OK, the title of this thread is partly in jest, but I think I am seriously (amongst other things) a partial partial preterist. What do I mean by this?

It seems to me that I find myself largely agreeing with partial preterists concerning what they affirm, but disagreeing with what they deny. That is, when they say that various passages in the Olivet Discourse, for example, were fulfilled by the events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, I find myself in agreement. But when they deny that these prophecies also have future application(s), then I find myself in disagreement.

I would describe myself as a preterist and a historicist and a futurist. The reason for this is, firstly, that I think that scripture clearly presents a doctrine of multiple fulfillment of prophecies. There is always a "near" fulfillment which perhaps the prophet himself had in mind, but there are also further fulfillments which are nonetheless genuinely fulfillments.

Examples:

1. The author of Daniel was certainly writing of Antiochus Epiphanes when he referred to the "abomination of desolation"; but Jesus stated that there was an abomination yet to come (Mt. 24:15). Indeed, this seems to have been just assumed. Whether or not this relates to the Roman destruction, this still entails a "double fulfillment" of the prophecy - one prior to Jesus during the Greek empire, and one after Jesus during the Roman empire. I see no inherent reason, therfore, that there could not be a third, or fourth, or whatever fulfillment.

2. Matthew writes that the slaughter of the infants (Mt. 2:17-18) fulfilled Jer. 31:15; but in context it is quite clear that Jer. 31:15 refers to the Babylonian captivity (see verses 16-17). So there is a "double fulfillment" here also.

3. The "young woman" who shall bear a son (7:14) clearly refers to a young woman known to the prophet and King Ahaz, because the text says that before the child has grown old enough to know good from evil, the land of the kings of Aram and Israel (7:1) will be destroyed by the Assyrians (7:16). Yet this text also was fulfilled in the virgin birth. It had a "double fulfillment".

In light of this I think that it is plausible to claim that all Biblical prophecy has at least a "double fulfillment". Indeed, the general pattern of Biblical prophecy that was fulfilled by Jesus at his first coming seems to be that there was always a "near fulfillment" in the events surrounding when the prophecy was given, but also a Messianic fulfillment in the life of Christ. If we generalize that all scripture is directed at Christ, we can claim that all prophecy has a Messianic application; and this can be to either Christ's first coming, second coming, or both.

This raises a hermeneutical issue. If the meaning of prophecy is determined by what the human author intended, then of course there cannot be futher applications beyond the near fulfillment related to current events. This seems to me the strongest argument for preterism. But if God can speak through the prophet to future events that the prophet does not understand or even have an inkling of, then the hermeneutic of human authorial intention is overthrown, and preterism, it seems to me, dies with it. As Alvin Plantinga wrote:

"There is no reason to suppose the human authors of Exodus, Numbers, Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, or Habakkuk had in mind Jesus’ triumphal entry, or his incarnation, or other events of Jesus’ life and death, or indeed anything else explicitly about Jesus. But the fact that it is God who is the principal author here makes it quite possible that what we are to learn from the text in question is something rather different from what the human author proposed to teach".

I think that the requirement for scripture to be Christocentric - that all scripture speaks of Christ - demands that all prophecy have a Messianic fulfillment, regardless of the fulfillment in events close to the time that the prophecy was given. Furthermore, the perpetual relevance of prophecy as prophecy requires constant fulfillment (the historicist approach) as well as eschatological fulfillment (the futurist approach). History, in a sense, involves "eternal recapitulation" of the patterns found in prophecy.

But the other reasons that I think partial preterism is flawed (not in what it affirms, but in what it denies), are as follows:

I think the evidence very strongly demonstrates that the book of Revelation was not written until decades after the destruction of Jerusalem; but it parallels the Olivet Discourse in so many ways that the same events must be in view (e.g. the six seals). This excludes partial preterism as a complete account of the Olivet Discourse.

It seems to me that the NT presents an account of a final evil ruler that precedes the coming of the Lord and related events, that is coherent and comprehensive and can't be placed just in the past. For instance, 2 Th. 2:3 states that the day of the Lord - in context clearly the resurrection of the just - will not happen until the man of lawlessness is revealed, and also states that the Lord will destroy him at his coming (2:8); and the action in the temple of the lawless one in verse 4 clearly seems to parallel the abomination of desolation. Hence, I think this passage demands a future abomination of desolation.

Nonetheless, I want to reiterate the main point of this post: I think that partial preterists are fundamentally correct in seeing various passages in the Olivet Discourse as having being fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem. I just don't think this precludes their also being fulfilled at the end of the age. It is both/and, not either/or. History repeats itself.

I totally agree. Thanks for making me feel it's ok to believe what seems obvious to me. I realize now that I am a partial preterist, historicist, futurist. Eschatology is very encouraging stuff when seen triumphally and aesthetically. When forced into too much technicality it becomes so speculative that I loose interest. I see layers of correspondence as I read the eschatological passages in Scripture. Perhaps because I've studied most sides of the debates and seen validity in all of them. Whatever the case, I don't see this as an either/or situation. The texts are rich with application.

HB,

You make some good points, but I think you may be missing a perspective.

It is quite true that the prophets didn’t fully understand what they were given. See Dan 8. Thus, we may agree with Platinga’s comment. We may also see that prophets were sometimes given a “blended” view of the future, so that all events, such as the first and second advents of Christ, are presented in a single picture. Many Dispy interpreters refer to this using metaphors like “seeing the mountaintops” while not seeing the valleys between. This can be confirmed by looking at Jer 50-51, where some of the prophecy is near Babylon and some is future “Babylon” (cf. Rev 17, etc.). We may also note that Jesus’ use of Isa 61 (cf. Luke 4:16-20).

But more important than this is typology. Some prophecies of local events (Isa 44:28-45:3) are types of future events (Rev 16:12). The smaller local event points to the larger, more important event. Is this “double fulfillment?” Not really.

(BTW, in numerous posts I’ve shown that Antiochus does not fit any of Daniel’s prophecies.)

You are quite right in noting that there are both near and far elements in Matt 24. The language in verses 29-30 includes technical terms that cannot be reconciled with an AD70 fulfillment. Let’s look at one item.

Verse 14 speaks of the gospel being preached in all the world. While oikoumene may be disputed lexically, this preaching is designed as a witness to “all the nations.” Limiting this to Palestine is ludicrous, and indeed, Paul confirms this preaching to all the Roman Empire in Romans 1:8 and Colossians 1:23. Curiously, Preterist interpreters use this universal meaning to support their views of an AD70 fulfillment.

But when Preterist get to verse 30, suddenly “all of the tribes of the earth will mourn” becomes “all the Jewish tribes will mourn,” even though the OT sources are uniform in meaning “all the nations of the earth.”

BTW, my view is most commonly seen as Historicist, and your comments fit well in general with my view.

Ted

HB that does not make you a partial partial preterist. I agree with you in some ways -

http://preteristsite.com/wordpress/?p=38

Also, Parker has hit on something that has been percolating with me for several years - a firm belief in preterism with nagging feeling that the majority of orthodox preterists are bungling it up by acting like hyper-literalists in reverse - and it is exactly this mentality that is driving the naive to embrace heresy. I hear some hyperprets say, “Oh well read such and such and it is just one teensy step away from my view.” Sometimes they are right - some of us have gotten so drunk on the timing statements that we are inadvertantly becoming that which we scorn in dispensationalists. We deride those who want to stretch soon into millennia while we choke on the camel of our refusal to recognize that Scripture doesn’t have a problem with multiple fulfillments. While we laugh at those who expect a literally black sun and bloody moon, we are the fools for not allowing the Bible to teach us that timing statements do not put the kibosh on anything future.

The conception that Isaiah prophesied was to happen in his lifetime. If a preterist claims otherwise, they are a hypocrite. Yet, we find out that Jesus actually fulfilled it. Hosea tells how God called His Son Isreal out of Egypt - yet Matthew tells us that was “fulfilled” by Jesus. Fulfilled???? How many times have I heard the standard hyperpreterist soundbite, “Ful-filled means fully fulfilled.” Really? To who? Us in our modern arrogance or are we going to humble ourselves and look at the fluidity of the ancients? When we do, we have at our feet some responsibility for those that fall into Hymeneaen chasm.

However... we can only affirm that the passage does not rule out any future application - we can't affirm that it teaches it. The Olivet does not teach anything guaranteed beyond the first century, but I would not be surpised by an application.

As to your other criticisms, well I disagree, but I just wanted to point out that many preterists would not have a problem with your recapitulation statement as long as it was made in principle and not in certainty. We do not know for certain that the Olivet speaks of anything else. Nothing else is required for the passage to be fulfilled.

Actually Jesus personally gave at least two requirements that if applied rule out any other possibilty.

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Matthew 23:36
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


Hitch

That does not prohibit a future typological and piecemeal application.

Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.


Hmmmm How do you figure?

'All these things' cant be fulfilled and not fufilled. Just as Jesus' generation cannot be King Arthur's generation or our own. And if Jesus says an event is unique in history,it cant be repeated.

H

Isaiah 7 was specifically limited to Isaiah's own time - yet it was also fulfilled in Christ. Jesus quotes a historical judgment on Babylon and applies it to Jerusalem.

The Bible does not have a problem with dual referents.

Originally posted by Ted

We may also see that prophets were sometimes given a “blended” view of the future, so that all events, such as the first and second advents of Christ, are presented in a single picture.

But talking of a "blended" view of the future seems to me to just be a way of evading the obvious - that history repeats itself, and that prophecies therefore have multiple application over time. Gog and Magog keep arising again and again in various forms; and there are particular crucial nodes where they seem to particularly come forth, and these nodes are associated with Messianic events. Perhaps there is an underlying spiritual reality that keeps expressing itself through different human societies at different times, giving the same underlying pattern.

Originally posted by Ted

BTW, in numerous posts I’ve shown that Antiochus does not fit any of Daniel’s prophecies.

Well I haven't read your posts but I have to disagree, and not just because this was the universal understanding of the Jews historically (i.e. you are saying that all Jewish exegesis - not to mention virtually all scholarly exegesis - is wrong). The mighty king of 11:3 is Alexander; the Greek empire was partitioned immediately after Alexander's death and none of these partitions were ruled by his discendents as in 11:4. The subsequent verses describe the subsequent wars. I don't think we have to deny the obvious fulfillment in these events in order to affirm a future application, and I think this is just the problem with the artificial idea, not derived from scripture, that prophecy must have only one application. It is just that assumption that causes these problems. It is this assumption of only one prophetic fulfillment, which has caused the division between so many different eschatological theories.

Originally posted by Ted

But when Preterist get to verse 30, suddenly “all of the tribes of the earth will mourn” becomes “all the Jewish tribes will mourn,” even though the OT sources are uniform in meaning “all the nations of the earth.”

I don't particularly disagree with this, but given the important other obvious correlations with 70 AD, why couldn't we just say that this is a limited, or incomplete fulfillment of the prophecies? In other words, yes, there will be a final day when all the tribes of the earth will mourn, but the Jewish tribes mourning foreshadows this and still fulfills it to a certain extent.

This is perhaps an important point: on my view, prophetic fulfillment can be "incomplete", but nonetheless still fulfillment, because the same "archetype" is being expressed as will ultimately be expressed perfectly, but only in a partial form. So, for instance, I personally think that the fulfillment of Jer. 31:15 in Herod's slaughter was itself incomplete; that a future more "literal" fulfillment under the antichrist still awaits. I also think the historicist perspective is correct; there has always been a "Herod", and there have always been the suffering of the people of God under him.

Personally, I think most, if not all, prophecy will have its ultimate and complete realization only at the end of the age. But that assertion is not crucial to my position.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

The conception that Isaiah prophesied was to happen in his lifetime. If a preterist claims otherwise, they are a hypocrite. Yet, we find out that Jesus actually fulfilled it. Hosea tells how God called His Son Isreal out of Egypt - yet Matthew tells us that was “fulfilled” by Jesus. Fulfilled???? How many times have I heard the standard hyperpreterist soundbite, “Ful-filled means fully fulfilled.” Really? To who? Us in our modern arrogance or are we going to humble ourselves and look at the fluidity of the ancients? When we do, we have at our feet some responsibility for those that fall into Hymeneaen chasm.

I agree completely with this; I think it is spot on. But I think, in light of other factors, we should extend this to its ultimate conclusion - that preterism is itself only partly true, and that future fulfillments are inherent in all Biblical prophecy. I think a principle of scripture is that what is true for one inspired text, is true for all; and what is true of one prophecy, is true for all.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

However... we can only affirm that the passage does not rule out any future application - we can't affirm that it teaches it. The Olivet does not teach anything guaranteed beyond the first century, but I would not be surpised by an application.

As to your other criticisms, well I disagree, but I just wanted to point out that many preterists would not have a problem with your recapitulation statement as long as it was made in principle and not in certainty. We do not know for certain that the Olivet speaks of anything else. Nothing else is required for the passage to be fulfilled.

I think there is good reason to attribute a future fulfillment, as outlined in my post. So I think we should affirm a future application. But there is one important caveat to that. I don't think we should be dogmatic about the precise form that the future application will take, until it happens. If we look at the fulfillment of prophecy in the life of Jesus, they were generally of a nature that nobody could have guessed at beforehand, but which people who saw the events could then correlate with the scriptures. For instance, few if any readers of Isaiah before the coming of Jesus could have foreseen a virgin birth, but in light of the virgin birth it was not too hard to see in Isaiah how that was fulfilled. The same with the slaughter of the infants and so forth. So I think we should not be too dogmatic about how various scriptures will be fulfilled - it is probably in some way presently unimaginable to us - but we will know when we see it.

Originally posted by Hitch

Actually Jesus personally gave at least two requirements that if applied rule out any other possibilty.

Matthew 24:21
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Matthew 23:36
Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

Matthew 24:34
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

But this is the problem with "selective literalism" applied to prophecy. It is just such an approach that every eschatological approach adopts - interpret certain texts very literally, and then gloss over the problems in other places. Indeed, a reader of the Old Testament passages which the New Testament claims to have been fulfilled in the life of Jesus, would have just as much reason to reject their application to Jesus.

I think a much better approach is the idea of incomplete fulfillment. That is, the prophecies have incomplete fulfillments, in which aspects are not literally fulfilled but the overall picture is so compellingly present that it the eye of faith can easily see the fulfillment.

Specifically, as regards Mt. 24:21, I don't see any reason that it could not have been progressively fulfilled; each fulfillment would have to involve a tribulation worse than any preceding, and the ultimate, "literal" fulfillment, which could have not yet come and comes only at the close of history, is the worst of all.

In relation to Mt. 23:36, I don't dispute that Jesus had in mind that generation to which he was talking, but I also don't see why the Holy Spirit couldn't have been speaking prophetically with several other meanings in view. We know that believers comprise one generation - "the generation of those who seek Him, Who seek Thy face-- even Jacob" (Ps. 24:6). The wicked also comprise one generation - the "generation of God's wrath" (Jer. 7:29) [see footnote 1 below], and in the gospel context it is this second meaning that is likely. The concept of a generation in both the Old and New Testaments just isn't used in the simple, literal way you think. Furthermore, in the gospel of Matthew and Mark, the phrase "this generation" has a special significance, and refers to the unbelieving Jews at the time of visitation of their Messiah. I see no reason that this could not have a fulfillment at the end of the age.

The fundamental problem here is always the same. Someone interprets one particular sentence of scripture hyper-literally, and then on that basis excludes all other possible applications of the prophecy. But that approach has two fundamental defects:

(a) It just can't explain any significant prophetic passage of scripture - it can be used to support contradictory and mutually exclusive perspectives.

(b) It runs contrary to how scripture itself applies prophecy. It imposes a concept of "fulfillment" that does not cohere with the concept found in scripture.

Footnote 1: It might be objected that Jer. 7:29 refers to the Babylonian captivity, but the problem is that the New Testament itself applies this passage to future events, so obviously there is a continuing "generation of God's wrath".

Well I disagree with you on multiple things you said, but I am in agreement on some points, which is really all I wanted to address so that you would know that preterists (at least some) wouldn't disagree with you on that one particular point. I deal with the generation issue in my commentary in some depth - that timing statement is emphatically first century.

Thanks Dee Dee. I don't dispute that the "literal" meaning, or human author's intended meaning, is 1st century. But I just don't see why this limits the statement in the way you think it does, if God can build in deeper meaning. I think this is manifestly the case with the idea of "this generation", the wicked generation, in the gospels. "This generation", the wicked generation, is an allusion to the generation of Israelites who fell in the wilderness. We know this from, for instance, Hebrews 3:10. But note that Hebrews applies this same concept to those who have an unbelieving heart now (3:12). So "this generation" is always present. I just don't see that it is plausible to deny this, regardless of the "literal" meaning of the text.

Consider the usage of the phrase "this generation" elsewhere in the gospels:

Mt. 11:16 "But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places, who call out to the other children ...

Mat. 12:41-42 "The men of Nineveh shall stand up with this generation at the judgment, and shall condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. "The Queen of the South shall rise up with this generation at the judgment and shall condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.

Mk. 8:12 And sighing deeply in His spirit, He said, "Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation."

It just seems obvious to me that the phrase has a deeper spiritual significance than merely the generation of that time. It refers to the wicked of all times. It is the wicked of all times who seek for a sign, but to whom no sign is given. It is the wicked of all times, from whom the blood of the righteous prophets will be required as in Mt. 23:36. In short, I just don't find this argument for preterism being exclusively true at all compelling, although I certainly think it is a good argumet for a fulfillment at the time.

If this can't be "proved" with grammatical-historical exegesis, then I just think that illustrates the flawed nature of grammatical-historical exegesis.

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren

Well I disagree with you on multiple things you said, but I am in agreement on some points, which is really all I wanted to address so that you would know that preterists (at least some) wouldn't disagree with you on that one particular point. I deal with the generation issue in my commentary in some depth - that timing statement is emphatically first century.

I was going to chime in and say that not all preterist deny the possibility of a dual fulfillment of the OD. I also agree that the primary fulfullment was in the first century, and any future fulfillment will be typological.

Again, I do not see any necessity for a dual fulfillment of those passages, but that is not the same thing as saying I deny the possibility of a dual fulfillment.

Now, for practical purposes, all dual fulfillment prophecies were identified after the fact (with the possible exception of the AoD, but the secondary fulfillment was identified by Christ Himself.) We no longer have the offices of Apostle and Prophet (as in inspired scripture writers) so any speculation on future fulfillment IMO is relegated to that, speculation.

For this to happen again you will need another generation capable of the reason for it that reason being the regicide.

Thats going to be diffucult.

H

Hitch, then did Isaiah and the kingdoms referenced in Isaiah 7 have to be resurrected to fulfill the virgin birth prophecy in the first century? Did ancient Bablylon have to be redone?

Typology and recapitulation does not walk on all fours. I am certainly not advocating that it does.

Stop yellin at me. Every body yells at me....


I cant see how this works backward. If Izzy is a type of the Virgin Birth, the Virgin Birth is not a type of Izzy. It would be a epyt not type

Hitch, who's yelling? The only thing that I am saying is that there was a specific time reference in the virgin birth prophecy that limited it to Isaiah's own time yet we know that it was fulfilled centuries later. All I am saying is that the Bible does the several times and so we may be sure of its primary application and be confident in the time references and that no further fulfillment is needed, we cannot be so sure that no further fulfillment is possible.

I am not agreeing with Humphrey that we should be expecting one nor my stating that it would be a letter role "walk on all fours" type of fulfillment, but God does recapitulate his judgments, that is part of the point of Jesus using an Old Testament prophecy against Babylon against Israel-if, for example another country follows the way of Babylon we shouldn't be surprised if Jesus dramatically "comes in the clouds" against them either. God's judgments are predictable. They follow patterns. That is all I am saying.