|
Post by Josh on Aug 6, 2014 23:03:36 GMT -8
Jaybee, you mentioned you are "almost" a full preterist. As you can probably tell I'm a partial preterist. We haven't yet had any dialogue here in the forums comparing both views, which is love to dig into if you're game. I'd be curious to hear where you're at and how you arrived there. So, perhaps to start, do you completely dismiss a physical "second coming" of Christ yet future? What about a future bodily resurrection?
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Aug 10, 2014 9:43:01 GMT -8
I'll try to give a very short idea of the steps that have led me from partial preterism to almost full preterism.
Mt 24 and its parallel passages in Mark and Luke led me to partial preterism. Upon studying the works of Josephus, Eusebius, and Tacitus, I became more convince of the validity of preterism (at least partial preterism) over dispensationalism. As I arrived at this view I had no idea anybody else believed such a thing. I had determined to first study the Bible in a vacuum, come to what I felt were solid understandings, and then see if anybody considered them valid. I was surprised to learn of preterism and its various camps, but I was happy that other people believed the same way I had felt an unadulterated study of the bible had led me.
At this point, I had come to my own understanding that Mt 24 was split into two topics. The first relating to 70 AD and the temple destruction, the second relating to the second coming and the new heaven and new earth. This split occurring at v35, where heaven and earth passing away is mentioned and then I believed "that day" in the next verse had to refer to the day heaven and earth pass away.
My dilemma began when I came across Lk 17:22-37. In this telling regarding the kingdom of God coming, it takes items from what I thought to be the 70 AD part of Mt 24 and the end of the world part, and uses them both to refer to one event. I believe that Lk 17 shows us that Mt 24 cannot be split.
I returned to Mt 24 to see if I could reconcile Lk 17, and determined that I easily could. v34 begins with "truly" and it is easy to consider that v35 is further consideration of just how truly Christ's words are to be taken. Heaven and earth could pass away, but Christ's words will stand true. It could be like a suspect talking to the police might say, "Honestly, I wasn't anywhere near the scene when the crime happened. I swear on my mother's grave." The second sentence is meant to accentuate the gravity of the word "Honesty."
That means "that day" in v36 would actually refer to the day "these things" in v34 would take place, or more specifically, when he will be "right at the door" from v33. In this understanding, the disciples are given the signs that indicate the day is near, but they will not know when the day the signs point to (completed destruction - 70 AD) will exactly occur.
Viewing Mt 24, through Lk 17, as one encapsulated item that cannot be split made more sense as I continued my studies, but I won't fill my whole post with that all now. The bottom line is that the way Lk 17 interchangeably uses items from the first half of Mt 24 and the second half to refer to a singular event, the coming of the kingdom of God, I do not believe we can support breaking Mt 24 into two the way many partial preterists like to do. It must be taken as a whole, and as blatantly as it begins referring to 70 AD, I believe the whole thing must then be understood to relate to those events.
Upon this understanding, I have then seen the mingling of the items in other areas. 1Th 5 is usually taken to refer to a later coming, but in it Paul talks about the thief analogy, the labor pains, and even the darkness which is the same word as the darkness the evil slave is thrown into at the end of Mt 24. I think it is a weak idea that Paul coincidentally put these three items into one short area, three items that come from both halves of Mt 24, but he does not have the Mt 24 topic in mind.
All this and more has brought me on the precipice of full preterism. I do find myself still looking for fulfillment of scriptures such as 1Jn 3:2. Additionally, I consider myself an amil, and I foresee a time when Satan will be unleashed again at the end of the millennium, then "the end" will come with the "second coming" as many would consider it, and the bodily resurrection. So I still leave some scripture unfulfilled.
I can't say I will ever believe 100% of scripture is done and over with as full preterists, but I am on my way to believing maybe 99% of it has been fulfilled.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 10, 2014 15:43:09 GMT -8
Hah! Admittedly, Luke 17 is difficult for a partial preterist. I hope to comment more on it soon. I've spend my good share of time on that one
Interestingly, we have a similar view of Rev. 20 it seems, which I guess indicates that you still anticipate a future physical resurrection/ judgement in the flesh?
I'm in between a camping trip and a backpacking trip so it'll be a few days, but thanks for starting the discussion!
I see you're a Portlander (on facebook). You from here like I am or a transplant? How'd you find us?
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Aug 11, 2014 22:46:37 GMT -8
I'll look forward to hearing about your view on Luke 17.
I am actually restudying Revelation right now as my shift in view regarding Mt 24 has led me to see if I should reconsider anything in Revelation. One of my difficulties is the heavenly Jerusalem in Re 21, and the wording in Hebrews 12:22 where it seems the author considers the heavenly Jerusalem to be a current reality.
Just saw the friend request on FB, I am bad at checking my alerts. Anyway, I'm a Portland native, but I was gone for many years.
I found your forum by accident as I was checking out the Tapatalk app on my iPad. Really liked the discussions, and then realized your church was in the area. My wife and I are actually hoping to visit this Sunday.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 12, 2014 0:07:54 GMT -8
That would be great! This Sunday we'll be meeting at 11:00 at north clackamas park instead of our usual building space. Here's the address: 5440 SE Kellogg Creek Dr Milwaukie, OR. It'll be a picnic so feel free and bring a lunch and join us. My cell number is 971 645 1455
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 12, 2014 8:20:46 GMT -8
Well, backpacking had to be postponed due to lightning storms. So.....
Some thoughts on Luke 17. But first, I'd like to say thatthough you are perhaps more preteristthanI, I personally only use the term "full preterist" for those who believe that the final resurrection and judgment has already occurred.
Your current stance is very similar to Christopher's. He's the elder hereat ACF, and we've had many good discussions about the last few verses of the Olivet Discourse.
I should also say that I waffle on whether those last few verses apply to the first century or to the final second coming. I remain in a state of maybe, but...
I'll be back with some thoughts on Luke 17.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 12, 2014 8:34:29 GMT -8
Here's the text (hopefully NIV doesn't offend any of you )
Luke 17:20-37New International Version (NIV)
20 Once, on being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The coming of the kingdom of God is not something that can be observed, 21 nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is in your midst.”
22 Then he said to his disciples, “The time is coming when you will long to see one of the days of the Son of Man, but you will not see it. 23 People will tell you, ‘There he is!’ or ‘Here he is!’ Do not go running off after them. 24 For the Son of Man in his day will be like the lightning, which flashes and lights up the sky from one end to the other. 25 But first he must suffer many things and be rejected by this generation.
26 “Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.
28 “It was the same in the days of Lot. People were eating and drinking, buying and selling, planting and building. 29 But the day Lot left Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all.
30 “It will be just like this on the day the Son of Man is revealed. 31 On that day no one who is on the housetop, with possessions inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. 32 Remember Lot’s wife! 33 Whoever tries to keep their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life will preserve it. 34 I tell you, on that night two people will be in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. 35 Two women will be grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” [36]
37 “Where, Lord?” they asked.
He replied, “Where there is a dead body, there the vultures will gather.”
So, Jay, yes, this passage has caused me some headaches. When I first moved away from the futurist perspective it wasn't initially toward preterism. It was toward the fear that Jesus and the disciples just simply got their predictions wrong; basically the position of Albert Schweitzer. Then I discovered the explanatory power of the preterist position (which makes more sense of the text than either futurism or Schweitzer, imo). Back then doctrinal issues and intellectual doubt weighed a lot heavier on my mind than now, but I wouldn't be understating it to say that the preterist position in some ways saved my faith at a fragile time.
Anyway, the only real thorn in my side was Luke 17 for precisely the reasons you cite; the language, for instance, about the "coming" of the Son of Man being like lightning in Luke 17:24 is so obviously synonymous with Matthew 24:27. So too, the instructions about running away without going down into one's house. This passage is the most compelling reason in my mind to conclude that all of the Olivet Discourse has been already fulfilled. The only way to reconcile it with the idea that the "coming" of the Olivet Discourse hasn't happened yet is to splice the text into different contexts and/or to suggest some kind of double fulfillments which feels very much like what I dislike about the futurist position in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 12, 2014 9:28:40 GMT -8
So, if you or I or anyone is to accept that the Olivet Discourses predictions have all been fulfilled, what remains yet future?
I would argue that the "millennium" began in AD 70, and we are now living in the space between Revelation 20:1 and 20:6. I disagree with full preterists who say even the millennium is over/ the judgment and all resurrection has already occurred for three main reasons:
1) They date the start of the "millennium" at AD 30 and then suppose it ends in AD 70. This is problematic because earlier in Revelation 12 we are told that the dragon is making war on the church between AD 30 and AD 70.
2) This is also in my mind problematic because although I don't think the millennium is a reference to 1000 years literally, I think the word doesn't make any sense at all unless it implies a "very long time". And 40 years does not qualify in my mind as a "very long time".
3) I think you can't escape the thoroughly Jewish expectation of a future physical resurrection of the body. Paul clearly expects such (1 Cor. 15). Besides, all this mention of a "first" and "second" resurrection speaks pretty clearly in my mind to the distinction between a (earlier) spiritual resurrection on one hand and a (later) physical one on the other.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 13, 2014 21:21:55 GMT -8
Not a lot of time to throw in here since it is late, but I wanted to offer a different perspective to chew on.
The olivet discourse and revelation are not necessarily the deciding factor for full or partial preterism. I think they are both fulfilled (in both the historical and spiritual sense) but Jesus said 4 times in John that there is a last day and that he's raising some people up that day and thus I'm not a full preterist.
The stumbling points seem to be the time references in rev 20. But I think what is missed is that its not even what the passage is about. Its about jesus ' complete authority over life and death and those who throw in their lot with him share in that authority and those that don't suffer a great loss. I don't insist that the 1000 years needs to be 40 years nor thousands, nor millions, it just needs to have some meaning in relation to the complete reign of Christ. I admit I haven't worked out all the nuances yet, but I suspect the passage was intended to be largely metaphorical with a hint of relevance to the tribulation of that time. Think about every other reference in scripture using the number 1000 and you find it usually means completeness or infinite.
Anyway, I know that's unconvincing to most but its the best way I know to keep the thread of continuity between chapter 19 and 21 going which I think refer to a present, not a future reality.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Aug 14, 2014 9:00:09 GMT -8
Josh, so you consider all of Mt 24 to be fulfilled?
Chris, I would agree that the two passages - Olivet discourse & Book of Rev - are not the only deciding factor for preterism. However, since I do not see definitive proof that Satan has been unleashed a second time after the millennium, nor that the grave has been thrown into the lake of fire with Satan and all who are not in the book of life, then I do not believe Rev 20 has been fulfilled. You point out other good reason from John. All of these combine to keep me from being able to say all the NT is fulfilled. However, as I said before, I probably believe 99% of the NT is completed. Therefore, percentage wise I typically find myself agreeing more with full preterists than partial.
I would disagree with your take on 1000. My belief is more that it means "immense" whether in quantity of time or material. I believe it was Moses who hoped Israel would grow 1000x, so I take that to mean he wished they would grow immensely (material). Also, in the consideration of 1000 years being as a day to God, it means that an immense time to us is nothing to God (time). I believe the number 1000 speaks to a sense of large perspective or feeling of immensity, instead of completeness of never ending infinity.
I know there are some other points both of you brought up that I am skipping, but I am working on a research paper actually that deals with a lot of the points. I should have it done this weekend, and my research will better allow me to better discuss some of the points.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 14, 2014 9:21:01 GMT -8
I'm not decided on the end of Matthew 24 being already fulfilled. Luke 17 does weigh heavily toward that being the case. I'd say I'm probably in transition toward that view.
Along those lines, then, do you see Matthew 25 as already fulfilled as well, as Chris does?
And to add to the short but important list of things not fulfilled, we should remember:
1 Cor 15:25-26 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
Given the context of the passage, I think it's clear that he is talking about physical death. Of course, physical death still exists, likewise, many enemies to the gospel still exist.
Oh, and here's a handy little chart highlighting the cross-overs from Luke 17 and the Olivet Discourse:
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 14, 2014 9:54:08 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 14, 2014 19:52:00 GMT -8
Yeah, I didn't think I'd be winning too many new converts to my viewpoint, especially from the preterist or futurist camp (which tends to see the various visions as either past or future events). I'm not even sure I'm fully converted to it myself Personally, my current view is a idealist/preterist hybrid so many of the passages I see as merely settings in an spiritual allegory (sort of like what Jesus did in his parables) so I don't feel the need to make everything described fit into an actual event. It just needs to help communicate the main point of the vision. I think it was G.K. Beale (futurist) who said something like "because I take the book of Revelation literally, I take most of the book figuratively. The opening verses literally tell me to" (totally paraphrasing that by an old memory). The parts I take literally are the prologue and epilogue, which state emphatically and unequivocally that the events of the book must soon take place. The only way I see to harmonize that with the difficult chapter 20 passage is to spiritualize it. That flows nicely with how I view chapter 19 as a picture of Jesus' victory on the cross, the establishment of his Kingdom by the gospel, and the toppling of competing authorities (corrupt government, corrupt Jewish religion) leading through Chapter 20 describing victory and reign over death itself for those that are faithful, and finishing with a picture of the new Jerusalem (the church) being described through a word picture of heavenly beauty. As far as Satan being loosed goes, starting from the premise of a spiritual description of believers' testing, it could be argued that Satan is loosed, in part, in all believers at some point in their journey to try their faith and faithfulness. It's another way of saying that "be faithful unto death and I shall give you the crown of life" (Rev 2:10). I agree with you that the term "thousand" can merely mean immense or many, but I was thinking more in the sense when it's used figuratively in passages like Psalm 50 that describe God owning "the cattle on a thousand hills". I would argue that doesn't merely many an immense amount of the hills, but all of them (completely). Anyway, I just wanted to throw out another perspective. Every one of the views has weak points (hence the on-going debate on the topic ) and mine is no exception. Good luck with your paper.
|
|
|
Post by jaybee on Aug 15, 2014 11:23:13 GMT -8
From the context of his binding, I see Satan's binding as specific to his work at a national level, therefore I would see his loosing would relate as well to his work on a national level. This means I don't see his work towards an individual, such as testing a believer, to ever have been prevented in his binding.
Thanks for the encouragement. I'll post my thoughts up here when I get the paper done.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 15, 2014 18:13:44 GMT -8
Ok, fair enough. The passage does say "so that he could deceive the nations no longer". But it could be argued (scripturally) that the church is a nation. And the letter was written to the 7 churches of Asia minor after all.
Also, would you say that it's the case that Satan has not been deceiving the nations since the 1st century? When do you see the "binding" of Satan taking place? Where would you place yourself on the millennial spectrum?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 16, 2014 0:10:50 GMT -8
To me it's clear what the binding means when you take a look at how Gods kingdom rapidly spread throughout the world after the resurrection of Jesus. With the exception of Israel (and even that was tenuous) the world had stumbled around in darkness and deception with precious few hints and rumors of the coming kingdom for thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of years. Then suddenly like dominoes the peoples of the world began finding the kingdom- sometimes even entire people groups.
The parallel passage to the binding of satan in rev.20 is probably when Jesus says that you must first bind the strong man to plunder his possessions. So I see the binding of satan (by 70 ad) as the beginning of gods plundering of satans domain. No longer would the nations be held under the devils deception without remedy. Really, this reversal is the most impactful revolution in all of history, even arguably from a secular perspective.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 16, 2014 9:14:32 GMT -8
Well, I'm glad it's clear to you, because it's not at all clear to me. That is certainly a solidly plausible viewpoint, and one that I used to hold pretty firmly as well. But I think this idea of "nations" in the book of Revelation (and other prophetic passages as well) is intended to mean something other than just political nations.
For example:
To Pergamos, Jesus said:
“And he who overcomes, and keeps My works until the end, to him I will give power over the nations— (Rev 2:26)
How does that work if Jesus' Kingdom is not of this world?
Also:
And another angel followed, saying, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she has made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.” (Rev 14:8)
Then he said to me, “The waters which you saw, where the harlot sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. (Rev 17:15)
The light of a lamp shall not shine in you anymore, and the voice of bridegroom and bride shall not be heard in you anymore. For your merchants were the great men of the earth, for by your sorcery all the nations were deceived. 24And in her was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.” (Rev 18:23-24)
Whatever you take Babylon to be (Jerusalem, Rome, etc), there was no political nation at the time that had a global influence over all nations. And if Satan is deceiving all the nations, wouldn't it be contradictory to say that Babylon is also doing that? This has to be hyperbole IMO.
Also, if we're to apply this logic consitently, we'd also have to say that people are made righteous on a national level because it says in Chapter 21...
And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it. 25Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). 26And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it.
I know of no entire nation that is walking in the light of heavenly city.
There are other examples as well but suffice it to say, I think we're dealing with a term here that means something other than a literal political nations. And I think it might even carry several different meanings (like structured communities, movements, or multitudes). So, I think the term can easily be applied in a more localized context (like Israel or the Roman world at the time). I see no reason to limit it to one meaning. John could be simply be using the term as hyperbole for multitudes of people.
What do you think?
|
|