Partial Preterism – promotion, objections & relevance today.

[Martin Marprelate]

Welcome Martin, you now a Dispy, in that you reject Preterism!

Did I miss something on the news? Has hell frozen over?

 

[Covenanter]

So what I get from this very long post and your lack of interaction is that you are blogging rather than debating. Correct?

Not that it is wrong to blog on the BB on debate threads.... But it would be nice if we knew that in the OP (opening post).

I've made 6 posts out of the 80 on this thread, 3 of which have been replies to other's contributions.
I'm still trying to develop the questions I raise in my OP while the thread has rushed on.

 

[Covenanter]

I have to be selective in my responses - I have a life outside of forums.

My intended next blog-type post concerns the contribution of Revelation in the understanding of the various statements & promises concerning our Lord's coming.

Why I am not a Preterist

1. I believe that the whole idea of an invisible coming of Christ is refuted by Acts 1:11.
The Jesus who will return will be the same Jesus who left, and He will return 'in like manner' to the way He left..
He left visibly; He will return visibly. He left with a real 'flesh and bones' (Luke 24:39) body; He will return with that same body. Witnesses saw Him depart; witnesses will see Him return. Clouds received Him out of their sight; clouds will part to reveal Him (Mark 14:62 etc.).

Building on a single verse is questionable. One implication of that verse is that Jesus will come back to earth through the clouds as a man.
But that is not the whole story.

2. While some of Matthew 24 etc. clearly refers to AD 70, by no means all of it does. Verses 4-14 refer to all the Gospel age: wars and rumours of wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes, persecution, false prophets, deception, lawlessness- all these have been in evidence ever since the Lord Jesus spoke these words right through to the present day, 'but the end is not yet.'
Verses 15-22 probably do refer to the events of AD 70, though they may also foreshadow some future event; time will tell. But we are told very clearly, 'Then if anyone says to you, "Look, here is the Christ!" or "There!" Do not believe them.' So I don't. When Christ returns, everyone is going to know about it (Matthew 24:27; Revelation 1:7).
In verses 32-35, our Lord tells the disciples that there will be signs by which the destruction of Jerusalem may be anticipated and informs them that it will happen within a generation. But there is another event (v.36) of which no one but the Father knows either the approximate ('day') or the exact ('hour') time. This event will come suddenly and without warning (vs. 37-51; 1 Thessalonians 5:3; 2 Peter 3:10; Revelation 18:8 etc.).

Jesus makes it clear that the events leading up to the destruction of AD 70 will be experienced by "this generation." He also lists, as you say, some events that will continue that are not signs of the end.
I substantially agree with you, except regarding that coming being Jesus coming/return at the end of time. It's judgement on this generation

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. 28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.​

Jesus is still talking about the destruction.
From verse 35 he is warning about the end - Heaven and earth shall pass away.
That final section concerns us & our present daily living & obedience.

3. Verses which speak of disciples eagerly awaiting the return of Christ do not sit well with His coming in judgement on Jerusalem. In the light of Romans 9:3, why does Paul say 'Maranatha!' in 1 Cor. 15:22 if that coming means nothing but the destruction of thousands of Jews? Consider 1 Corinthians 1:7; Philippians 3:20-21; 1 Thessalonians 1:10; Titus 2:13-14, and Hebrews 9:28. Almost all these people were living hundreds of miles from Jerusalem; why would they be 'eagerly awaiting' the destruction of a city which few of them had ever visited? AD 70 would have made no difference whatsoever to their lives. Like Abraham, they were looking for something much better than that (Hebrews 11:10-16).

I haven't finished, but I have to go out now. Perhaps that little lot will be the basis for some interesting discussion.

Certainly!
Again I agree, but we need to go further.
We have the threatened coming to destroy Jerusalem, with warning signs.
We all look for the coming of Jesus to transform them to glory. That is at the end of time - or is it at death? Paul could write:

Phil. 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: 24 nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you. ​

We are born again of the Spirit; we have eternal life, so we can look forward to death without wanting to die.....
because Jesus IS with us. He comes to us at salvation, & lives in us by his Holy Spirit. I AM with you always ....
Jesus in John 14 makes it very clear that his comes to us in a real, personal, invisible way.
All believers enjoy that personal coming of Jesus, & all will enjoy eternity in his presence.
The argument is whether & how AD 70 was a coming.

 

[newjar1997]

I think that Partial-Preterism is Biblical. Emphasis on the "Partial".
People will often reject a biblical concept because error attached itself along the way.

Example:
I think that the Charasmatic movement is false. But some of their methods when it comes to praising God are biblical. Baptists tend to turn 180 degrees instead of 90 oftentimes, and therefore we come off looking like a bunch of stiffs.

The devil often mixes a little truth in with the error to get Christians to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Dampering our praise was probably his finest hour.

Many will often reject dispensationalism for the same reasons. And yes, there are extremes when it comes to some of those teachings. But some of it IS biblical.

Same thing goes for Preterism. Some of it is just non-sense. But "part" of it, is not.

 

[Covenanter]

I think that Partial-Preterism is Biblical. Emphasis on the "Partial".
People will often reject a biblical concept because error attached itself along the way.

Example:
I think that the Charasmatic movement is false. But some of their methods when it comes to praising God are biblical. Baptists tend to turn 180 degrees instead of 90 oftentimes, and therefore we come off looking like a bunch of stiffs.

The devil often mixes a little truth in with the error to get Christians to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Dampering our praise was probably his finest hour.

Many will often reject dispensationalism for the same reasons. And yes, there are extremes when it comes to some of those teachings. But some of it IS biblical.

Same thing goes for Preterism. Some of it is just non-sense. But "part" of it, is not.

Welcome Newjar.
A careful study of "proof texts" is always needed to establish whether they are proofs of whatever is being proved....

 

[Martin Marprelate]

28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. Mt 16

1 And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, There are some here of them that stand by, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God come with power. Mk 9

27 But I tell you of a truth, There are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. Lk 9

The passage is clearly describing a near advent. Your dogged insistence that His coming must be bodily, physical, and visible in no way changes that.

I will admit that the Transfiguration may well have been the beginning of His coming into His kingdom, but by no means does it stop there.

Thank you for moving a little bit in my direction. I will now move a little bit in yours.
We are agreed that the kingdom of God was a reality in the 1st Century. My belief is (as I have posted above) that the Kingdom was inaugurated at the start of our Lord's ministry (Mark 1:15). It is certainly a present reality in Matthew 12:28. It is immediately after Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ that the Transfiguration takes place. This is not a prophecy of what will come in AD 70 but an unveiling of present reality. Having pondered the comments by the old commentators that you posted, I think it may well be that the 'coming in His kingdom' of the Lord Jesus Christ may comprise not only the Transformation, but the crucifixion (John 12:23), His resurrection (Romans 1:4) and His session at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:33). It is doubtless He who, as Lord of heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), sent judgement upon Jerusalem in AD 70, but that cannot be the 'coming' spoken of in Matthew 16:28 because that was a present reality as we have seen, not can it be the return spoken of in Acts 1:11 because that will be a visible event. Nor can it have been the eager expectation of the Corinthians, Philippians and Thessalonians because the destruction of Jerusalem in no way met their earnest aspirations.

So we are a little bit closer to each other, but we haven't met yet.

'One' is 'some', and besides, there were almost certainly many more present than just 'the twelve', and Church History takes a far back seat to scripture, at least with me.

Actually, 'one' isn't 'some.' "One is one and all alone and ever more shall be so." However, your point is taken with regard to church history. But if you could point me to one person, either in Scripture or Church history who saw the Lord Jesus Christ in AD 70, your arguments would bear more weight.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Building on a single verse is questionable. One implication of that verse is that Jesus will come back to earth through the clouds as a man.

1. Not only one verse. Revelation 1:7.
2. The Lord Jesus will come back to earth as a Man, as the God-Man, which is how He left. The difference will be that His return will be glorious, in power, and visible to all.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Did I miss something on the news? Has hell frozen over?

Ramblings of Y......disregard it as indiscriminate noise & move on.

 

[Yeshua1]

Physical, visible return at His NEXT coming (1 Cor 15) is a total non-issue with me. I don't care whether it be visible to all or not. But His kingdom came without observation in 1st century A.D..

Will Jesus be coming back in a physical resurrected body?

 

[Yeshua1]

1. Not only one verse. Revelation 1:7.
2. The Lord Jesus will come back to earth as a Man, as the God-Man, which is how He left. The difference will be that His return will be glorious, in power, and visible to all.

He also will set foot back upon Mt of Olives at His returning!

 

[Yeshua1]

Did I miss something on the news? Has hell frozen over?

Some here seemed to indicate that you are now one!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you for moving a little bit in my direction. I will now move a little bit in yours.
We are agreed that the kingdom of God was a reality in the 1st Century. My belief is (as I have posted above) that the Kingdom was inaugurated at the start of our Lord's ministry (Mark 1:15). It is certainly a present reality in Matthew 12:28. It is immediately after Peter's confession of Jesus as the Christ that the Transfiguration takes place. This is not a prophecy of what will come in AD 70 but an unveiling of present reality. Having pondered the comments by the old commentators that you posted, I think it may well be that the 'coming in His kingdom' of the Lord Jesus Christ may comprise not only the Transformation, but the crucifixion (John 12:23), His resurrection (Romans 1:4) and His session at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:33). It is doubtless He who, as Lord of heaven and earth (Matthew 28:18), sent judgement upon Jerusalem in AD 70, but that cannot be the 'coming' spoken of in Matthew 16:28 because that was a present reality as we have seen, not can it be the return spoken of in Acts 1:11 because that will be a visible event. Nor can it have been the eager expectation of the Corinthians, Philippians and Thessalonians because the destruction of Jerusalem in no way met their earnest aspirations.

So we are a little bit closer to each other, but we haven't met yet.

Actually, 'one' isn't 'some.' "One is one and all alone and ever more shall be so." However, your point is taken with regard to church history. But if you could point me to one person, either in Scripture or Church history who saw the Lord Jesus Christ in AD 70, your arguments would bear more weight.

Could go the way of Eldon Ladd here, as in the text book used in school, he had the ole Kingdom now here, but not fully here yet, not until the Second Coming of Christ!

 

[Darrell C]

Oh give me a break. Any bitter attitude I may have is solely toward the heretical Zionism that Dispensationalism has morphed into. You people are the most dangerous cult on earth. All other systems of eschatology are rather benign as to their immediate effect on the human race in general, but there is NOTHING benign about the war mongering of Christian Zionism.

Could you give an example of how Dispensationalists are "war-mongering?"


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

If one believes in the process of progressive revelation, then one must believe that the NT builds on the revelation of the OT rather than that the OT must be interpreted by the NT.

Why can it not be both?

Do we not interpret, for example, Isaiah 53 through the revelation provided in the New?

Did anyone see a relevance between Messiah and Genesis 3:15 prior to the Coming of Christ?


God bless.

 

[Covenanter]

The next step is to look at the proof texts for the rejection of Preterism in every form. As Preterism is not a Biblical term, we need to know what it means -
A quick google gives this:

Preterism is a Christian eschatological view which interprets some (PartialPreterism) or all (Full Preterism) prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. ... The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, which Webster's 1913 dictionary lists as a prefix denoting that something is "past" or "beyond".​

This obvious includes the understanding/interpretation of Revelation.
If we begin with Scripture, rather than tradition inspired by Irenaeus, we will look at what John was inspired to write, rather than what people have written about it.

The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; .... for the time is at hand.​

It is written for John's immediate readers - his companions in tribulation for their encouragement & blessing.
While of course all readers benefit from the study of Scripture, there is an immediate relevance to John's readers.
Is there any indication as to whether Revelation was written before or after the destruction? Revelation 11 takes up Zechariah's vision of two olive trees, & describes the destruction of the city where Jesus was crucified. Isaiah also denounces Jerusalem as Sodom.

7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen​

That relates to:

Mat. 24:30 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.​

"Clouds" are significant - his coming is evident by the clouds;
"kindreds/tribes" is significant - φυλή / phylē is translated "tribes" (of Israel) throughout the NC Scriptures;
"ge" is translated "earth" or "land" so it is probable in the context, "tribes of the land" is the meaning.
Thus Jesus is referring to his coming for judgment on all the tribes of Israel still in the land. The believing Jews will have seen the signs & fled.
Note from the OC:

Ex. 19:16 And it came to pass on the third day in the morning, that there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud; so that all the people that was in the camp trembled.​

The presence of the LORD was evident from the cloud, though they did not see him with their eyes.

The rebel Jews who had defied the covenant, & rejected their Messiah had every reason to wail & mourn. They knew their OC.

Deu. 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. 19 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.
Acts. 3:22 For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23 And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people.​

1. Jesus comes to each believer as we are born again, and for each believer as we die.
2. He came in clouds for judgement of those who rejected him - .

Psalm 97:2 Clouds and darkness are round about him: righteousness and judgment are the habitation of his throne.​

3. He will come in glory for resurrection & judgement.

 

[Yeshua1]

Why can it not be both?

Do we not interpret, for example, Isaiah 53 through the revelation provided in the New?

Did anyone see a relevance between Messiah and Genesis 3:15 prior to the Coming of Christ?


God bless.

There are both biblical theologyand systematic theology, and the scriptures do all point to Jesus...

 

[Yeshua1]

Could you give an example of how Dispensationalists are "war-mongering?"


God bless.

Think that he meansns that when we stand behind israel, are supporting war!

 

[John of Japan]

I've made 6 posts out of the 80 on this thread, 3 of which have been replies to other's contributions.
I'm still trying to develop the questions I raise in my OP while the thread has rushed on.

All right, carry on. (Such is the BB.)

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The next step is to look at the proof texts for the rejection of Preterism in every form.

This looks a really interesting post.
I may not be able to reply to it for a while as I have to stand in for my Pastor from now until around Easter as he takes compassionate leave.

 

[John of Japan]

Why can it not be both?

Do we not interpret, for example, Isaiah 53 through the revelation provided in the New?

Did anyone see a relevance between Messiah and Genesis 3:15 prior to the Coming of Christ?


God bless.

Those points are valid, but that's not how it works in Covenant Theology and New Covenant Theology. They are not talking about normal fulfilled prophecies about Christ (which were always literally fulfilled in His first coming and thus will be in His second coming, contra preterism).