A brother "almost persuaded" of full-preterism

End Times
Post Reply
User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

A brother "almost persuaded" of full-preterism

Post by steve » Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:06 pm

I received and responded to the following correspondence today:
Steve,

What Scriptural passages help one avoid full preterism?

Jesus only spoke of one 'the end' - the end of the age. Paul and John and Peter constantly warned people to be prepared because the coming of Christ was imminent. And in 70 AD the temple / Old Covenant was ended.

I am in shock right now - I was a premil and after studying your teaching became partial preterist.

But I really am struggling to find a good Scriptural reason not to be preterist.

Jesus came - the temple was destroyed.

What if the Bible never intended to discuss the end of the world - only the end of the covenant? What if the resurrection to judgment occurred and now people are judged as they die?

Any Biblical push back would be appreciated.

S—

Hi S—,

I will address your concerns in the order that you presented them:

1) It is a mistake to say that Jesus spoke only of one "the end." This is not true, either of Jesus, nor of any biblical writer. There are many "beginnings" and many "ends"—depending upon what is under discussion.

John said that Jesus existed "from the beginning" (1 John 1:1) and also that the readers had heard the command to love "from the beginning" (1 John 3:11). Though not specified more precisely, it is intended to be obvious that these were different "beginnings."

Similarly, depending on what is being discussed, there are many "beginnings"—each, in its place, referred to as "the beginning" (e.g., Gen.13:3; 41:21; Isa.1:26; 40:21; Daniel 9:21; Luke 1:2; John 2:10; 6:64; 8:25, 44; 15:27; Acts 11:4, 15; 26:4; 2 Thess.2:13).

As there are many "beginnings," so are there many "ends" (e.g., Ruth 3:10; Prov.20:21; Eccl.7:8; Isa.46:10; 2 Peter 2:20; Rev.1:8)—each referred to, simply, as "the end".

The flood was described as "the end of all flesh" (Gen.6:13). There is the generic "the end" of the wicked man's life (Ps.73:17). The Psalmist says he will keep God's statutes "to the end" (Ps.119:33)—which presumably means simply to the end of his life. The harlot is bitter as wormwood "in the end" (Prov.5:4). The resolution of a court battle is also called "the end" (Prov.25:8, Matt.26:58). Death is "the end" of every man (Eccl.7:2). The destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, in 586 BC, is alternately called "the end" and "an end" (Ezek.7:2,3,6). Likewise, the destruction of the northern kingdom, in 722 BC, was referred to as "the end" (Amos 8:2). God's dominion is said to endure "to the end" (Dan.6:26)—which certainly must look to an "end" beyond AD 70!

There is certainly "the end" of the Old Covenant (e.g., Dan.9:26), but also, in one verse (Dan.12:13), both Daniel's death is referred to as "the end," and the future resurrection is said to occur at "the end of days." (this agrees with Jesus saying that the resurrection would occur "at the last day (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54).

Matthew uses "the end" to refer to the end of the temple (24:3), but also to refer to "the end" of Jesus' legal proceedings before the Sanhedrin (26:58).

As did other biblical writers, Jesus also used the term "the end" variously, in different contexts.

In Matthew 24:6 & 14, it is probable that "the end" refers to the end of the Old Covenant, of Jerusalem and of the temple system. However, in Matthew 24:13, "He who endures to the end will be saved" cannot mean "he that survives until AD 70 shall be saved"! It surely means "the end" of one's individual life.

Jesus definitely spoke of "the end of the age" or "the end of this age" (Matthew 13:39, 40, 49; 28:20). The disciples also spoke of AD 70 as "the end of the age"—though, in their minds, they were probably not sure whether this event would also be the end of the world as we know it.

When we read "the end of the age," we must naturally ask, "Of what age?" Jesus spoke of more than one age—"this age" [the Old Testament age] and "the age to come" [the New Testament age] (Matt.12:32). The latter age was to be when His disciples would receive eternal life (Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30), the powers of which age, we have already tasted (Heb.6:5).

Paul also spoke of multiple "ages to come" (Ephesians 2:7). More to our point, he spoke of "the ends of the ages" (1 Cor.10:11).

Thus, it is impossible to speak of only one "the end"—or even of only one "end of the age." Each "end" must be taken in its context and with sound exegesis. When Jesus said He would be with His disciples "until the end of the age"—He could hardly have meant AD 70, since most of the disciples were dead before that date, and the ones who lived beyond it (e.g., John) hardly found Christ to be absent from him after that date.

2) The "coming" of the Lord is more generic than full-preterits allow. It certainly refers to the judgment events of AD 70, in some places (e.g., Zech.14:1-2; Matt.21:40; 24:3). It also refers to multiple judgment events that occurred centuries after AD 70, like the time when God removed the lampstand of the church in Ephesus (Rev.2:5), and the time when He brought judgment on the careless church of Sardis (Rev.3:3). In the Old Testament, the same term referred to the conquest of Egypt by Assyria (Isa.19:1).

There is also a "coming of the Lord" in the future, at which time He will judge all nations (Psalm 96:13; 98:9; Matthew 25:31ff). There will, at that time, be a resurrection—both of the righteous and the unrighteous (John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15)—which clearly did not happen in AD 70, since remains of dead bodies have been discovered which perished far more than 2,000 years ago.

3) The New Testament writers were not so sure of the immanence of the "second coming" as many suggest. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, Paul said that this event was not immanent. He may well have hoped that it would occur in his lifetime, though he never declared that it would be so. The "we" in passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:15 & 17 does not mean "I, Paul, and you Christians in Thessalonika will be alive when the Lord comes." How could he suggest such a thing as that? Some of his readers would certainly die (as others in their church already had died) before AD 70. Paul himself also died before AD 70. Whether "the coming of the Lord" referred to Jerusalem's destruction, or to the end of the known world, Paul missed his prediction, if his "we" included himself among those who would be living at that time.

Paul sees the church as the collective body of Christ, enduring through the generations. "We who are alive and remain to the coming of the Lord" means, "Whichever representatives of our tribe who may be alive at that time..." Some of that tribe are still living today (to paraphrase Josephus).

It is not impossible for the biblical writers to have been mistaken, with reference to the particular timing of prophetic events, about which they cherished hopes, but no specific information. Jesus told them, "It is not for you to know the times and the seasons which the Father has put in His own authority" (Acts 1:7). Whether it be the timing of the Roman invasion or of the end of the world, these would certainly be matters, the timing of which were in the province of God's own authority. If these were not things for the apostles to know, it is unlikely that they knew them. They may have had opinions about them—and even expressing them—but they would have to have been offered as guesses, not promises.

Similarly, Paul clearly believed that he was going to make a brief stop in Jerusalem, and then turn around to visit Spain by way of Rome soon afterward (Rom.15:25-28). He little knew that he would be delayed more than three years by an intervening imprisonment in Caesarea. The apostles did not know the future, except in cases of special revelation—which they rarely claimed to possess. If they thought the end of the world was upon them (as Peter may have believed—1 Peter 4:7), then they were a lot like Christians throughout the ages who have always hoped as much. However, any "predictions" along these lines must be taken as wishful thinking, not certain knowledge, unless we are to discredit Jesus' statement in Acts 1:7.

4) Some full-preterists spiritualize the resurrection and judgment so as to claim that it invisibly happened in AD 70—but who can point to any significant improvement in the spiritual experience of Christians, say, in Corinth or Thessalonika, which can be said to have occurred when Jerusalem fell?

There is, indeed, an invisible reality, a kind of spiritual resurrection, spoken of in scripture. However, it did not occur in AD 70. It occurs when a person becomes a believer in Christ—and that happened to very many people prior to AD 70 (e.g., John 5:24; Eph.2:4-6; Col.2:12-13), as well as after.

The final resurrection at Christ's return is not to be a secret, spiritual phenomenon. It is described as a noisy affair—which would be hard to miss (1 Thess.4:16; 1 Cor.15:52). It is physical, involving the emptying of the physical graves (John 5:28), and includes the righteous as well as the wicked (John 5:29). For the righteous, the body will be glorified—the same body that was "sown in dishonor" is "raised in glory;" that body which was "sown in weakness" is to be "raised in power" (1 Cor.15:43). This mortal and corruptible body will "put on" immortality and incorruption (1 Cor.15:53). At that time, all the nations will be made to present themselves before Christ's judgment seat, and will be consigned either to eternal reward or to eternal flames (Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 17:31; Romans 2:5-10; 2 Tim.4:1; Revelation 20:9-15)

If such a resurrection of all the dead, and a judgment of all nations, had occurred in AD 70, it would be astonishing to find that none of the church fathers, a generation later, had heard of it! They did not notice the graves of the apostles and first-generation saints to have been vacated. They did not see the wicked nations judged and sent to the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. They give no evidence of believing, or having even heard, that such a thing had occurred in their parents' or grandparents' generation. Nor did anyone believe such a thing until modern times—which are times characterized by as many theological errors as there are fleas on a dog. I hope you will not be bitten.

In Jesus,
Steve Gregg

User avatar
TK
Posts: 1477
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:42 pm
Location: North Carolina

Re: A brother "almost persuaded" of full-preterism

Post by TK » Tue Jan 03, 2017 6:30 pm

Very helpful- thanks.

TK

dwilkins
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 2:54 pm

Re: A brother "almost persuaded" of full-preterism

Post by dwilkins » Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:46 pm

Steve,

I hope you don't mind me commenting a bit on the answers you gave regarding full preterism. I have edited your response to narrow the field to my responses.
steve wrote:I received and responded to the following correspondence today:

Hi S—,

I will address your concerns in the order that you presented them:

1) It is a mistake to say that Jesus spoke only of one "the end."

...

Thus, it is impossible to speak of only one "the end"—or even of only one "end of the age." Each "end" must be taken in its context and with sound exegesis. When Jesus said He would be with His disciples "until the end of the age"—He could hardly have meant AD 70, since most of the disciples were dead before that date, and the ones who lived beyond it (e.g., John) hardly found Christ to be absent from him after that date.
I think you're correct to challenge full preterists to be more disciplined about how they use "the end". Similarly, I have challenged some of them to be careful about "all things . . fulfilled". But the question really is, what is the list of "ends" in scripture that refer to a final end of human history, or time itself? I'd challenge you to list the ones you think exist. I don't think there are any.

I base this on the basic worldview of OT scripture when it comes to eschatology, and the NT reliance on this baseline for its own eschatology. The basic approach of the OT towards "the end" is that it's a transition into the next age where certain unique conditions exist. Isaiah 66, Daniel 2, Daniel 7, Ezekiel 47, and Zechariah 14 are some of the clearest descriptions of this. In Isaiah 66, in the passage from which John adopts the concept of a "New Heaven and New Earth", we have a gathering of all nations for the final climactic sign from God. After this work, survivors go to far off lands to people who'd never heard of this gathering of all people in order to evangelize the far off unbelievers. I haven't found a conservative commentator who suggests that this gathering of all people is anything other than the second coming. This requires that Isaiah expected not everyone would have heard about the second coming, and that there would still be sin, rebellion, and evangelization afterwards. In Daniel 2 we see a judgment where the stone cut without hands destroys the evil powers and then that stone grows to take over the whole world. There is no indication that after this growth the world is melted. There is also no indication that it is literally melted and remade before the beginning of the growth (the imagery itself demanding that it starts small, and therefore somehow ineffective). In Daniel 7, after the climax of the judgement of the beast and the vindication of the saints, the saints are granted to rule with Christ eternally. This doesn't happen until after the judgement of the beast. If you connect this to the parallel imagery in Revelation 20 I think Daniel indicates that the judgment of the beast is associated with the second coming. This kingdom is one that has no end. In Ezekiel 47 (the imagery of which is mirrored in Revelation 21-22), living water pours from the new temple. It rejuvenates the dead sea, bringing life from death. There are still some areas that aren't rejuvenated (indicating in the imagery that there will always be some rebellion to God). But, the general condition is incremental growth of a rejuvenating effect in the living water (starting off somewhat ineffective, but growing to be impossible to cross). There is no description of an end to this function. Zechariah 14 describes conditions associated with the second coming, but the important part is what the OT readers would expect once that process is finished. There are still rebellious people on earth. They are punished occasionally for their rebellion.

Amillennialists have a very hard time with these concepts since in their view the second coming happens at the moment of the melting of the universe and the beginning of a world without any sin. This is completely foreign to scripture in my opinion. Premillennialists appear to have an easier time of it on the surface since they have a millennial reign in which there is some sin and rebellion before the final institution of the "New Heaven and New Earth." But, I don't think their system works either because Isaiah 66 clearly describes "The New Heaven and New Earth" as a period in which there is still sin.

I think the major disconnect is misinterpretation of 2nd Peter 3, with the expectation that there will somehow be an end to history. I'd like to see a more detailed analysis of scripture that proposes such a thing.
steve wrote: 2) The "coming" of the Lord is more generic than full-preterits allow. It certainly refers to the judgment events of AD 70, in some places (e.g., Zech.14:1-2; Matt.21:40; 24:3). It also refers to multiple judgment events that occurred centuries after AD 70, like the time when God removed the lampstand of the church in Ephesus (Rev.2:5), and the time when He brought judgment on the careless church of Sardis (Rev.3:3). In the Old Testament, the same term referred to the conquest of Egypt by Assyria (Isa.19:1).

There is also a "coming of the Lord" in the future, at which time He will judge all nations (Psalm 96:13; 98:9; Matthew 25:31ff). There will, at that time, be a resurrection—both of the righteous and the unrighteous (John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15)—which clearly did not happen in AD 70, since remains of dead bodies have been discovered which perished far more than 2,000 years ago.


Your position on this point is completely dependent on your interpretation of the resurrection of the dead. If the corpses of the dead aren't what are raised then this point has now foundation. I propose that Paul was being specific in 1st Cor. 15:35-49 that the body that is raised is a spiritual one, not one made of dust.

1Co 15:35  But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 
1Co 15:36  You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 
1Co 15:37  And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 
1Co 15:38  But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 
1Co 15:39  For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 
1Co 15:40  There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. 
1Co 15:41  There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory. 
1Co 15:42  So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 
1Co 15:43  It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 
1Co 15:44  It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 
1Co 15:45  Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 
1Co 15:46  But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. 
1Co 15:47  The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 
1Co 15:48  As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 
1Co 15:49  Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
steve wrote: 3) The New Testament writers were not so sure of the immanence of the "second coming" as many suggest. In 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, Paul said that this event was not immanent. He may well have hoped that it would occur in his lifetime, though he never declared that it would be so. The "we" in passages like 1 Thessalonians 4:15 & 17 does not mean "I, Paul, and you Christians in Thessalonika will be alive when the Lord comes." How could he suggest such a thing as that? Some of his readers would certainly die (as others in their church already had died) before AD 70. Paul himself also died before AD 70. Whether "the coming of the Lord" referred to Jerusalem's destruction, or to the end of the known world, Paul missed his prediction, if his "we" included himself among those who would be living at that time.

Paul sees the church as the collective body of Christ, enduring through the generations. "We who are alive and remain to the coming of the Lord" means, "Whichever representatives of our tribe who may be alive at that time..." Some of that tribe are still living today (to paraphrase Josephus).

It is not impossible for the biblical writers to have been mistaken, with reference to the particular timing of prophetic events, about which they cherished hopes, but no specific information. Jesus told them, "It is not for you to know the times and the seasons which the Father has put in His own authority" (Acts 1:7). Whether it be the timing of the Roman invasion or of the end of the world, these would certainly be matters, the timing of which were in the province of God's own authority. If these were not things for the apostles to know, it is unlikely that they knew them. They may have had opinions about them—and even expressing them—but they would have to have been offered as guesses, not promises.

Similarly, Paul clearly believed that he was going to make a brief stop in Jerusalem, and then turn around to visit Spain by way of Rome soon afterward (Rom.15:25-28). He little knew that he would be delayed more than three years by an intervening imprisonment in Caesarea. The apostles did not know the future, except in cases of special revelation—which they rarely claimed to possess. If they thought the end of the world was upon them (as Peter may have believed—1 Peter 4:7), then they were a lot like Christians throughout the ages who have always hoped as much. However, any "predictions" along these lines must be taken as wishful thinking, not certain knowledge, unless we are to discredit Jesus' statement in Acts 1:7.
By my count, the NT writers propose directly or indirectly that the parousia would happen (or that the erchomai would happen and the parousia would begin) in the generation of the Apostles at least 360 times. There were statements by Jesus before the Apostalic age indicating that the timing of these events were not described in detail prior to his ascension (though he is crystal clear that certain things would happen to that generation). However, he also states plainly that the Holy Spirit would teach the Apostles (we'd assume authoritatively) about "all things" after Pentecost (John 14:26). After this point, Peter, James, John, Paul, and Jude were unanimous that the events were either to happen in their generation, or had already started to happen. To say that their timing claims were wrong is to bring into question their authority, and the authority of anything they had to say. Full preterism simply says that they were right.

steve wrote: 4) Some full-preterists spiritualize the resurrection and judgment so as to claim that it invisibly happened in AD 70—but who can point to any significant improvement in the spiritual experience of Christians, say, in Corinth or Thessalonika, which can be said to have occurred when Jerusalem fell?

There is, indeed, an invisible reality, a kind of spiritual resurrection, spoken of in scripture. However, it did not occur in AD 70. It occurs when a person becomes a believer in Christ—and that happened to very many people prior to AD 70 (e.g., John 5:24; Eph.2:4-6; Col.2:12-13), as well as after.

The final resurrection at Christ's return is not to be a secret, spiritual phenomenon. It is described as a noisy affair—which would be hard to miss (1 Thess.4:16; 1 Cor.15:52). It is physical, involving the emptying of the physical graves (John 5:28), and includes the righteous as well as the wicked (John 5:29). For the righteous, the body will be glorified—the same body that was "sown in dishonor" is "raised in glory;" that body which was "sown in weakness" is to be "raised in power" (1 Cor.15:43). This mortal and corruptible body will "put on" immortality and incorruption (1 Cor.15:53). At that time, all the nations will be made to present themselves before Christ's judgment seat, and will be consigned either to eternal reward or to eternal flames (Matthew 25:31-46; Acts 17:31; Romans 2:5-10; 2 Tim.4:1; Revelation 20:9-15)

If such a resurrection of all the dead, and a judgment of all nations, had occurred in AD 70, it would be astonishing to find that none of the church fathers, a generation later, had heard of it! They did not notice the graves of the apostles and first-generation saints to have been vacated. They did not see the wicked nations judged and sent to the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. They give no evidence of believing, or having even heard, that such a thing had occurred in their parents' or grandparents' generation. Nor did anyone believe such a thing until modern times—which are times characterized by as many theological errors as there are fleas on a dog. I hope you will not be bitten.

In Jesus,
Steve Gregg
I think you have a fundamentally flawed understanding of Paul's view of a resurrection body per 1st Cor. 15. This miscalculation skews everything connected to it.

As far as the historicity of the events, keep in mind that no writer used the term "second coming" or "second advent" until generations after the fall of Jerusalem (probably around 160-70AD), and these terms are only used a few dozen times in tens of thousands of pages of writing for the next several hundred years (this can be proved by doing a word search for the terms in the ANF writings available online). It is not at all clear what those in the first generations after the fall of Jerusalem thought of it. The first generation died without writing anything at all as far as we have discovered. What we do know is that the most prolific writers of the early church fathers accepted that the Olivet Discourse and the prophecies of Daniel were completely fulfilled in the Roman war. If we are going to use the early church as a framework to build a coherent eschatology, I suggest that we start from this foundation.

The only eschatology that could be allowed according to early church orthodoxy is one in which the Olivet Discourse and the prophecies of Daniel were fulfilled in the Roman war.

Doug

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: A brother "almost persuaded" of full-preterism

Post by Singalphile » Sat Jan 14, 2017 1:11 pm

I'm wondering why he should "struggle" against what he thinks Jesus and the apostles thought and/or taught. If he thinks they taught/thought what we call full-preterism, shouldn't he agree with them? Wouldn't many actually say that it would be a sin to disagree with them, to resist believing something that he thinks is biblically true?

I guess if he wants to be go into "normal" Christian ministry, then he should fight against it, but otherwise ...?

Note: I'm not a full preterist.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

Re: A brother "almost persuaded" of full-preterism

Post by RickC » Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:24 am

(Quick Post) Singalphile wrote:I guess if he wants to be go into "normal" Christian ministry, then he should fight against it, but otherwise ...?
Not long ago, I shared the basics of my full preterist beliefs with a friend who's studying online with DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary), the bastion of dispensationalism.

I mentioned to him that, if he becomes convinced, he'd do BEST to keep it to himself because, if he goes 'vocal' with it, he won't find a job.

I was refused ministry in the A/G when I became amillennial. (I was told I could hold the view but couldn't teach it, to which I voluntarily left the A/G. It was a good thing, seeing as I became full preterist, albeit decades later).

Just saying, is all.

Post Reply

Return to “Eschatology”