Much Support for Preterism in Early Christianity?

[Zinc]

A question for preterists or anyone else really:

Is there much support for preterism in the writings of the church fathers or any other early Christian souce? (I am thinking of sources from the first few hundred years of Christian history.)

I am aware that a number of church fathers say that some of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century. What I am interested in here, is the "partial" or "orthodox" preterist claim that Matthew 24:30 was fulfilled in the first century. (And also Daniel 7:13 to go along with that I believe.) Is there much support for that claim in early Christianity?


"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

[Berean Todd]

No. The early church was almost all either amil or historic pre-mil.

[Little Shepherd]

Well, coming on the clouds is an allusion to the Old Testament, in which coming on the clouds means judgment. And as some of the early church writings do show that some in the early church did view the AD70 siege of Jerusalem and destruction of its temple as judgment, I'd say yes.

BT is right, though, that most of the church historically has been amillenial. Although there's no either/or dilemma with amillenialism and Preterism, as many amillenial people in the church throughout the ages have held to the various beliefs that are part of systematic Preterism, though they may not have held to the system as a whole.

I'm not entirely certain about historic premillenialism, though my limited exposure to some historic premillenial writings leads me to believe it's at least mostly incompatible with Preterism. It was always a minority view, though, if that matters to you. Amil was by far the most prominent view in the Church Universal.

[Zinc]

Well, coming on the clouds is an allusion to the Old Testament, in which coming on the clouds means judgment. And as some of the early church writings do show that some in the early church did view the AD70 siege of Jerusalem and destruction of its temple as judgment, I'd say yes.

I think Matthew 23 rather suggests that the destruction of Jerusalem is a divine judgement, but that would seem to be something different from whether Matthew 24:30 was regarded as fulfilled in the first century.

[eschaton]

I think you first have to ask what exactly is preterism. There is full and partial. I don't find much support for either in the first 1700 years of Christianity. Some people like to think when somebody associates Luke 21:20 with 70 AD it is preterism. Such is not the case. Even Cyrus Scofield did that as do most dispensationalists. I haven't found anybody in early Christianity that limited the entire Olivet discourse to the first century, or denied that there would be an individual antichrist. Such views would probably have been considered heretical IMO.

[timspong]

Lets define preterism before too long into the thread. This is my take on it:

Preterism is a hermeneutic view that identifies varying numbers of biblical prophesies with destruction of Jerusalem in 70a.d. It is not an eschatology and can be compatible with Amillennialism, postmillennialsm and even premillennialism (although very rare).

An hyper-preterist would tend to associate all pending biblical prophesy with 70ad including the second coming of Christ. Other preterists would assign different numbers of biblical prophesies to 70ad.

I think if you assign even one biblical prophesy to 70 a.d. then you are a preterist to some degree. I am personally pretty convinced that the olivet discourse makes reference to 70 a.d. so I guess I would be a preterist, however, I am pretty agnostic as far as which millennial eschatology to subscribe to.

[The Curtmudgeon]

I think if you assign even one biblical prophesy to 70 a.d. then you are a preterist to some degree. I am personally pretty convinced that the olivet discourse makes reference to 70 a.d. so I guess I would be a preterist, however, I am pretty agnostic as far as which millennial eschatology to subscribe to.

That's just plain ridiculous, Tim. You're saying that if I believe that:

Matthew 24:2

And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

applies to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, I'm a preterist?

That is a complete misuse of the word. You just make the word 'preterist' into a synonym for 'Christian', i.e. someone who believes that Jesus, as the Son of God, always speaks the truth.

The word as used by those who classify themselves as preterists means that you accept a significant amount of specifically eschatological passages, not merely prophecies in general, as referring to 70 AD as opposed to "the End Times" (i.e., the future). The differences between what constitutes "a significant amount" is the only thing that distinguishes flavours of preterism.

The (no Christian writer since 70 AD has denied that Matt. 24:2 applies to that event) Curtmudgeon

[eschaton]

Lets define preterism before too long into the thread. This is my take on it:

Preterism is a hermeneutic view that identifies varying numbers of biblical prophesies with destruction of Jerusalem in 70a.d. It is not an eschatology and can be compatible with Amillennialism, postmillennialsm and even premillennialism (although very rare).

An hyper-preterist would tend to associate all pending biblical prophesy with 70ad including the second coming of Christ. Other preterists would assign different numbers of biblical prophesies to 70ad.

I think if you assign even one biblical prophesy to 70 a.d. then you are a preterist to some degree. I am personally pretty convinced that the olivet discourse makes reference to 70 a.d. so I guess I would be a preterist, however, I am pretty agnostic as far as which millennial eschatology to subscribe to.

Then dispensationalists are preterists in your opinion? I guess the two groups don't need to squabble anymore. I've always said the two were twin sisters.

[timspong]

Then dispensationalists are preterists in your opinion? I guess the two groups don't need to squabble anymore. I've always said the two were twin sisters.

they are two entirely different categories.

[eschaton]

they are two entirely different categories.

How so? You said, "if you assign even one biblical prophesy to 70 a.d. then you are a preterist to some degree. " Dispys do exactly that, so according to your definition they are to some degree "preterists."

[timspong]

That's just plain ridiculous, Tim. You're saying that if I believe that:

Matthew 24:2

And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

applies to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD, I'm a preterist?

That is a complete misuse of the word. You just make the word 'preterist' into a synonym for 'Christian', i.e. someone who believes that Jesus, as the Son of God, always speaks the truth.

The word as used by those who classify themselves as preterists means that you accept a significant amount of specifically eschatological passages, not merely prophecies in general, as referring to 70 AD as opposed to "the End Times" (i.e., the future). The differences between what constitutes "a significant amount" is the only thing that distinguishes flavours of preterism.

The (no Christian writer since 70 AD has denied that Matt. 24:2 applies to that event) Curtmudgeon

On the contrary I would attest that many christian writers have used Matt 24 in a very allegorical ways and many did not assign it to events in 70 a.d. at all and never made any reference to it.

Possibly you react against the term preterist given it's most popular vernacular connotations? However, would you not agree that if you used Matthew 24 in relation to 70 ad then you have a preterist view of it as opposed to a futurist view of it? You probably wouldn't be classed as a "preterist" any more than a person who drove a blue car would be classed as a blue car driver. despite it's common use in theology It really just adds the connotation of a past event(s) in a sentence.

[timspong]

How so? You said, "if you assign even one biblical prophesy to 70 a.d. then you are a preterist to some degree. " Dispys do exactly that, so according to your definition they are to some degree "preterists."

But the definition of a dispensationalist is not someone that assigns some amount of prophesy to past events. It is like saying that because cars are painted everything that is painted is a car.

sorry I didn't mean for this to take the thread so far off track.

[eschaton]

That's ok. But I think I'm more confused than ever. I don't agree that everybody should be called a preterist though. Everybody believes that Jesus walking the earth happened in the first century. Everybody that believes in Jesus anyway. I don't think that makes everybody a preterist, as I think you would classify them.

[eschaton]

Here's a definition from dictionary.com I can live with.

1. a person who maintains that the prophecies in the Apocalypse have already been fulfilled. Compare futurist (def. 2), presentist.

[timspong]

That's ok. But I think I'm more confused than ever. I don't agree that everybody should be called a preterist though. Everybody believes that Jesus walking the earth happened in the first century. Everybody that believes in Jesus anyway. I don't think that makes everybody a preterist, as I think you would classify them.

I think the term preterist is specifically concerned with what you do with biblical prophesy, not narrative. You can hold a preterist view on a specific text (or prophesy) without being labelled as a preterist.

Like all orthodox christians have a futurist view of the 2nd coming of Christ, however, this does not make every orthodox Christian a futurist.