant odours, as I looked towards the
north over the mountains I saw seven mountains full of choice nard
and fragrant trees and cinnamon and pepper. 2 And thence I went over
the summits of all these mountains, far towards the east of the
earth, and passed above the Erythraean sea and went far from it, and
passed over the angel Zotiel. And I came to the Garden of
Righteousness, 3 I and from afar off trees more numerous than I these
trees and great-two trees there, very great, beautiful, and glorious,
and magnificent, and the tree of knowledge, whose holy fruit they eat
and know great wisdom.

Enoch came to the Garden of Righteousness, and found great trees
there. We know the identity of two of these trees from Genesis.

2:9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that
is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in
the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

And in Revelation:

22:14 "Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have
the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the
city.

Another book that shares many of these same symbols with Enoch and
Revelation is Zechariah. We may even find seven mountains in Zechariah
if we look hard enough.


Zec5:11 Then I asked the angel, "What are these two olive trees on
the right and the left of the lampstand?"
12 Again I asked him, "What are these two olive branches beside the
two gold pipes that pour out golden oil?"
13 He replied, "Do you not know what these are?" "No, my lord," I
said.
14 So he said, "These are the two who are anointed to serve the Lord
of all the earth."

And again in Revelation:

11:4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks
standing before the God of the earth.

There are various interpretations of these two wittnesses, including
Enoch, Ezekiel, and Moses, but perhaps we should consider the two
trees of Eden.

And what is the knowlege of good and evil that brings death, and the
tree that gives life?

Rom 7:5 For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful
passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we
bore fruit for death.

7 What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I
would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would
not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, "Do
not covet."

8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me
free from the law of sin and death.

Christ freed us from the Law.

Gal3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being
made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that
hangeth on a tree:
14 That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through
Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through
faith.

also 1Cor 15:56,57

Sometimes the olive tree is seen as the symbol of Israel, and I think
properly so (Rom 11:17).

So I believe the trees we know in the Garden of Eden as the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life, can properly be
interpreted as Law and Grace. That also correlates to the OT and NT.