Partial preterism -- do any church fathers support it?

[erickson]

You can certainly find church fathers that believed certain things were fulfilled in the first century. A couple of examples would be the 70 weeks and the great tribulation.

But I don't know of any church fathers that properly support either full preterism or even what gets called 'partial preterism'.

I'm interested specifically in Matthew 24:30-31.

Does anyone know any church fathers that say it was fulfilled in the first century?

 

[L0U]

I'm interested specifically in Matthew 24:30-31. Does anyone know any church fathers that say it was fulfilled in the first century?

I don't know of any early church fathers who taught this, but Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching it as referenced in 2 Timothy 2:17-18:

"And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."
​

This was sometime around the mid-60's.

They probably either saw or heard from those who witnessed the dead coming out of their graves at Christ's resurrection as in Matthew 27:52-53:

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
​

 

[Interplanner]

2 Pet 3 indicates the tendency was for cynics to say that the return had not happened because of the expectation in Mt 24 & //s that it would be right away,

 

[parousia70]

You can certainly find church fathers that believed certain things were fulfilled in the first century. A couple of examples would be the 70 weeks and the great tribulation.

But I don't know of any church fathers that properly support ... what gets called 'partial preterism'.

Ummm, believing the 70 Weeks and GT as Fulfilled IS what gets called "partial preterism"

 

[zeke37]

I don't know of any early church fathers who taught this, but Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching it as referenced in 2 Timothy 2:17-18:

"And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."
​

This was sometime around the mid-60's.

They probably either saw or heard from those who witnessed the dead coming out of their graves at Christ's resurrection as in Matthew 27:52-53:

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
​

but that is not the same event as 1Thes4 and 1Cor15 speak of
because those scriptures are far removed in time from the gospels

Paul still looked to a future time where the dead would be raised.
And he certainly knew about Christ's Resurrection and of the others offered as proof,
by coming out of their graves and witnessing.

it does not make any sense to believe that the Resurrection promised in John 6 and 11
had already been fulfilled by Paul's day

so I doubt that was the concern

 

[Interplanner]

Are Thess and I Cor so far removed as they were originally heard? they sound very soon, and have the expression 'Marana Tha' in them, which expects a very quick resolution to history.

 

[Just The Facts]

Hi

The confusion is in that there is kind of three resurrections. Not really but it seems that way when you read about the graves opening and the prophets etc rising.

The First Resurrection in REV 20 is a body resurrection. The Tomb being open is to take the souls of the prophets and Saints of the OT to heaven.

When we die If we are saved our souls go to heaven our bodies await the resurrection of the body in Rev 20: But in OT days Jesus had not yet died their souls slept. That is why some Christian Denominations believe in soul sleep they see the verses that teach soul sleep and fail to understand that that ended with Jesus on the cross. Now when a saved person dies their soul goes to heaven. Their body awaits the first resurrection in Rev 20 when they will be teachers and Priests in the 1,000 years Kingdom.

 

[zeke37]

1Thes4 and 1Cor15, are they referencing the time of Christ's Resurrection
or
a future time after It?

dead raised and we shall all be changed.
some of us not dying at all, but changed.

seems pretty futuristic to me.



Marana tha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

seem Wiki says it can mean "the Lord is Come"
while it's users in the following centuries, use the word to imply haste

 

[zeke37]

Hi

The confusion is in that there is kind of three resurrections. Not really but it seems that way when you read about the graves opening and the prophets etc rising.

The First Resurrection in REV 20 is a body resurrection. The Tomb being open is to take the souls of the prophets and Saints of the OT to heaven.

When we die If we are saved our souls go to heaven our bodies await the resurrection of the body in Rev 20: But in OT days Jesus had not yet died their souls slept. That is why some Christian Denominations believe in soul sleep they see the verses that teach soul sleep and fail to understand that that ended with Jesus on the cross. Now when a saved person dies their soul goes to heaven. Their body awaits the first resurrection in Rev 20 when they will be teachers and Priests in the 1,000 years Kingdom.

hi....just sayin.....

"heaven" is not mentioned there....

to me, the first Resurrection of Rev20 shows the Gathering of all the overcomers, ever.
but they are not IN heaven. they are ON earth. gathered to Him, on earth.

further in the chapter we even learn that the camp of the saints is here.



plus, all the OT saints went to heaven at death.
even the wicked go there and wait for the 2nd Res.
a good side and a bad side.
they wait there now.

Abraham Isaac and Jacob are alive now in heaven,
and were during the gospel events too.

 

[L0U]

but that is not the same event as 1Thes4 and 1Cor15 speak of
because those scriptures are far removed in time from the gospels

But you didn't ask about those. You asked about Matthew 24:30-31.

Don't forget that before 'quill was put to parchment' these thing were taught through preaching.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I don't know of any early church fathers who taught this, but Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching it as referenced in 2 Timothy 2:17-18:

"And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some."
​

This was sometime around the mid-60's.

They probably either saw or heard from those who witnessed the dead coming out of their graves at Christ's resurrection as in Matthew 27:52-53:

"And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."
​

If Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection had passed then they weren't teaching partial-preterism, so your point would be moot. Partial-Preterism holds the belief that the resurrection is still a future event, Full-Preterism says it's passed.

 

[L0U]

If Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection had passed then they weren't teaching partial-preterism, so your point would be moot. Partial-Preterism holds the belief that the resurrection is still a future event, Full-Preterism says it's passed.

My response to the op was in regard to "specifically Matthew 24:30-31" if any early church fathers (pre-325 AD/ Ante-Nicene/before romanization) taught that it was past.

 

[zeke37]

But you didn't ask about those. You asked about Matthew 24:30-31.
Don't forget that before 'quill was put to parchment' these thing were taught through preaching.

sorry Brother...my bad

u referenced the dead that were raised at Christ's death, so I commented...incorrectly thinking something, dunno what....
might have been half asleep...good excuse, ya.

but my post would seem to prove that Paul was not talking about that Resurrection.
he referenced a FUTURE mass resurrection (and more)

too many threads,
I think maybe I thought u said something u didn't, after reading it all again.

 

[zeke37]

If Hymenaeus and Philetus were teaching that the resurrection had passed then they weren't teaching partial-preterism, so your point would be moot. Partial-Preterism holds the belief that the resurrection is still a future event, Full-Preterism says it's passed.

actually, his point is valid in this case,
because there is scripture proof that others were teaching things
that were contrary to that of the disciples, their students, Paul and his students.

iow, the mystery of iniquity was already afoot then.

 

[erickson]

Ummm, believing the 70 Weeks and GT as Fulfilled IS what gets called "partial preterism"

Well that's a part of it I guess, but partial preterism says more than that. Partial preterists say that Matthew 24:30-31 is fulfilled, and Matt. 24:34 makes a first century prediction for the previous events.

Matt. 24:30-31 would be regarded by others as being the "second coming". Partial preterists deny this. So that's what I'm interested in: is there support for that in the early church?

 

[L0U]

Matt. 24:30-31 would be regarded by others as being the "second coming". Partial preterists deny this. So that's what I'm interested in: is there support for that in the early church?

No!
None before the council of Nicea. Most were historic pre-millenialists up until that time around 325 AD.