Preterism

[asterisktom]

Preterism
​

It is an ironic development - for me at least - that I have finally become
convinced of the Preterist view. I say "ironic" because, years ago, I would argue against the position, even banning the topic for awhile at ABCProphecy, a discussion group I started at Yahoo back in the 90s.

And yet there are certain scriptural sticking points that just would never get resolved otherwise. Even Amillennialism had no answer for these.

Perhaps the biggest factor that turned me towards Preterism was that my previous belief of Amill - much as I hated to admit it - just had no answer for Christ's many promises to come to His own "soon", or "quickly". And that He had told them at the time of the Transfiguration that some of them would still be alive when He came into His kingdom.

Have you ever really thought that about Christ's prophecy to His disciple before the Transfiguration? He clearly said that "some here" (= some who were at that very time listening to Christ's words) would not see death until they see the Kingdom coming in power, Christ coming into His kingdom? When did this happen?

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." Mark 9:1

The Bible Gateway, I noticed, try to steer the interpretation with their
interposed and (of course) uninspired titles:

They have rendered the NKJV of Matt. 16:27 - 17:1 like this:

____________________

27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Jesus Transfigured on the Mount

28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
_____________________

Where did that subtitle "Jesus Transfigured on the Mount" come from? From the editor's presupposition, that is where. By putting that title right between verses 27 and 28 they try to steer the latter verse away toward the subsequent transfiguration account.

But does it belong there? No. Not at all. I believe they are sundering
what God has put together.

Consider how lame a prediction Jesus would be making if the transfiguration was indeed the fulfillment of v. 28: "Some of you disciples will be alive still in a few days." That clearly cannot be the intent of the prophecy.

What about the fulfillment at Pentecost? That would still be too soon, merely a matter of weeks.

But neither can it be way in the future. All of the disciples Christ was
speaking to would have been long-dead. No, the only option IMO would be AD 70.

There is more to this than this one proof, but this is all I have time for now.

Postscript: I have already been asked now by a number of readers: What type of Preterism do I subscribe to? Well, I don't subscribe to any of them (Partial, Full, Consistent, Hyper, etc.). It is not good to rush to identify with certain groups that, for all I know, have serious heretical beliefs - and such is the case with some who call themselves "preterist". Of course, the same is true for every other "ism".

All I know is this: Bible evidence has fully convinced me of the validity of that main issue for which preterism is known - Christ's coming into His Kingdom within the timeframe which He had given His disciples.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

I disagee with you.

Verse 27 and 28 are very clear speaking of future event at the Second Coming. Not supposed fulfilled in 70 A.D. Also, verse 27 speak of clear his coming shall be visibly. In Matt. 24:30 and Rev. 1:7 both telling that that everyone of the world will SEE Christ coming in the clouds with glory and power. Therefore, there was no record during year 70 A.D. that anyone claim, did see Christ appears in the clouds with power and glory. Obivlously, no, Christ didn't come in year 70 A.D. Christ is still up there in the heaven sitting on the right hand of the Father for nearly 2,000 years.

Full preterism is fallacy doctrine. I rather follow what the Bible saying than what philiosphers saying according Col. 2:8

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[Grasshopper]

I disagee with you.

Verse 27 and 28 are very clear speaking of future event at the Second Coming. Not supposed fulfilled in 70 A.D.

Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.


Ooops. Another pesky time statment.

Also, verse 27 speak of clear his coming shall be visibly.

Says no such thing, you have read that into the text. In fact, it proves the opposite, when did the Father ever come in visible form in the past?


Isa 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, the LORD rideth upon a swift cloud, and shall come into Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall be moved at his presence, and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

In Matt. 24:30 and Rev. 1:7 both telling that that everyone of the world will SEE Christ coming in the clouds with glory and power.

Matthew 24:30 doesn't use the word "world":


G1093
γῆ
gē
Thayer Definition:
1) arable land
2) the ground, the earth as a standing place
3) the main land as opposed to the sea or water
4) the earth as a whole
4a) the earth as opposed to the heavens
4b) the inhabited earth, the abode of men and animals
5) a country, land enclosed within fixed boundaries, a tract of land, territory, region

Adam Clarke on Rev. 1:7

And all kindreds of the earth - Πασαι αἱ φυλαι της γης· All the tribes of the land. By this the Jewish people are most evidently intended, and therefore the whole verse may be understood as predicting the destruction of the Jews; and is a presumptive proof that the Apocalypse was written before the final overthrow of the Jewish state.

Therefore, there was no record during year 70 A.D. that anyone claim, did see Christ appears in the clouds with power and glory. Obivlously, no, Christ didn't come in year 70 A.D. Christ is still up there in the heaven sitting on the right hand of the Father for nearly 2,000 years.

Your understanding of the parousia is flawed.

Full preterism is fallacy doctrine. I rather follow what the Bible saying than what philiosphers saying according Col. 2:8

Yet I showed you how you do not correctly interpret what the Bible says. Something is a fallacy but it is not preterism

 

[asterisktom]

I disagee with you.

...

Full preterism is fallacy doctrine. I rather follow what the Bible saying than what philiosphers saying according Col. 2:8

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

I would rather follow what Christ plainly said - that He would come back into His kingdom within the lifetime of most of His disciple he was speaking to.

"Let God be true and every man a liar."

There have been in my lifetime just a very few "click!" moments. This preterism issue, for me, is one of those. It makes total sense. And it doesn't make Christ into a liar or - as CS Lewis characterized Him - ignorant.

 

[Tater77]

I have come to similar conclusions about these things. The doom and gloomers are always wrong in predictions, but a preterist view puts everything together. I'm not completely preterist as I believe Revelations in still unfolding. But I believe everything in the rest of the NT is fulfilled.

Jesus did say that some of his Apostles would be alive to see it. Christ said it, so be it, Amen.

The destruction of not just Jerusalem but all of Judea in the Roman war makes total sense.

 

[asterisktom]

I have come to similar conclusions about these things. The doom and gloomers are always wrong in predictions, but a preterist view puts everything together. I'm not completely preterist as I believe Revelations in still unfolding. But I believe everything in the rest of the NT is fulfilled.

Jesus did say that some of his Apostles would be alive to see it. Christ said it, so be it, Amen.

The destruction of not just Jerusalem but all of Judea in the Roman war makes total sense.

Anyone reading the last book of Josephus's Jewish War can see how calamity found out the Jews throughout Judea and many other far-flung places in the Empire. For that matter the Roman Empire itself at this very time suffered tremendous upheavals in places like Rome (69AD - the year of 4 emperors), Gaul, Britain, Spain, Parthia, Libya, etc.

A quicker read of the above events can be found in the recent addition of Ussher's Annals of World History. This excellent new edition (edited by Pierce) has a convenient tabulation of the casualties suffered by the Jews in all of these places.

 

[DeafPosttrib]

Look at the world today. Are the world in a full of peace and safety right now? There are filled of wicked out there in the world today. Has Christ already come in 70 A.D.?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

[kyredneck]

.....I'm not completely preterist as I believe Revelations in still unfolding. But I believe everything in the rest of the NT is fulfilled. .....

Then that makes you a 'partial preterist' like me!

 

[asterisktom]

Look at the world today. Are the world in a full of peace and safety right now? There are filled of wicked out there in the world today. Has Christ already come in 70 A.D.?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

Please read more carefully those verses that describe the reign of Christ. He rules amidst His enemies. That is happening right now.

 

[J.D.]

Then that makes you a 'partial preterist' like me!

Me too. I am PP on the Gospels and epistles but I'm still idealist on Revelation. I've been studying Ken Gentry's material on Revelation but am not convinced yet.

 

[quantumfaith]

I would rather follow what Christ plainly said - that He would come back into His kingdom within the lifetime of most of His disciple he was speaking to.

"Let God be true and every man a liar."

There have been in my lifetime just a very few "click!" moments. This preterism issue, for me, is one of those. It makes total sense. And it doesn't make Christ into a liar or - as CS Lewis characterized Him - ignorant.

Asterisktom,

Do you find yourself in the Full Preterist camp or the Partial Preterist camp? Would you expound, if possible, with regard to the differneces between the two? I too "think" I am most likely "preterist", but I have not done much investigating in the various eschatalogical perspecitives, prefering to remain comfortably a "pan-millenialist.

 

[quantumfaith]

Asterisktom,

My apologies, I just read an earlier post where you stated that you do not have a specific preterist position, however, if you can distinguish between the two and a so inclined, I would appreciate any assistance.

 

[asterisktom]

Asterisktom,

My apologies, I just read an earlier post where you stated that you do not have a specific preterist position, however, if you can distinguish between the two and a so inclined, I would appreciate any assistance.

I would have to say I am a full preterist. That is not the same as a hyper preterist. Unfortunately I don't have time at present to elaborate.

 

[Jedi Knight]

Mat 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Mat 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. I see two diffrent events discribed here like an immediate and not yet. Example, John 5:25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming AND now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
Mat 16:27 I believe is the second coming at the end of the age. Mat 16:28 I believe is Jesus ascension into His Kingdom into the clouds and the Angels asked them " Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."

 

[Aschultz73]

Normally I dont jump into this debate as I have many friends who claim Preterism. But here I am !!!!! I for one am a Futurist and am quite convinced I can never change. When I read things such as this......

http://www.preterist.org/whatispreterism.asp

or more importantly, the incorrect logic that stems from statements like these.....

This view offers a much more positive and realistic worldview. It is conservative, consistent, optimistic, responsible and accountable. And it robs us of no motivation for either living the Christian life, or evangelizing the world. In fact, it's the only view which gives us a consistent reason for being constructively involved in making the world a better place for the long-term, unlike the short-term escapist and withdrawal mindset of most futurists.

As if this world will ever be a better place and that we find that all will be made new outside of the works of man. Or am I to assume now that I am a short-term escapist and have a withdrawal mindset?

Or this statement itself......

For 150 years here in America we have constantly been told we were living on the threshold of the end of the world and Christ's return.

Am I now to assume that scripture itself does not tell us many will question his coming return asking basically, "Well where is He?" Not to mention the whole 150 year assertion which in some way attempts to link futurists to other doctrinally false movements which claim Christianity, but are not Christian.

The most telling problem I have with preterism is that I have seen many who support the doctrine of Universalism to also claim Preterism. It may stem from a desire to use allegorical modes of interpretation, I quite honestly do not know.

As I have said I have friends who are solid Christians professing the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ so I tend to stay out of this, but these same things I present to them as I do here and thus I remain skeptical. When faced with the fact of its history in relation to the Counter Reformation it gives me pause.

 

[DHK]

I would have to say I am a full preterist. That is not the same as a hyper preterist. Unfortunately I don't have time at present to elaborate.

How does your view fit in with the resurrection of the believer.
When does it take place?

 

[asterisktom]

How does your view fit in with the resurrection of the believer.
When does it take place?

Here is a quote that pretty much explains my position. See also my comments below it. His quotes are in green. The quote is from:
http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/the-nature-of-the-resurrection?commentId=1632544%3AComment%3A71894

Jesus was demonstrating by his resurrection, as he stood in front of his disciples with the SAME body he had in the tomb, what the NATURE of resurrection is: freedom from Sin and Death that came "through the one man" Adam. One does not have to be whisked away from earth. One does not need a "new body" free from blemishes. One needs to be put to death in Christ (sown), and raised with him in "newness of life" (raised). No new bodies needed. Only faith in the Resurrection, Jesus Christ, will do.

Now, church history has seen this perspective, and call it "positional resurrection" or "spiritual resurrection" in that through participation "in Christ" we "have been made alive with Christ". BUT, they ADD that one day, we will "really" and "fully" be "like Christ" with glorified bodies.....but this is precisely what brings us around to the 3 problems-solutions I mentioned above. Preterism sees those problem, and fixes them, but jettisons the "traditional" addition of Augustine as unnecessary. Paul is not talking about "getting new bodies" or "glorified bodies" at all.

As I understand it, as believers we were raised in Christ. I know that when I die -when this physical body is gone - I will ever be with the Lord.

 

[asterisktom]

Then that makes you a 'partial preterist' like me!

I was partial preterist for a long time but there were some verses that finally nudged me onward. One such verse is Hebrews 9:28. Here is the context, 9:26b - 28:

but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

I noticed here there were only two comings, not three. The first coming was in His incarnation (v.26 - 28a). The second was, apart from sin, for salvation (28b). These two comings - not three - meant that all of Christ's comings that weren't of the Gospel times had to be either:
A. All AD70
B. All at some future date.

Well, since I was clearly convinced that some of the verses in the Bible refer to AD70 then the rest of them must also. And, personally, the more I studied this the more I find that they fit in quite nicely.

 

[asterisktom]

Asterisktom,

Do you find yourself in the Full Preterist camp or the Partial Preterist camp? Would you expound, if possible, with regard to the differneces between the two? I too "think" I am most likely "preterist", but I have not done much investigating in the various eschatalogical perspecitives, prefering to remain comfortably a "pan-millenialist.

I would say that I am full preterist. Please see my other comments in the "first resurrection" thread.

 

[DHK]

Jesus was demonstrating by his resurrection, as he stood in front of his disciples with the SAME body he had in the tomb, what the NATURE of resurrection is: freedom from Sin and Death that came "through the one man" Adam. One does not have to be whisked away from earth. One does not need a "new body" free from blemishes. One needs to be put to death in Christ (sown), and raised with him in "newness of life" (raised). No new bodies needed. Only faith in the Resurrection, Jesus Christ, will do.

Now, church history has seen this perspective, and call it "positional resurrection" or "spiritual resurrection" in that through participation "in Christ" we "have been made alive with Christ".

So how is your position (spiritual resurrection) any different than the J.W.'s who also believe in a "spiritual resurrection"?