Is the Resurrection already past?

[Tychicus]

I would like to understand, from a Full Preterist view, what exactly happened in AD 70 regarding believers in Greece. Consider, say, Epaphroditus, living in Philippi, assuming he was alive in AD 70. So, what would he have noticed? Was this a one-day event, or a split second event? Or did it gradually take place within several months, as Jerusalem was in the process of being destroyed? Was Epaphroditus aware that Jerusalem was being destroyed simultaneous to whatever he was seeing or feeling in Philippi? Did the Philippian church likely hold special meetings to celebrate this event? Did the non-believers in Philippi have any idea that something profound was taking place during this period of time?

I am really curious about this since I have a good friend who is a full preterist, and I can't seem to get any answer to this kind of question other than "I don't know."

Please understand, I not making a ridiculous request to explain everything in detail as if you were there, but to give a general idea of what you believe happened in Philippi that day, or days.

Thank you.

[Allyn]

I would like to understand, from a Full Preterist view, what exactly happened in AD 70 regarding believers in Greece. Consider, say, Epaphroditus, living in Philippi, assuming he was alive in AD 70. So, what would he have noticed? Was this a one-day event, or a split second event? Or did it gradually take place within several months, as Jerusalem was in the process of being destroyed? Was Epaphroditus aware that Jerusalem was being destroyed simultaneous to whatever he was seeing or feeling in Philippi? Did the Philippian church likely hold special meetings to celebrate this event? Did the non-believers in Philippi have any idea that something profound was taking place during this period of time?

I am really curious about this since I have a good friend who is a full preterist, and I can't seem to get any answer to this kind of question other than "I don't know."

Please understand, I not making a ridiculous request to explain everything in detail as if you were there, but to give a general idea of what you believe happened in Philippi that day, or days.

Thank you.

The Kingdom of God came fully in. This was the promise made to the Greek Christians and the Jewish Christians. Before that time it was a time of preperation of the saints. The parable about the kingdom being likened unto this and that was Jesus' way of showing that it had not yet fully arrived but was very close, even at the door. My favorite one is when Jesus said cut off the part of your body that offends so that the whole body is not cast away but instead the parts that remain may enter in. The kingdom of God plays at least two roles in the believer - we are called citizens and we have full assurance now of our salvation. Before that the Christians had to work out their salvation with fear and trembling (Philp. 2:12) - but no longer because we are now fully in the kingdom age. The perfect has already come in. The apostle Paul says this:
(1 Cor.:15)
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “ O Death, where is your sting?
O Hades, where is your victory?”

56 The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that your labor is not in vain in the Lord.

This is the message of the kingdom of God, not what happens at our death. It is victory in Christ not only because of the Death Burial and resurrection of Christ but also because what Jesus taught about the Kingdom of God was about to fully come in. Death, at that time of the Kingdom (70AD) was swallowed up, corruption did not inherit incorruption (that foot or ear being cut off illustration). The kingdom of God is what Jesus gave to the whole world who came into Him. The resurrection of the real dead were Old Testament saints and yes they were truly raised at that same 1st century timing, but the saints of the New Covenant would never die even though their physical bodies died. We and them are the ones who are blessed from then on (Rev. 14)

[steve7150]

In Micah 4:1 it starts off with, "But in the last days", (time indicator) and within those last days are the prophecy of a ruler coming from Bethlehem, and finishes with Micah 7:19-20 that God will have compassion on us, subdue our iniquities, and cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. (very similar to Isaiah 53:11-12) Preterists understand the last days started with John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:12)





I can see the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD as possibly being what is meant by "the last days" of the old system but i think Preterists are overeading this into more then it's meant to be. It's not the second coming , it's the judgment of Jerusalem. It seems to me you have a "systematic theology" and now you see all 22 chapters of Revelation into this system.
Rev 22.10 "Do not seal up the prophecies of this book , the time is near" , this can be seen many ways by the dispassionate reader. Certainly the Preterist will see it as confirming his belief system. i see it as confirming my belief system, which is historicism beginning in 65 AD and going through the gospel age. Still no one has answered why we have 3 different descriptions of the destruction of Jerusalem in Rev , if it is describing one event. Not to mention this would be after it was described in three gospels, how many descriptions of the same event are necessary before the reader sees overkill?

[Mellontes]

In Micah 4:1 it starts off with, "But in the last days", (time indicator) and within those last days are the prophecy of a ruler coming from Bethlehem, and finishes with Micah 7:19-20 that God will have compassion on us, subdue our iniquities, and cast all their sins into the depths of the sea. (very similar to Isaiah 53:11-12) Preterists understand the last days started with John the Baptist. (Matthew 17:12)

I can see the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD as possibly being what is meant by "the last days" of the old system but i think Preterists are overeading this into more then it's meant to be. It's not the second coming , it's the judgment of Jerusalem. It seems to me you have a "systematic theology" and now you see all 22 chapters of Revelation into this system.
Rev 22.10 "Do not seal up the prophecies of this book , the time is near" , this can be seen many ways by the dispassionate reader. Certainly the Preterist will see it as confirming his belief system. i see it as confirming my belief system, which is historicism beginning in 65 AD and going through the gospel age. Still no one has answered why we have 3 different descriptions of the destruction of Jerusalem in Rev , if it is describing one event. Not to mention this would be after it was described in three gospels, how many descriptions of the same event are necessary before the reader sees overkill?

Hi Steve,

But your question was answered, albeit with a question. How come you don't see the "overkill," as you say, when 4 Gospel accounts relate the same account yet with individual differences? If I were to ask you why this is the case, what would you say? I can not offer any reasons why God chose to do it that way. I can only speculate. Do you see the correlation?

Here is a perfect example and very apt to the discussion. Why does the question of the four disciples as phrased by Matthew include the parousia especially since the whole introduction to their question was Mattthew 23 and the bit about "not one stone will remain," etc? It seems to me that they related those two events with no problem. Why would Jesus go about telling the signs for this parousia if it wasn't concerning the parousia? It is the futurists who want to "slice and dice" Matthew 24 & 25 into two parts - one past and one future, even though there was only one question with one parousia...Why do Mark and Luke use the "mello" (about to) word in the beginning question?

There are some futurists who even deny that Luke 21 is NOT a synoptic account of the Olivet discourse. Could it be that they don't like the idea of "when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh" being associated with the abomination of desolation from Matthew and Mark, even though the next context is the almost identical phrase "Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains"? And what good would it be to flee Judea IF it was a world-wide judgement? The answer: no good...

It all relates to the destruction of Jerusalem and the annihilation of the old covenant economy (temple, priests, genealogies,etc). Futurists refuse to believe this was THE parousia event because they hold to a different NATURE of the event.

[Tychicus]

The Kingdom of God came fully in. This was the promise made to the Greek Christians and the Jewish Christians. Before that time it was a time of preperation of the saints. The parable about the kingdom being likened unto this and that was Jesus' way of showing that it had not yet fully arrived but was very close, even at the door. My favorite one is when Jesus said cut off the part of your body that offends so that the whole body is not cast away but instead the parts that remain may enter in. The kingdom of God plays at least two roles in the believer - we are called citizens and we have full assurance now of our salvation. Before that the Christians had to work out their salvation with fear and trembling (Philp. 2:12) - but no longer because we are now fully in the kingdom age. The perfect has already come in.

Thank you for explaining this, the idea that when the kingdom age started, Christians no longer "had to work out their salvation with fear and trembling", whereas in AD 69 they had to be concerned about such things. At least I can see some practical implications of your view.

But I am curious as to whether most Full Preterists hold this view about Phil 2:12, or only a subgroup. I don't recall my FP friend ever expressing such a view; I'll ask him when I see him next.

I would like to understand, from a Full Preterist view, what exactly happened in AD 70 regarding believers in Greece. Consider, say, Epaphroditus, living in Philippi, assuming he was alive in AD 70. So, what would he have noticed? Was this a one-day event, or a split second event? Or did it gradually take place within several months, as Jerusalem was in the process of being destroyed? Was Epaphroditus aware that Jerusalem was being destroyed simultaneous to whatever he was seeing or feeling in Philippi? Did the Philippian church likely hold special meetings to celebrate this event? Did the non-believers in Philippi have any idea that something profound was taking place during this period of time?

I am really curious about this since I have a good friend who is a full preterist, and I can't seem to get any answer to this kind of question other than "I don't know."

Please understand, I not making a ridiculous request to explain everything in detail as if you were there, but to give a general idea of what you believe happened in Philippi that day, or days.

Thank you.

. . .

I do not believe you understood the intent of my question, so let me try once more.

I assume you believe that AD 70 refers to a literal date in history, and there was actually a literal/physical church in Philippi, with actual literal people there.

On one of those literal days, say June 27, 70 to take an example, the kingdom of God arrived (either a single point in time, or some event that may have taken several days).

Some hour on June 27, a Philippian Christian, call him Epaphroditus, or call her Euodia, became aware that the kingdom of God arrived. (Am I correct so far, or am I totally misunderstanding what you are saying?)

So, sometime later during that day, Euodia sees Ephaphroditus, and says, "Praise God, the kingdom of God has come!" And he says, "Amen! Praise the Lord!" This is an especially joyous meeting that would not have happened on June 26 (since the kingdom of God hadn't yet arrived).

Then, when they meet for church next Sunday (or perhaps earlier), there is a special buzz of excitement throughout the whole congregation, as the preacher outlines a whole new sermon series to explain the new Kingdom age, and the practical applications thereof (for example that Paul's words from Phil 1:10, "may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ", no longer apply since the "day of Christ" has just come).

Is this the kind of thing you believe, that something specific happened in Philippi on a literal day in AD 70, or am I totally off track?

Thank you for explaining this. I would really like to understand your point of view.

[Mellontes]

Thank you for explaining this, the idea that when the kingdom age started, Christians no longer "had to work out their salvation with fear and trembling", whereas in AD 69 they had to be concerned about such things. At least I can see some practical implications of your view.

But I am curious as to whether most Full Preterists hold this view about Phil 2:12, or only a subgroup. I don't recall my FP friend ever expressing such a view; I'll ask him when I see him next...

I do not believe you understood the intent of my question, so let me try once more.

I assume you believe that AD 70 refers to a literal date in history, and there was actually a literal/physical church in Philippi, with actual literal people there.

On one of those literal days, say June 27, 70 to take an example, the kingdom of God arrived (either a single point in time, or some event that may have taken several days).

Some hour on June 27, a Philippian Christian, call him Epaphroditus, or call her Euodia, became aware that the kingdom of God arrived. (Am I correct so far, or am I totally misunderstanding what you are saying?)

So, sometime later during that day, Euodia sees Ephaphroditus, and says, "Praise God, the kingdom of God has come!" And he says, "Amen! Praise the Lord!" This is an especially joyous meeting that would not have happened on June 26 (since the kingdom of God hadn't yet arrived).

Then, when they meet for church next Sunday (or perhaps earlier), there is a special buzz of excitement throughout the whole congregation, as the preacher outlines a whole new sermon series to explain the new Kingdom age, and the practical applications thereof (for example that Paul's words from Phil 1:10, "may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ", no longer apply since the "day of Christ" has just come).

Is this the kind of thing you believe, that something specific happened in Philippi on a literal day in AD 70, or am I totally off track?

Thank you for explaining this. I would really like to understand your point of view.

Hi Tychicus,

It would seem that our writing style is somewhat similar. If you believe the New Testament is basically an exchange of covenants from old to new, and if you believe the kingdom of God does NOT come with observation (Luke 17:20), and if you believe the characteristics of the Kingdom of God were already described in the NT, what then could be further said? It was the final change in covenants - something they had been expecting all along.

Here is a very poor analogy:

You meet a girl (that is, if you are a guy ) She becomes your girl friend. After a period of time, you ask her to marry you. She is now engaged. There is great excitement about this event (especially by her girl friends ). You set a date approximately 6 months later for that big day. One day, there is a wedding rehearsal. Then a few days later you actually get married. You and your bride begin a new life. It is what you had been planning for all along. All you need to do is to follow the plan you had already made.

As for the buzz of excitement in your post, let's examine a few things. Are you aware of the historical realities of the time surrounding 70 AD? It was a terrible time. Remember what Christ said in Matthew 24:21? Josephus writes concerning this time and it wasn't pretty. Christians who heeded Christ's warning had fled Jerusalem (and Judea). It was a time of GREAT disruption. It was probably a GREAT time of mourning for all their Jewish friends who had not turned to Christ and instead continued to rely upon the old covenant economy. The slaughter was incredible. Hundreds of thousands had come to celebrate the feasts at this time. A great percentage were killed and the rest sold off into slavery for very low prices [Can't remember the Scripture reference regarding this, so if someone has it please let me know].

If you haven't read Josephus' War of the Jews, I highly recommend it. There is a much shorter 69-page version regarding the destruction of Jersalem by George Peter Holford. It is aptly called The Destruction of Jerusalem. I think most of the Christians would have been preoccupied with getting on with the basic necessities of life all the while remembering God's wrath which was poured out on the unbeliving Jews. I don't see the joyous occasion you envision...

A few other items. We don't and they didn't GO TO CHURCH. Christians are the church. This is sort of a pet peeve of mine.
And just because Paul admonished his audience to be "pure and blameless until the day of Christ" does not mean it no longer applies. It would be identical to you telling your children to behave until the babysitter arrives. Surely, you are not advocating that your children should be allowed to misbehave while the babysitter is there, are you?

And last of all, how do you know for sure they didn't do exactly what you proposed after they had settled in to their new lives? There is no proof either way...

I think they had been taught fully and completely on the nature of the kingdom. Information is contained in the Gospels and in the epistles. Acts 1:3 would probably become a source referred to very often:

Acts 1:3 - To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:

Blessings!

[Allyn]

[Thank you for explaining this,

No trouble

[the idea that when the kingdom age started, Christians no longer "had to work out their salvation with fear and trembling", whereas in AD 69 they had to be concerned about such things. At least I can see some practical implications of your view.

The kingdom age had its prediction way back in Daniel 2. It started to come at the first baptism by John the Baptist but had fully come in at the second coming of Christ as He predicted it would.
What , for example, would be the practical implications as you see it? I'm interested in seeing what those might be coming from a non-preterist.

[But I am curious as to whether most Full Preterists hold this view about Phil 2:12, or only a subgroup. I don't recall my FP friend ever expressing such a view; I'll ask him when I see him next.

I can't say we do. Most preterist I know of came to it from their own personal study and the internet has facillitated a means for many of us to find each other. There are some "more well known" in preterism who write the books and hold lectures but the majority of us are run of the mill people who are striving to understand better that seed of preterism which has been planted within the individual.

[I do not believe you understood the intent of my question, so let me try once more.

I think I did understand but I probably did not convey an answer that was specific enough.

[I assume you believe that AD 70 refers to a literal date in history, and there was actually a literal/physical church in Philippi, with actual literal people there.

Yes, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple does have a specific time frame stretching out over a 3 1/2 year period with a more specific date for the major elements of the destruction.

[On one of those literal days, say June 27, 70 to take an example, the kingdom of God arrived (either a single point in time, or some event that may have taken several days).

I'm listening

[Some hour on June 27, a Philippian Christian, call him Epaphroditus, or call her Euodia, became aware that the kingdom of God arrived. (Am I correct so far, or am I totally misunderstanding what you are saying?)

That awareness had its basis only in the teaching to that Greek church by Paul. I'll explain later

[So, sometime later during that day, Euodia sees Ephaphroditus, and says, "Praise God, the kingdom of God has come!" And he says, "Amen! Praise the Lord!" This is an especially joyous meeting that would not have happened on June 26 (since the kingdom of God hadn't yet arrived).

I don't think that would necessarily have been the way that day went.

[Then, when they meet for church next Sunday (or perhaps earlier), there is a special buzz of excitement throughout the whole congregation, as the preacher outlines a whole new sermon series to explain the new Kingdom age, and the practical applications thereof (for example that Paul's words from Phil 1:10, "may be pure and blameless until the day of Christ", no longer apply since the "day of Christ" has just come).

There could have been a special buzz if the communication of the transpired events in Judea had reached them ( specifically the fall and destruction of Jerusalem and the temple).

[Is this the kind of thing you believe, that something specific happened in Philippi on a literal day in AD 70, or am I totally off track?

I can't speak to what specifically happened in Philippi. I do know that all the epistles teach of the coming of the Kingdom at the coming of Jesus. Paul, Peter, John and James all taught that there was a nearness to it. Our understanding of that sort of nearness and the anticipation that would have naturally gone with it is too far removed from their experience. I do not see that the fully come in kingdom produced an appearance of the Holy Spirit in tongues of fire kind of experience but if the church member of that day was as alert, as it seems each was taught to be, then I suspect that the terrible events occurring in Judea and certainly the armies surrounding Jerusalem would be understood as the fulfillment of the Olivet Discourse given by the Savior. I cannot imagine that the inspired writers did not have that discourse in mind when they told the believers to:

(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.

(1 Thessalonians 2:19) 19 For who is our hope or joy or crown of exultation? Is it not even you, in the presence of our Lord Jesus at His coming?

(1 Peter 1:3-5) 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His abundant mercy has begotten us again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 to an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that does not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who are kept by the power of God through faith for salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
(in fact, remainder of this chapter is kingdom come language).

(1 peter 2:11,12) 11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, 12 having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.

And many more.

[Thank you for explaining this. I would really like to understand your point of view.

You're welcome. I am trying to find the time to work on a timeline leading up to the coming of Christ. Hopefully it will lay out my preterist view better. I am also willing to discuss this further with you at anytime.

[StephenPatrick]

A great percentage were killed and the rest sold off into slavery for very low prices [Can't remember the Scripture reference regarding this, so if someone has it please let me know].

Deuteronomy 28:68
The LORD will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.

[Mellontes]

A great percentage were killed and the rest sold off into slavery for very low prices [Can't remember the Scripture reference regarding this, so if someone has it please let me know].

Deuteronomy 28:68
The LORD will send you back in ships to Egypt on a journey I said you should never make again. There you will offer yourselves for sale to your enemies as male and female slaves, but no one will buy you.

Ahhh, yes. Thank you.

[Mellontes]

And some questions of mine that haven't been answered...

1. You do believe the "sayings of the prophecy" from Revelation 22:10 meant the content of his letter, don't you?

2. What good would it be to flee Judea IF it was a world-wide judgement (Matthew 24:16, Mark 13:14, Luke 21:21)?

3. You might want to check out all the other uses of αποκαλυψις (Strong's G602) and see how it was used throughout the NT. It would be poor exegesis to dismiss those meanings in favor of a contemporary one, right?

4. "At hand" means at hand in every branch of theology EXCEPT for eschatology. What's up with that?

5. I still don't see how you can realize that the letter is writtten to the first century Thesslonians and miss the fact that there would be some who would be alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord. If you were at that church how would you take Paul's words? It is so similar to what Jesus said in Matthew 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.

Edit to add #6 2:20 PM EST June 27, 2010
6. May I inquire what exactly was different about Christ's physical body after the resurrection? Please be specific. Saying it was glorified is not nearly specific enough unless you explain HOW it was glorified. In other words, you would have to contrast the regular, normal physical body with Christ's glorified body in order to show the differences...I am really interested in this answer. I don't believe I have ever seen the question asked, and naturally, I have never seen the answer.