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

[Bill 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.

[Dee Dee Warren]

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.

[Faramir]

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

[Dee Dee Warren]

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)

[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 ) 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!

we recently had a thread on this passage (Postmil vs. Amil). 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.

[Dee Dee Warren]

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.

[Dee Dee Warren]

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?

[Dee Dee Warren]

grrrrrr

No, you're a sheepdog