Preterism & Creationism

[Guest]

In the past two years I have become a partial preterist (Olivet Discourse and most of Revelation fulfilled in 1st century), but for about 7 years I've been a young earth creationist (6-day, global flood). Recently, I've read a few opinions that the two are incompatable.

The basic argument is that if we read The Olivet Discourse and Revelation in a 1st century Jerusalem context, we must read creation and the flood in a local context as well. In other words, we must read the account of creation and the flood, basically, as an apocalyptic genre. This was stated clearly in what I read.

I am open (as always, hopefully) to correction. I also agree that Genesis is, first and foremost, about salvation, not science. That being said, I don't really see the contradiction in being a preterist AND a young earth creationist. I, unlike those I read, DO NOT see Genesis as fitting the apocalyptic genre (which flourished much later in my understanding). Further, I do not see the flood as having much to do with God's dealing with Israel at all. Abraham was after Noah. The flood was about mankind. The destruction of Jerusalem was primarily about Israel.

Does anyone have any thoughts/opinions on this topic? What do most preterists think about the age of the earth, the days of creation, and the extent of the flood? Am I holding incompatable views?

I understand the most YECists are dispensational, but so are most EVERYbody at this point in time.

[Guest]

I don't see a problem with being YEC and a preterist. If I die and the truth is it was a local flood, it won't surprise me too much. I do believe it was world-wide though.

[_Steve]

My preterism has been with me for at least twenty years, all of which time, I have also been a young-earth creationist, believing in a global flood (which I still believe). If there is any inconsistency in believing all these things, it has escaped my notice thus far.

The suggestion that a preterist approach to Revelation has any bearing upon one's view of Genesis is simply ridiculous, since, as you said, Genesis does not give us any reason for seeing the narrative as apocalyptic, whereas Revelation, and many other prophetic scriptures do.

There is nothing abnormal about taking a preterist approach to certain prophecies. All Christians believe that the prophecy of Jeremiah 25:11-12 (for example) was fulfilled in the past, and that it applied only to the region of the Middle East. In other words, all Christians are "preterists" (believers in a past fulfillment) with reference to these, and hundreds of other, prophetic verses. Does the preterist approach to these prophecies preclude someone from taking a literal approach to Genesis? Obviously not.

What is the difference between someone who takes a preterist approach to such a passage as Jeremiah 25:11-12, and someone who takes a similar approach to Revelation, Matthew 24, or any other prophecy which has been fulfilled in the past?

All Christians take a "preterist" approach to about 300 Old Testament predictions concerning the Messiah's first coming. The Orthodox Jews take a futurist approach to these same verses (that is, they do not recognize a fulfillment in the past, and look for a future fulfillment). Would it make sense for a Jew to state that a Christian cannot take a literal approach to Genesis because the Christian thinks many prophecies have already been fulfilled for which the Jew still looks for a future fulfillment? This would be nonsense.

If the assumption of the argument is not so much the question of taking a preterist (that is, "fulfillment in the past") approach to some Bible prophecy, but rather the taking of a "non-literal" approach, the same charge can be laid at the door of the critic. Of the prophecies that all Christians believe to be fulfilled in Christ's first coming, a great number used non-literal language, and were thus not fulfilled "literally."

When John the Baptist was born, was there a literal "horn" raised up in the "house of David" (Luke 1:69)? Did John literally level the landscape and prepare a highway in the desert (Luke 3:4-6)? Did Rachel literally weep in her grave when the infants of Bethlehem were slain (Matt.2:17-18)? When Jesus preached, did a literal "great light" appear to dispel the literal darkness where people were sitting in the shadows (Matt.4:14-16)? Does literal water pour forth from the belly of those who believe in Jesus (John 7:38)? Was Jesus a literal "stone" rejected by the builders of one building, and then used as a cornerstone of another (Matt.21:42)? Was He a literal "stumbling stone" in the path which people tripped over (Rom.9:33)? Was Jesus a literal "shepherd" who was struck so that His "sheep" were scattered (Matt.26:31)? Have Christ's enemies been fashioned into a literal "footstool" (Luke 20:42-43)?

The non-literal imagery of such things as "light" and "water," and speaking of Christ as a "stone" or as a "shepherd" are so familiar to us that we often forget that they are used as metaphors, rather than in their literal sense.

Two evangelical scholars, Crenshaw and Gunn, did an analysis of 97 of the prophecies which the New Testament finds fulfilled in Christ's first coming. They found that only 34 (35%) were "literal" in their language and fulfillment. The rest were metaphorical or otherwise non-literal. (Crenshaw and Gunn, Dispensationalism Today, Yesterday, and Tomorrow, pp.16-22).

Thus every Christian accepts non-literal interpretations of many prophecies as being fulfilled in the past. What this means is that the difference between the so-called "preterist" and the so-called "futurist" is one of degree, not kind. A futurist may not notice the past fulfillment of as many prophecies as does the preterist, but then the Orthodox Jew does not see as many prophecies fulfilled as does the Christian futurist. Everybody believes that some prophecies have been fulfilled, and everybody accepts some non-literal fulfillments. So what is it about extending this principle to Revelation or the Olivet Discourse that would be different in principle to what all Christians do with many other prophecies? And what impact would such a view have upon anyone's approach to Genesis?

Dispensationalists sometimes make the point you raised in order to exclude preterists from the class of conservative evangelicals. "If you don't take Revelation literally," they say, "then you cannot, without inconsistency, take Genesis (or anything else) literally." It is a cheap shot, and anyone who would make such a statement would seem to lack either the intelligence or the will to grasp the simplest rules of biblical hermeneutics.

[Guest]

Thanks to both of you, I agree

[Guest]

I agree with Steve's well thought out answer. The only thing i'd like to add re the days of creation is that God rested on the 7th day and that day is still open. It may be the 7th day might end up being 7,000 years so isn't a logical assumption to conclude that each creation day s/b the same length of 7,000 years or so and the total creative process taking 49,000 years. Of course the phrase "in the beginning" leaves open the possibility the earth itself could be much older.

[Guest]

I agree with Steve's well thought out answer. The only thing i'd like to add re the days of creation is that God rested on the 7th day and that day is still open. It may be the 7th day might end up being 7,000 years so isn't a logical assumption to conclude that each creation day s/b the same length of 7,000 years or so and the total creative process taking 49,000 years. Of course the phrase "in the beginning" leaves open the possibility the earth itself could be much older.

I don't know about the 7th day still being open but I'm open to hear support for that view. It would appear that God only rested from creation in that there is nothing new being created but He is still definitely at work (John 5:17). Also God's own commentary on the Genesis “days” seems pretty clear that they were literal days (Ex 20:11). This doesn’t seem to leave much room for the idea of the creation "days" to be anything more than just that which would mean the 7th day of creation is closed. Also I think its worth noting Steve's interesting interpretation about the days representing different stages of a believer’s life which ends with a final, complete point of rest.

Erich <><

[Guest]

Hello,

What evidence is there that the seventh day continues? It is true that the words evening and morning do not close day seven, but it does not seem to follow that day seven therefore continues to the present and is thus not an ordinary day.

It is also true that some cite Hebrews 4 to support the idea of a continuing day 7, however, the article referenced below seems to refute this argument. For Andrew Kulikovosky concludes "The "rest" of Hebrews 4 clearly refers to the Kingdom of God...Nowhere in the text is it equated with the seventh day of creation, nor is there any grammatical or contextual data suggesting any such equation."

I would appreciate hearing anyone else's comments on the reasons for concluding that day 7 is or is not continuing.

Regards,
Pete

http://www.kulikovskyonline.net/hermeneutics/heb4.htm

[Guest]

IMO the fact that the scriptures do not say "the evening and the morning were the seventh day" is strong circumstantial evidence that at no time previous to the completion of the record of Genesis had the 7th day or epoch come to an end. This suggests that not until the close of the 7th day will the divine purpose for the perfect man be realized. The other days were completed with the statements "and it was so" and "the evening and the morning were such and such day."
Technically evening to morning is 12 hours not 24 hours therefore i believe it's a metaphoric term where "evening" means a period of darkness and inactivity and "morning" is a birth or completion of a creative process.
The hebrew word used to describe day is "yom" BTY which can mean 24 hours or day-age or epoch.
Therefore God ceased his works concerning creation but as Jesus demonstrated works of mercy on the Sabbath were permitted therefore God still does works of mercy on the 7th day.

[Guest]

One other minor point is that in the OT after 49 years there came the jubilee of God where everything in the 50th year was turned over to God so if this creation time frame of 7 days each of 7,000 years is correct then perhaps the great jubilee occurs and then at the beginning of the 50,000th year everything is turned over to God as Christ returns.

[Guest]

Steve,

Thanks for your replies! I'm sure this could begin a long discussion, but I will respond to your comments. First, the seventh day is different in quality from the others, for in it God rested whereas in the others his activities are recorded. Second, the seventh day is the last day of the week, so it is not seem suprising that it is not terminated as the others are, for Moses was not continuing on to day eight. The text does not state that indicate the seventh day continues, nor does it indicate that the days are not ordinary days. Thus, it absence of the phrase "the evening and the morning, were the seventh day", is IMO, a weak rather than a strong argument.

I agree, the word 'yom' can mean either a long or a short period of time, however, IMO the way the word is used in the context of Genesis 1 does not leave the possibility open that these are other than ordinary ~24 hours days. The main reasons being: (1) The word day and night are defined in Genesis 1:5 according to the presence and absence of light, (2) The days are numbered. (3) The phase evening and morning are associated with the days, (4) The equivalence use of the word day for the work week in Exodus 20. (5) The lack of the use a preposition like 'of' (i.e. 'in the day of ___').

I do not see on what basis you have made the following the relationships, could you please explain the relationship between these? (1) That the 'yom' in Genesis 1 is 7000 years (2) That the jubilee year is related to the week of Genesis 1? (3) That the coming of Christ is related to either Jubilee or the creation week.

Best Regards,
Pete