Thessalonians and the Day of the Lord (Preterism)

[ChosenOne66]

Right. Let's review the basics of Bible interpretation. Two things are of vital importance, 1) who was the first audience, 2) clearer passages shed light on less clear ones.

And while some were speaking of the temple, how it was adorned with noble stones and offerings, he said, "As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." And they asked him, "Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?" And he said, "See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and, 'The time is at hand!' Do not go after them. And when you hear of wars and tumults, do not be terrified, for these things must first take place, but the end will not be at once." Then he said to them, "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake. This will be your opportunity to bear witness. Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate beforehand how to answer, for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which none of your adversaries will be able to withstand or contradict. You will be delivered up even by parents and brothers and relatives and friends, and some of you they will put to death. You will be hated by all for my name's sake. But not a hair of your head will perish. By your endurance you will gain your lives.

"But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it, for these are days of vengeance, to fulfill all that is written. Alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! For there will be great distress upon the earth and wrath against this people. They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive among all nations, and Jerusalem will be trampled underfoot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

"And there will be signs in sun and moon and stars, and on the earth distress of nations in perplexity because of the roaring of the sea and the waves, people fainting with fear and with foreboding of what is coming on the world. For the powers of the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things begin to take place, straighten up and raise your heads, because your redemption is drawing near." And he told them a parable: "Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. As soon as they come out in leaf, you see for yourselves and know that the summer is already near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that the kingdom of God is near. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all has taken place.

Luke 21:5-36

Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" And Jesus answered them, "See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and they will lead many astray. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not alarmed, for this must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are but the beginning of the birth pains.

"Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name's sake. And then many will fall away and betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because lawlessness will be increased, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be proclaimed throughout the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down to take what is in his house, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that your flight may not be in winter or on a Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be. And if those days had not been cut short, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short. Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'There he is!' do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, 'Look, he is in the wilderness,' do not go out. If they say, 'Look, he is in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather.

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Matthew 24:1-34

And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down." And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are about to be accomplished?" And Jesus began to say to them, "See that no one leads you astray. Many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and they will lead many astray. And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. These are but the beginning of the birth pains.

"But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them. And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. And brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death. And you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

"But when you see the abomination of desolation standing where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let the one who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything out, and let the one who is in the field not turn back to take his cloak. And alas for women who are pregnant and for those who are nursing infants in those days! Pray that it may not happen in winter. For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. And then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ!' or 'Look, there he is!' do not believe it. False christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.

"But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

"From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts out its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

Mark 13:1-30

Right. A few comments.

1) Who is Jesus talking to when he makes the prophecy? If sentences have meaning, then he is talking to the disciples, and he bookends the entire discussion by telling THEM that "this [your] generation will not pass away until ALL these things take place." Jesus tells THEM to look for the signs. It wouldn't make sense for Jesus to tell the disciples signs of times that will not happen until thousands of years beyond their deaths. Again, if sentences have meaning (and yes, they do), then Jesus wants THEM to watch, for THEM not to be led astray by false prophets, for THEM to flee Judea. And, incidentally, he tells them:

"Then he said to them, "Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be great earthquakes, and in various places famines and pestilences. And there will be terrors and great signs from heaven. But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name's sake."

BEFORE the nations rising against each other and earthquakes and famines and terrors and signs, the disciples will be persecuted by the Jewish nation and be brought before kings and governors. If you're not sure whether this happened or not, read Acts, and also notice that Paul wrote half of his epistles while in prison. So what happens after that? Historically, we find famines, earthquakes, terrors, and signs in the heavens. Between A.D. 60-68, the Roman Empire nearly fell apart. There were revolutions in many outlying nations. Four emperors rose to power and were assasinated in a single year.

2) All three of these passage make clear that everything Jesus is talking about took place in A.D. 70. Textual comparison makes this abundantly clear.

3) It was Christ's generation He called “wicked and perverse,” (Matt. 12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17), because it was that generation that had Him crucified. As a result, it was upon that generation that the punishment for “all the righteous blood shed on the earth,” (Matt. 23:35) would come, because no other generation had committed such an evil and heinous crime as killing the savior of the world (1 Cor. 2:8; Luke 24:20; Acts 3:12-26; 1 Thess. 2:15). “The blood of all the prophets, shed since the foundation of the world, may be charged against this generation ... it shall be charged against this generation,” (Luke 11:50, 52). The Jews “always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost,” (1 Thess. 2:16). The Jews themselves called down curses upon themselves by breaking the covenant. “His [Christ's] blood be upon us and our children!” (Matt. 27:24-26).4 The Jews of the first century then broke the Old Covenant by proclaiming the God was not their King: “'We have no king but Caesar!” (John 18:15), and thus called down the Covenant curses listed by God when the Covenant was formed (Deut. 28).

4) The discussion of the word "earth" while important, is not the clincher case for preterism. The clincher is this: the time-texts. Paying careful attention to WHO Jesus was speaking to, and WHEN he said these things were to take place. Because Christ clearly speaks about first-century events the whole time (in prophetic language), and bookends this by speaking about his generation, we are left to conclude that the events he speaks about happened in the first century.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Mickey, Mickey, Mickey:

And since you cannot offer anything at all as evidence you attempt to question my integrity because I did not give every single meaning provided by Thayer.

Now that is not what my point was precisely, but then again you aren't one to be precise... What I stated was quite simple, when it is convenient you quote a meaning that Thayer supports (and I am taking your word for that for now, I don't have my copy of Thayer until later) and do not give the whole range of lexical meanings (such as here), and when it is inconvenient you give an alternate reading and do not give the information that the lexical source you are quoting disagrees with you. That is manipulation of your sources, and I am quite content in pointing it out. If you didn't pull a fast one with "genea" this one would not be quite as problematic, it is your convenient inconsistency that is the problem along with your lack of debate maturity that you don't engage the points that you know your opponents would bring up.

EDIT TO ADD: One of the primary meanings (in fact meaning 1a) cited by Thayer is:
a) the portion of the earth inhabited by the Greeks, in distinction from the lands of the barbarians

which he states is the meaning in the census verse contextually. Thayer does state the meaning that Mickey gave as his opinion on the Luke Olivet passage, but I would allege that again is a contextual decision and Thayer's errancy view of the Bible is coming into play implicitly since Thayer also claims that "genea" means the people then living. If contextually "genea" meant in the inspired infallible words of Christ what Thayer states, then contextually speaking from a strictly lexigraphical point of view, oikoumene poses no problem.

[jwarrend]

4) The discussion of the word "earth" while important, is not the clincher case for preterism. The clincher is this: the time-texts. Paying careful attention to WHO Jesus was speaking to, and WHEN he said these things were to take place. Because Christ clearly speaks about first-century events the whole time (in prophetic language), and bookends this by speaking about his generation, we are left to conclude that the events he speaks about happened in the first century.

I'm not sure whether this post was directed at Mickey or myself, but if it was to me, I probably could have saved you some time by stipulating to the proper interpretation of the time texts as being in accordance what preterists allege. The reason I do this is because I don't think the time texts along form a persuasive case for preterism. In fact, for me, the use of them as the lynchpin in an argument for preterism sends up a red flag. The argument is effectively saying "Here's when I think these things had to have happened by, therefore, I will rationalize whatever did happen during the allowed time as being what was predicted to happen." Now, I understand that you don't really think that way, and that you do think that what did happen in 70 AD fits the description, but nevertheless, when you base your whole argument on the time texts, it seems that you are saying what I have said.

One other comment about the audience, since you bring it up. Preterism alleges that the temple destruction in 70 AD was, among other things, a sign to the Jewish world that Jesus is glorified in heaven. The problem I have with that is that Jesus is talking here to the Disciples, and they were to witness a much more immediate sign of Jesus' glorification. They would witness the Resurrected Christ Himself! So, the temple destruction would not have satiated a need for any additional confirmation; there's no evidence that any of them ever questioned "was that guy REALLY the Messiah?" after the Ascension.

Anyway, it appears that there isn't a text that decisively teaches the idea that there would be multiple events (or even a continuously unfolding process?) that the writers have in mind when they refer to Jesus' "coming", so it seems that what I said must have been accurate -- that in the preterist view, we simply take each instance of this phrase and judge what it is referring to based on the passage itself. This comes back to my question of why, given the overt similarities between Matthew 24 and 1 Thess we should see them as separate. But I think you've described adequately why you read each passage as you do, so it seems that the answer is, in some sense, that it's just a coincidence, or perhaps a commonality of language. I'd be interested in your response to Sproul's comment, though.

One other wacky question. What possibility do you think there is that Matt 24 and Luke 21 are actually separate speeches given at two different times? They obviously have similar themes, similar language, and were triggered by the same occurence -- the comments about the temple stones. Hmm.

-Jeff

[Mickey]

All three of these passage make clear that everything Jesus is talking about took place in A.D. 70. Textual comparison makes this abundantly clear.

You still have not even attempted to explain the verses which I quoted that at the "end of the age" there will be a world wide judgment.As to the points that you made I will address every single one of them.But first please consider the Lord's own words as to what will happen at "the end of the age".

The discussion of the word "earth" while important, is not the clincher case for preterism.

Not the clincher? It is the death toll for preterism.The Lord is saying that a judgment is coming upon the whole earth,and that did not happen in 70 AD.The Lord's words at Matthew 24 were in response to the following question:

"Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the age?" (Mt.24:3).

The Lord Jesus spoke the parable of the "tares of the field" where He described what would occur at the "end of the age":

"He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are the angels. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this age. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear" (Mt.13:37-43).

Here we can see that the Lord Jesus speaks of a harvest that will happen at the "end of the age",the "end of this age".He also makes it clear that the harvest will take place in the field,and He says that the "field is the world".

The Greek word translated "world" is "kosmos" and it means "the inhabitants of the earth,men,the human race…Mt.xiii. 38"("Thayer’s Greek English Lexicon").

So again we read words from the lips of the Lord Jesus where it makes it as plain as possible that the events at the "end of the age" involve a world wide judgment.

But you ignore these verses and run off to other verses which you think makes these statements of the Lord Jesus viod.

Please address these verses that I quoted.And then pick out one subject ("this generation","timing",etc.) which you think is your best evidence that supports your idea that these events happened in 70 AD.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Mickey]

I'm not sure whether this post was directed at Mickey or myself, but if it was to me, I probably could have saved you some time by stipulating to the proper interpretation of the time texts as being in accordance what preterists allege. The reason I do this is because I don't think the time texts along form a persuasive case for preterism. In fact, for me, the use of them as the lynchpin in an argument for preterism sends up a red flag. The argument is effectively saying "Here's when I think these things had to have happened by, therefore, I will rationalize whatever did happen during the allowed time as being what was predicted to happen." Now, I understand that you don't really think that way, and that you do think that what did happen in 70 AD fits the description, but nevertheless, when you base your whole argument on the time texts, it seems that you are saying what I have said.

Jeff,

You make a good point in regard to the preterists and their ideas in regard to the "time texts".

And the preterists on this forum ("partial" or "Orthodox") are not consistent when they quote the time texts to support their ideas.

Paul thought that the "catching up" to meet the Lord in the air could have occurred at any moment and therefore he believed it possible that the event was imminent:

" For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.… The Lord is at hand" (Phil.3:20,21;4:5).

The Greek word translated "at hand" is "eggus",and the meaning is "concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass" ("Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon").

Paul believed that the Christians who received his epistles would remain alive when the Lord Jesus comes to catch up His saints:

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed" (1Cor.15:51-52).

"Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord" (1Thess.4:17).

So if the preterists are going to use other verses which speak of "imminence" to support their views then they should remain consistent and teach that the "catching up" has already occurred.At least the "full" preterists are consistent because they do teach that the "catching up" has already happened.

In Christ,
Mickey

[Dee Dee Warren]

Mickey's distorations never cease.

" For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body.… The Lord is at hand" (Phil.3:20,21;4:5).

An awful lot of context is said in that truncating you did. Always be suspicious of the "..." (chapter emphasis mine)

Paul believed that the Christians who received his epistles would remain alive when the Lord Jesus comes to catch up His saints

Then Paul was wrong. Is that an option for you? We've been through this. An argument that proves too much proves nothing at all. Unless you are abandoning the inspirtation of Paul. After all, if he was wrong about that, what else was he wrong on?

[Mickey]

Mickey's distorations never cease.

An awful lot of context is said in that truncating you did. Always be suspicious of the "..." (chapter emphasis mine)

There is no doubt that Paul believed that the "catching up" of the saints was an event which could happen at any time or was "imminent".

Here Paul is saying that at the "catching up" the believer will put on "glorious bodies":

" For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil.3:20,21).

And that is what Peter is speaking of here:

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed" (1Pet.5:1).

Here Paul makes it plain that he believed that the time when the Christian will put on glorious bodies could happen at any time:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation (apokaradokia) of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God…And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body" (Ro.8:18,19,23).

Paul is speaking of "the redemption of our body",an event that will happen when the Lord Jesus appears. The Greek word translated "earnest expectation" is "apokaradokia",and this word means "to watch with head erect or outstretched…to wait for in suspense"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

Vine says that the word means "primarily ‘a watching with outstretched head’ (apo, ‘from,’ kara, ‘the head,’ and dokeo, ‘to look, to watch’), signifies "strained expectancy, eager longing," the stretching forth of the head indicating an ‘expectation’ of something from a certain place, Rom. 8:19; Phil. 1:20" ("Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words"; http://www.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=¯t0000962).

The same Greek word "was used in Greek writings to describe the alert watchman who peered into the darkness, eagerly looking for the first gleam of the distant beacon which would announce the capture of Troy." ("Precept Austin"; http://www.preceptaustin.org/philippians_118-24.htm).

So according to the Greek experts the word that Paul used used in regard to the "redemption of our body" is a word that indicates that this event can take place at any time.

Then Paul was wrong. Is that an option for you? We've been through this. An argument that proves too much proves nothing at all. Unless you are abandoning the inspirtation of Paul. After all, if he was wrong about that, what else was he wrong on?

The preterists love to quote Henry Alford to back up their claims,and here is what he says:

"Then, beyond question, he himself expected to be alive, together with the majority of those to whom he was writing, at the Lord's coming. For we cannot for a moment accept the evasion of Theodoret and the majority of ancient commentators (viz. that the apostle does not speak of himself personally, but of those who should be living at the period), but we must take the words in their only plain grammatical meaning, that ‘we which are alive and remain’ are a class distinguished from ‘they that sleep’ by being yet in the flesh when Christ comes, in which class by prefixing ‘we’ he includes his readers and himself. That this was his expectation we know from other passages, especially from 2 Cor. 5." (Alford's Greek Testament, An Ecological and Critical Commentary, Vol.III, in loc).

[Dee Dee Warren]

Been there, done that. By your interpretation Paul didn't think it could happen, your argument if correct says that he thought it would happen, and thus, was wrong.

Paul does not say we "may not sleep," he says we "shall not." Your argument leads to the fact that Paul was wrong then, and thus, what else was he wrong about?

(there are Greek words for "might" "may" and "could" - they were not used)

[Mickey]

Paul does not say we "may not sleep," he says we "shall not." Your argument leads to the fact that Paul was wrong then, and thus, what else was he wrong about?

The overwhelming Scriptual evidence demonstrates that Paul thought that the "catching up" could happen at any moment.But since you do not believe that it could happen at any moment then you believe that Paul was wrong.If Paul was wrong about that what else was he wrong about?

[ChosenOne66]

I'm not sure whether this post was directed at Mickey or myself, but if it was to me, I probably could have saved you some time by stipulating to the proper interpretation of the time texts as being in accordance what preterists allege. The reason I do this is because I don't think the time texts along form a persuasive case for preterism. In fact, for me, the use of them as the lynchpin in an argument for preterism sends up a red flag. The argument is effectively saying "Here's when I think these things had to have happened by, therefore, I will rationalize whatever did happen during the allowed time as being what was predicted to happen." Now, I understand that you don't really think that way, and that you do think that what did happen in 70 AD fits the description, but nevertheless, when you base your whole argument on the time texts, it seems that you are saying what I have said.

What I am saying is that IF Christ said that "all these things [which he had previously been talking about] shall come to pass in this generation," then we have the obligation to agree with the words of Christ, regardless of how "incredible" they may seem. We do this for everything else, such as bodily resurrection. The time texts tell us give us a limiting factor on when a prophetic event will take place. For instance, if Peter writes that “the end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet. 4:7), we have to admit that he's speaking to a first-century audience and meant what he wrote. This gives us two options 1) the end of all things really did occur in the first century, or 2) Peter was wrong. Option #2 is clearly unacceptable. To then go to the first century and other scriptures to figure out what Peter meant is not rationalization, it is limiting ourselves to what the text actually says.

So what do we say Peter means by the "end of all things?" The first thing to note is that historical research has shown us that no Jew of the first centuy or before EVER believed in an end of the space-time universe. None. To them, God was not going to destroy the universe, He was going to restore and renew the world. The early, first century Christians did not believe in the end of the space-time universe, but in the restoration and renewal of the world. Read N.T. Wright, Paul: In Fresh Perspective, ch. 3. Note what he says:

Within the mainline Jewish writings of this period, covering a wide range of styles, genres, political persuasions and theological perspectives, there is virtually no evidence that Jews were expecting the end of the space-time universe. There is abundant evidence that they, like Jeremiah and others before them, knew a good metaphor when they saw one, and used cosmic imagery to bring out the jull theological significance of catacysmic socio-political events. ... What, then, did they believe was going to happen? They believed that the present world order would come to an end - the world order in which pagans held power, and Jews, the covenant people of the creator god, did not. ... Jews simply did not believe that the space-time universe was shortly to disappear.

N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, p. 333.

The early Christians and Apostles took this Jewish idea, and applied it to Christ:

It is basic to early Christianity that the Jewish hope has already been fulfilled. 'All the god-given promises find their "yes" in Christ,' says Paul. A good deal of New Testament scholarship has been obsessed with a purely imaginary hypothesis, that first-century Jews expected something called 'the parousia' which would involve the end of the space-time world and the arrival of a (super?)human figure travelling on a cloud - and that Christians took over this hope lock, stock, and barrel, applying it to Jesus, who may or may not have had something to say on the matter.

NTPG, p. 459

In the second place, the Last Days refer to the last days of the Old Covenant. The early church came into being in the First Days of the Last Days, it was on the eve of the New Covenant. Paul writes to the early church in Galatia that “God, after he spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He made the heir of all things, through whom He also made the world,” (Heb. 1:1-2).

Note Paul's words. In “these last days” God now speaks to us “in His Son” and no longer through prophets, dreams, visions, and shadows. Paul speaks in present tense to people of the first century. In the New Eternal Covenant, God “has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear,” (Heb. 8:13). The old ways were already in Paul's day “becoming obsolete” and “growing old” and about “to disappear.”

Peter wrote to the early Christians and said, “For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world, but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you,” (1 Pet. 1:20). Jesus tells His disciples that “you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes,” (Matt. 10:23). Later He tells His first century listeners that “there are some of those standing here who shall not taste death [literally shall not die] until they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom,” (Matt. 16:28). During His trial, Jesus tells the Chief Priest that “you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of heaven,” (Matt. 26:64).

Paul writes to the Corinthians that “the form of the world is passing away,” (1 Cor. 7:31). Note in all these verses the present tense. Later Paul writes that the Old Testament was written “for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come,” (1 Cor. 10:11). Paul even says that Christ's death on the cross was the consummation of the ages. “But now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself,” (Heb. 9:26). James tells the early church to be patient because “the coming of the lord is at hand,” (James 5:8) and that the “Judge is at the door,” (James 5:9). Both of these mean “about to happen.” John repeatedly reminded the early Christians that the time was near (Rev. 1:1; 1:3; 3:10, 11; 22:6, 7, 10, 12, 20).

One other comment about the audience, since you bring it up. Preterism alleges that the temple destruction in 70 AD was, among other things, a sign to the Jewish world that Jesus is glorified in heaven. The problem I have with that is that Jesus is talking here to the Disciples, and they were to witness a much more immediate sign of Jesus' glorification. They would witness the Resurrected Christ Himself! So, the temple destruction would not have satiated a need for any additional confirmation; there's no evidence that any of them ever questioned "was that guy REALLY the Messiah?" after the Ascension.

Wright explains it better than I:

Jesus had set his face, prophetically, against Jerusalem. He had staked his prophetic reputation upon the claim that the Temple would be destroyed. ... In light of this, those who claimed to be his followers were bound to see the continuing existence of Herod's Temple, and the city which housed it, as a paradox. Jesus would not be vindicated as a true prophet until it was destroyed by enemy action. ... But it was not only Jesus who would be vindicated when the Temple fell. The Temple represented the heart of the system from which flowed one source at least of the persecution suffered by the early church. Its destruction would be their salvation. Mark 13 said as much. . . . most people within the earliest Christian groups seem to have believed that their movement was somehow bound up with Jerussalem's coming destruction. When Paul, or an early imitator, speaks of a coming day of the Lord (2 Thessalonians 2:2), the passage cannot be referring to the end of the space-time universe. It envisages the possibility that the Thessalonians might hear of the great event by letter.

NTPG, pp. 459-460

Anyway, it appears that there isn't a text that decisively teaches the idea that there would be multiple events (or even a continuously unfolding process?) that the writers have in mind when they refer to Jesus' "coming", so it seems that what I said must have been accurate -- that in the preterist view, we simply take each instance of this phrase and judge what it is referring to based on the passage itself. This comes back to my question of why, given the overt similarities between Matthew 24 and 1 Thess we should see them as separate. But I think you've described adequately why you read each passage as you do, so it seems that the answer is, in some sense, that it's just a coincidence, or perhaps a commonality of language. I'd be interested in your response to Sproul's comment, though.

It is quite clear from the NT writings, particularly that of Paul, that new creation broke into the world through the cross/resurrection/ascension and would continue to pour forth into the world, overlaping with old creation until the Last Day.

As far as Paul was concerned, the most important eschatological event, through which the living God had unveiled (or, if you like, ‘apocalypsed’) his plan to save the whole cosmos, had occured when Jesus rose from the dead. He wasn’t just living in the last days. He was living in the first days – of a whole new world order. As with the cross, the resurrection permeates Paul's thinking and writing; and it isn’t by any means just the future resurrection, to which of course Paul looks forward. It is the resurrection of Jesus, to which he looks back.

N.T. Wright, What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 50

Why should we see them as separate? I already said that any passage which speaks of the resurrection of the dead should be considered to be speaking about the Last Day and any passage in which the resurrection of the dead does not appear should not.

The problem is that both events are being described with prophetic language, which is always similar. The biggest mistake a person can make in eschatological analysis is the failure to understand that similar language can (and often does) refer to completely separate events. Take a look at the following passages:

But immediately after the tribulation of those days, the sun would be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven will be shaken, and then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven, and all the tribes of the land will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to another, (Matt. 24:29).

This same “collapsing-universe” language is used to speak of God's coming in judgment against them. Consider the following. Isaiah speaks of the fall of Babylon by the Medes in 539 B.C.:

Behold, the Day of the Lord is coming, cruel, with fury and burning anger, to make the land a desolation, and He will exterminate its sinners from it. For the stars of heaven and their constellations will not flash forth with their light; the sun will be dark when it rises, and the moon will not shed its light, (Isa. 13:9-10).

Later Isaiah spoke of Edom's fall in as a de-creation, or a reversing of creation:

And all the host of heaven will wear away, and the sky will be rolled up like a scroll; all their hosts will also wither away as the leaf withers from the vine, or as one withers from the fig tree, (Isa. 34:4).

Amos spoke of the doom of Samaria in 722 B.C. similarly:

"And it will come about in that day," says the Lord GOD, "that I shall make the sun go down at noon and make the earth dark in broad daylight," (Amos 8:9).

God spoke of destroying Egypt through Ezekiel in the same way:

"And when I extinguish you, I will cover the heavens, and darken their stars; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the shining lights in the heavens I will darken over you and will set darkness on your land,' declares the Lord GOD, (Ezek. 32:7-8).

It is not exactly a large jump, then, to see two judgments in the NT, with the distinction being the resurrection of the dead.

One other wacky question. What possibility do you think there is that Matt 24 and Luke 21 are actually separate speeches given at two different times? They obviously have similar themes, similar language, and were triggered by the same occurence -- the comments about the temple stones. Hmm.

Every commentator I know of, whether preterist or futurist, amil, premil, or postmil, going back to the church fathers, believe Luke 21 and Matt. 24 are parallel passages.

[Dee Dee Warren]

The overwhelming Scriptual evidence demonstrates that Paul thought that the "catching up" could happen at any moment.But since you do not believe that it could happen at any moment then you believe that Paul was wrong.If Paul was wrong about that what else was he wrong about?

You are the one saying that Paul said it could happen any moment despite the fact that the words are "will" and "shall" - you are the one who has to deal with that, not I. I don't agree whatsoever with you "overwhelming" nonsense. But you have to explain how Paul was wrong. In my view, Paul states that all of the enemies of Christ will be completely destroyed prior to His return. John places the resurrection to judgment (good and bad) at least a thousand years away, and the overwhelming Scriptural evidence is that there is one general resurrection, therefore the Scriptural evidence is that it was at least a "thousand years" away, no matter what meanign you put on "the thiousand years" it certainly wasn't sooner than that.

Now if you want to have Paul contradict John, that is your problem.

[Dee Dee Warren]

It is quite clear from the NT writings, particularly that of Paul, that new creation broke into the world through the cross/resurrection/ascension and would continue to pour forth into the world, overlaping with old creation until the Last Day.

Exactly, and makes perfect sense of ALL the data, including the blatant near time indicators that futurists don't want to seem to take "literally."

Why should we see them as separate? I already said that any passage which speaks of the resurrection of the dead should be considered to be speaking about the Last Day and any passage in which the resurrection of the dead does not appear should not.

Yep. (I would like to use this post on my blog, can I?)

The problem is that both events are being described with prophetic language, which is always similar. The biggest mistake a person can make in eschatological analysis is the failure to understand that similar language can (and often does) refer to completely separate events.

Exactly. FWIW, Mickey and I had this very same debate four years ago. He doesn't evolve in the sophistication, or lack thereof, of his arguments.

Here is an interesting quote as well on the concept of "similarity of language does not equal exactness of referents"

The Nature of Resurrection Body by J.A. Schep - As is the case with Paul’s usage of the word sarx, the term “body of Christ” isused 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.

Kenneth Gentry states (and he allows this to be posted on other sites freely):

Linguistic Sense and Historical Referent

Now, is it hermeneutically possible for identical terms or phrases to be applied to different events? As a matter of fact, it is not only possible, but quite common in human language and biblical revelation. For astute students of philosophy and theology it is not uncommon for there to be inter-contextual differences between identical terms regarding sense and referent. Let me explain what I mean.

The fundamental linguistic sense of 'coming' has to do with a visitation of divine judgment upon man. This is the very essence of the notion of "the coming of the Son of Man," for instance. But the particular historical referent of a "coming' may be either the A.D. 70 coming, or the Second Advental coming to punctuate the end of history - or some other divine judgment visitation.

Beyond the introduction of this matter relative to the philosophy of language, it is important to realize that A.D. 70 is not unrelated to the Second Advent. As the ending of the era of sacrificial rituals and Israel-exalting redemptive history, A.D. 70 is a pre-consummational type of the Second Advent's history ending, consummational conclusion. Hence, the similarity of language and the mixing of ideas is justified on the basis of the relationship of type (A.D. 70) to antitype (Second Advent) [This phenomenon of type/anti-type is very common in Davidic/Messianic passages. In such references, what is said of the historical King David often applies to the Messianic King Jesus.]
Examples of this sort of 'problem" abound in Scripture.

(1) The same sort of inter-contextual shift occurs in Revelation 20:46, where two resurrectional coming-to-life occurrences are spoken of: one is spiritual, the other physical. John himself, the writer of Revelation, gives us warrant for making such an interpretive maneuver; see John 5:25-29 [He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1992),415-417.]

(2) Paul frequently shift his meaning of "law" in Romans 3-8 between the Old Testament revelation as such, the Pharisaic idea of "law as meritorious principle," and "Law as God's revealed non-meritorious standard of righteousness" [See: John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), 1:105ff; 2:49ff.]

(3) When you compare John 2:13-17 with Matthew 21:12-13 you will find the references to the cleansing of the Temple almost identical. But, of course, they are separated by about three and one-half years.

More relevantly, various mentions of "the day of the Lord' are referred to in Scripture. The general sense in all places is 'divine visitation in judgment"; the specific referent might be upon Babylon (cp. Isa. 13:1 with 1:6,9), Egypt (cp. Jer. 46:8, with 46:10), Israel (cp. Joel 1:2 with 1:1 5; cp. Zeph. 1:1,2,4 with 1:7), or on the world at large (2 Pet. 3:10). For a discussion of the 2 Peter 3 passage, see my He Shall Have Dominion, 301-305.

Taken from his fuller article http://www.preteristsite.com/docs/gentrytran.html

[Mickey]

Kenneth Gentry states...

Yes,and Dr.Gentry also says that the word "coming" in these verses refer to entirely separate comings:

"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...Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be" (Mt.24:30,34-37).

According to him the first "coming" mentioned happened in 70 AD but the second "coming" has not yet occured.

Exactly, and makes perfect sense of ALL the data, including the blatant near time indicators that futurists don't want to seem to take "literally."

As if the preterists take the time indicators in regard to the catching up "literally".

[Dee Dee Warren]

So? I don't have to agree with everything he says to feel he has made a good point. Heck even you make good points sometimes. Plus I may be beginning to agree with Gentry on that point.

Your observation is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. But of course you have fled from any justification on why you think Paul is wrong or why you are changing the meanings of words from "will" to "could"

As if the preterists take the time indicators in regard to the catching up "literally".

Already answered. That wasn't expected to take place soon but at the end of Christ's reign, represented by "the thousand years." What you continually do is to smuggle in your own position and then point at that smuggled interpretation and claim it is your proof.

So why again was Paul wrong?

[Mickey]

But of course you have fled from any justification on why you think Paul is wrong or why you are changing the meanings of words from "will" to "could".

You have not said anything to justify your belief that Paul did not believe that the "catching up" could happen at any moment.You just deny the Scriptual evidence that demonstrates that you are in error.

That wasn't expected to take place soon but at the end of Christ's reign, represented by "the thousand years."

If it is not to take place until "after" Christ's reign then why did Paul use words that demonstrate that it could happen at any moment?:

Here Paul is saying that at the "catching up" the believer will put on "glorious bodies":

" For our citizenship is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil.3:20,21).

And that is what Peter is speaking of here:

"The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed" (1Pet.5:1).

Here Paul makes it plain that he believed that the time when the Christian will put on glorious bodies could happen at any time:

"For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation (apokaradokia) of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God…And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, that is, the redemption of our body" (Ro.8:18,19,23).

Paul is speaking of "the redemption of our body",an event that will happen when the Lord Jesus appears. The Greek word translated "earnest expectation" is "apokaradokia",and this word means "to watch with head erect or outstretched…to wait for in suspense"("Thayer's Greek English Lexicon").

Vine says that the word means "primarily ‘a watching with outstretched head’ (apo, ‘from,’ kara, ‘the head,’ and dokeo, ‘to look, to watch’), signifies "strained expectancy, eager longing," the stretching forth of the head indicating an ‘expectation’ of something from a certain place, Rom. 8:19; Phil. 1:20" ("Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words"; http://www.mf.no/bibelprog/vines?word=¯t0000962).

The same Greek word "was used in Greek writings to describe the alert watchman who peered into the darkness, eagerly looking for the first gleam of the distant beacon which would announce the capture of Troy." ("Precept Austin"; http://www.preceptaustin.org/philippians_118-24.htm).

So according to the Greek experts the word that Paul used used in regard to the "redemption of our body" is a word that indicates that this event can take place at any time.