Questions for the non-full preterist

[Allyn]

I became a full-preterist 2 years ago because of the way the NT writers spoke of the end of the age and its significance upon those the promises of God were first intended for. For me there is no getting around the message of all thisngs being fulfilled by the time Jerusalem was destroyed in 70AD.

This thread is being started to perhaps help me understand how it is that you who do not believe that the bible teaches a fulfilled eschatolagy is arrived at. To get the discussion going I would like to present a verse from Timothy where the apostle Paul is giving Timothy intruction on how to live out his life in anticipation of the coming of Christ. Paul says:

that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing,

For me the appearing is what Christianity understands to be the second coming of Christ. As a full-preterist I believe it would be impossible for this to be Paul just guessing that it would be in Timothy's lifetime and that Timothy should just be ready in case Jesus did return in that 1st century as He said He would. In otherwords Paul was inspired or he wasn't. Either he was given insight or he wasn't. Regardless, I would like your comments on this and future questions.

[TK]

Hi Allyn-

Why can't it be that Paul was just "hoping?" Paul didn't know when Jesus was coming back (only the Father knows).

I guess I don't have a problem with Paul's wishful thinking about the soon return of Christ and how this relates to inspiration. To me, it is a personal statement, much like "don't forget to bring me my cloak and parchments." This was a personal letter, and contained personal sentiment. I think it is a huge stretch to say that because Paul told Timothy to keep pure until the Lord's coming, and the second coming did not happen during Timothy's lifetime, that therefore the book of Timothy is not inspired or that Paul "made a mistake." I don't think he made a mistake at all, because to me it is an expression of hope or expectation, not date-setting.

Now, I will also admit that I am woefully unable to debate you on this matter. Although I have read about full preterism, it just doesn't jive at all with me. Partial preterism- okay. But I can't accept that the second coming of Christ already happened. Sorry, I just can't.

TK

[steve7150]

For me the appearing is what Christianity understands to be the second coming of Christ. As a full-preterist I believe it would be impossible for this to be Paul just guessing that it would be in Timothy's lifetime and that Timothy should just be ready in case Jesus did return in that 1st century as He said He would. In otherwords Paul was inspired or he wasn't. Either he was given insight or he wasn't. Regardless, I would like your comments on this and future questions.






Hi Allyn,
My question is if Jesus did'nt know when, why would Paul? Paul may have been giving a general instruction to Timothy. Then what of judgment day, the dead being raised, the earth being burned up? I know you can symbolize all of these things but does it really add up if you step back from it?

[Allyn]

Hi Steve,
Jesus did not know the day or hour but He did now the generation. Paul and Timothy just happened to be in that generation.

TK,
Thanks for the response just the same, but I do feel we need to regard these inspired authors as being more then just men with ideas. They were inspired and spoke the words of God. Either they were false prophets or true prophets. There is more evidence in NT Scripture that tells us more about the validity of Paul but that would be for another time.

To all, I have another question. If Peter did not believe that the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead was not going to take place in the generation of the 1st century then what did he mean by this that he spoke to his contemporaries?

7 But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.

The end of all things is either a brand new teaching or it is in reference to other teachings of the same subject that refer to the time of the end or the end of those days. Peter said that time was at hand and was a reference for the hearers to whom those things Peter had been telling his readers to make preperations for.
As a preterist I believe the end of all things has to do with what Daniel was given to know that it was a time future to Daniel but a time relevant to Israel and the time when the destruction of Jerusalem was the major sign for the people. What does the non-full preterist say?

[steve]

To get the discussion going I would like to present a verse from Timothy where the apostle Paul is giving Timothy intruction on how to live out his life in anticipation of the coming of Christ. Paul says:

that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing,

Paul often spoke as if the coming of the Lord could be soon, from the perspective of his readers and himself. He also spoke as if he would be among those that would see the second coming ("we who are alive and remain" — 1 Thess.4:15,17). Since Paul died during the reign of Nero (hence, pre-AD69), he neither lived to see the end of the world, nor even the end of Jerusalem. If Paul was affirming that he would be among those who remained alive until the resurrection and the second coming, then he was mistaken—whether he was referring to the end of the world or to the fall of Jerusalem. He saw neither. Our view of inspiration (if applied to Paul), then, must accommodate Paul's expression of wishful thinking (just as TK wrote), or else Paul was simply not inspired and was mistaken.

If Paul was telling Timothy only to remain spiritually pure until the destruction of Jerusalem, was he giving Timothy permission to become corrupt after that event? It is entirely possible that not only Paul, but also Timothy, died before AD 70, but if Timothy lived beyond that, and Paul knew that he might live beyond that point (he refers to Timothy as a "youth" and was probably writing around AD 66), then why would Paul place the end of the obligation to remain pure at the destruction of Jerusalem? Since Timothy was in Ephesus, it is unclear that the fall of Jerusalem would have any impact at all upon his ministry or spiritual life—nor upon his responsibility to keep himself pure.

If Peter did not believe that the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead was not going to take place in the generation of the 1st century then what did he mean by this that he spoke to his contemporaries?

7 But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.

The end of all things is either a brand new teaching or it is in reference to other teachings of the same subject that refer to the time of the end or the end of those days. Peter said that time was at hand and was a reference for the hearers to whom those things Peter had been telling his readers to make preperations for.
As a preterist I believe the end of all things has to do with what Daniel was given to know that it was a time future to Daniel but a time relevant to Israel and the time when the destruction of Jerusalem was the major sign for the people. What does the non-full preterist say?

I think it is possible that Peter is indeed referring to the end of the Jewish order here, as is the case in many New Testament passages. The "end of all things" in the passage could possibly mean the end of all things associated with the Jewish order of things. However, the presence of references to that event does not tell us anything about other events not mentioned in a given passage. Peter could easily have been anticipating the immediate fall of Jerusalem and also believed that the second coming and the resurrection were to be later events than this. His mention of the one event alone does not tell us what he may have believed about the other. It is even possible that he believed that the second coming and the resurrection would (or might) occur at the same time as Jerusalem's destruction. Of course, he could have mistakenly entertained this as his private opinion, but he never affirmed it.

[steve7150]

Hi Steve,
Jesus did not know the day or hour but He did now the generation. Paul and Timothy just happened to be in that generation.



Allyn,
It sounds like Jesus knew that the destruction of Jerusalem was in "this generation" as "coming on the clouds" could be a symbolism of God's judgment , not the second coming.
Where is the judging of the living and the dead, resurrection, lake of fire, end of this evil age? Many times in scripture we see the expression "this evil age" yet it has not yet ended.

[Allyn]

Hi Steve,
Jesus did not know the day or hour but He did now the generation. Paul and Timothy just happened to be in that generation.



Allyn,
It sounds like Jesus knew that the destruction of Jerusalem was in "this generation" as "coming on the clouds" could be a symbolism of God's judgment , not the second coming.
Where is the judging of the living and the dead, resurrection, lake of fire, end of this evil age? Many times in scripture we see the expression "this evil age" yet it has not yet ended.

But yet, Steve we do have in other places showing exactly what Jesus was speaking of. His reference to Daniel is a good place to start in order to determine the what those days were comprised of. Have you read Daniel 12, for example, where the angel tells daniel what to expect at the end of those days that were at the time of the abomination that causes desolation, right?

[Allyn]

I think it is fairly obvious that the NT writers were had their present audience in mind when they spoke about the end of days. Thos people were experiencing first hand the very things that Jesus spoke of in the olivet discourse that would come upon them. This is why the Apostle Paul, I believe, said this in (1 Thessalonians 1:9-10) 9 For they themselves report about us what kind of a reception we had with you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve a living and true God, 10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.

What rescue would these people be looking forward to in their time of persecution except the coming of Christ and their fleeing from that time of wrath because of the warning Jesus gave them? Was death the rescue? Because if it was then every generation for 2000 years has had that to count on.

[Allyn]

To get the discussion going I would like to present a verse from Timothy where the apostle Paul is giving Timothy intruction on how to live out his life in anticipation of the coming of Christ. Paul says:

that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing,

Paul often spoke as if the coming of the Lord could be soon, from the perspective of his readers and himself. He also spoke as if he would be among those that would see the second coming ("we who are alive and remain" — 1 Thess.4:15,17). Since Paul died during the reign of Nero (hence, pre-AD69), he neither lived to see the end of the world, nor even the end of Jerusalem. If Paul was affirming that he would be among those who remained alive until the resurrection and the second coming, then he was mistaken—whether he was referring to the end of the world or to the fall of Jerusalem. He saw neither. Our view of inspiration (if applied to Paul), then, must accommodate Paul's expression of wishful thinking (just as TK wrote), or else Paul was simply not inspired and was mistaken.

If Paul was telling Timothy only to remain spiritually pure until the destruction of Jerusalem, was he giving Timothy permission to become corrupt after that event? It is entirely possible that not only Paul, but also Timothy, died before AD 70, but if Timothy lived beyond that, and Paul knew that he might live beyond that point (he refers to Timothy as a "youth" and was probably writing around AD 66), then why would Paul place the end of the obligation to remain pure at the destruction of Jerusalem? Since Timothy was in Ephesus, it is unclear that the fall of Jerusalem would have any impact at all upon his ministry or spiritual life—nor upon his responsibility to keep himself pure.

If Peter did not believe that the return of Christ and the resurrection of the dead was not going to take place in the generation of the 1st century then what did he mean by this that he spoke to his contemporaries?

7 But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious and watchful in your prayers.

The end of all things is either a brand new teaching or it is in reference to other teachings of the same subject that refer to the time of the end or the end of those days. Peter said that time was at hand and was a reference for the hearers to whom those things Peter had been telling his readers to make preperations for.
As a preterist I believe the end of all things has to do with what Daniel was given to know that it was a time future to Daniel but a time relevant to Israel and the time when the destruction of Jerusalem was the major sign for the people. What does the non-full preterist say?

I think it is possible that Peter is indeed referring to the end of the Jewish order here, as is the case in many New Testament passages. The "end of all things" in the passage could possibly mean the end of all things associated with the Jewish order of things. However, the presence of references to that event does not tell us anything about other events not mentioned in a given passage. Peter could easily have been anticipating the immediate fall of Jerusalem and also believed that the second coming and the resurrection were to be later events than this. His mention of the one event alone does not tell us what he may have believed about the other. It is even possible that he believed that the second coming and the resurrection would (or might) occur at the same time as Jerusalem's destruction. Of course, he could have mistakenly entertained this as his private opinion, but he never affirmed it.

Steve,
How is it possible then, by your standard, to trust the inspiration of the letter. Why should we trust that Matthew had it right or better yet that Mark got it right if we insert the thought that they were only giving a hopeful opinion?

I choose to believe Paul said it because of its intention that it was specifically for those who received the letter originally. Otherwise they would be no better off then the those who may have had their faith dislodged when two of their number falsley said the resurrection of the dead had happened before its time.

[steve]

who rescues us from the wrath to come.

What rescue would these people be looking forward to in their time of persecution except the coming of Christ and their fleeing from that time of wrath because of the warning Jesus gave them? Was death the rescue? Because if it was then every generation for 2000 years has had that to count on.

Am I to understand that you think the Thessalonians were rescued by Jesus from the wrath that came on Jerusalem in AD 70? In what sense did that wrath ever endanger the people in Greece? And in what way did Christ rescue them from it?

Steve,
How is it possible then, by your standard, to trust the inspiration of the letter. Why should we trust that Matthew had it right or better yet that Mark got it right if we insert the thought that they were only giving a hopeful opinion?

I don't understand the question. Matthew and Mark did not express their opinions about this. They only quoted Jesus. I am quite sure that Jesus was not mistaken—and he did not commit Himself on the question of the timing of the end of the world.

As for the inspiration of Paul's letters, I make no more claims for them than he himself does. He never claimed to be writing under some influence that rendered him incapable of being mistaken...especially about a private opinion. He often said he was giving his judgment on a matter, and there is nothing in scripture to suggest that an apostle might not privately hold to a wrong notion (as, for instance, most of them apparently did about circumcision in the early years, before Acts 15).

Paul did not affirm that either he nor Timothy would live to see the coming of the Lord (had he predicted this, he would certainly have been mistaken, at least in his own case), though he wrote as if either or both of them might be alive to see it.

I choose to believe Paul said it because of its intention that it was specifically for those who received the letter originally. Otherwise they would be no better off then the those who may have had their faith dislodged when two of their number falsley said the resurrection of the dead had happened before its time.

I do not understand this point. However, I will repeat that Paul spoke as if he expected (or hoped) that he might be alive at the second coming. Yet he did not live even to see AD 70.

That he could express similar expectations (or hopes) that his readers (e.g., Timothy) might live to see the coming of the Lord does not seem to present a second problem—only another case of the first one—if indeed one finds this to be a problem.

You did not, however, make any stab at answering my challenges in my last post. There were two there, and one more in this post. So could you clarify the following:

1. If Paul died before AD 70, was he in error when he included himself in the reference to those who will be alive at the coming of Christ?

2. What was there about AD 70 that made that event a significant date for Timothy to endure until in keeping himself pure?

3. In what sense did Jesus rescue the Thessalonians in Greece from the wrath that came on Jerusalem?