Full Preterism

[trophy33]

So the wedding feast has already taken place as well?

Its the same thing as the "rapture", IMHO. Just a different imagery.

The 10 virgins waiting for a bridegroom, the return of the king to his land, a man giving his gold to various servants and going away and later returning, imagery about a sleeping servant etc.

One worker on the field taken, one left, five virgins let in to the wedding, five let outside, a burglar coming in the night to an unprepared house...

Still the same principle about being prepared.

 

[3 Resurrections]

So your saying Jesus returned in 70AD and took all the dead Christians but left all those still alive?

Yes.

The typical current interpretation of the "rapture" texts has unfortunately been made to include the living believers being "changed" by a "translation" without having to pass through the process of dying. This interpretation contradicts scripture's very clear teaching in Hebrews 9:26-27 that it is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE - just as Christ was destined to be offered in death ONCE for us - and then never to die again. Hebrews connects these two ideas with each other. In other words, if one is to claim that many Christians need never die when Christ returns, but are only "translated" instead, then this calls Christ's predetermined, one-time crucifixion death into question also, since these concepts are inextricably linked together in Hebrews 9:26-27. No one is going to get off this planet without dying first.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Yes.

The typical current interpretation of the "rapture" texts has unfortunately been made to include the living believers being "changed" by a "translation" without having to pass through the process of dying. This interpretation contradicts scripture's very clear teaching in Hebrews 9:26-27 that it is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE - just as Christ was destined to be offered in death ONCE for us - and then never to die again. Hebrews connects these two ideas with each other. In other words, if one is to claim that many Christians need never die when Christ returns, but are only "translated" instead, then this calls Christ's predetermined, one-time crucifixion death into question also, since these concepts are inextricably linked together in Hebrews 9:26-27. No one is going to get off this planet without dying first.

So you don’t believe that Enoch and Alijah were taken into heaven with out death?

 

[3 Resurrections]

So you don’t believe that Enoch and Alijah were taken into heaven with out death?

As for Elijah, the scripture account of Elijah's transport in the LXX says that Elijah was taken "AS IT WERE into heaven" - which meant the sky, or the atmospheric heaven - not the heavenly realm where God dwelled. We know that in 2 Chronicles 21:12, Elijah wrote a letter to King Jehoram some 10 years or so later after his whirlwind transport through the skies, so Elijah was still on earth - just in another unknown location to where the whirlwind had transported him. Elijah died a natural death just as everyone else did.

As for Enoch, we know that scripture says that God "took" him. Just where God "took" Enoch is not described, but it cannot possibly have been into God's presence in heaven, because Christ told Nicodemus in John 3:13 that "no man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven..." Speaking of heaven's temple, we are also told in Revelation 15:8 that "no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled." No access for resurrected humanity into heaven's temple until those plagues were all done. That included Enoch and Elijah.

Enoch is the single, unique example of a translation change of the human body of one who did not pass through death. I believe God used that single individual's example to be introduced to us later as the man Melchizedek: King of Salem, and priest of the Most High God. At the time he was introduced in scripture, this man Melchizedek had no obvious beginning of life, nor end of days, and was still living at the time when Hebrews 7:8 was being written because he had been "made like unto the Son of God" by remaining a deathless priest continually. This was just like Christ, whose priesthood was a copy of Melchizedek's deathless priesthood order, and not a copy of the Levitical priesthood whose members did die with regularity. There didn't need to be more than this single example of the deathless Enoch being translated, to establish the deathless order of the Melchizedek priesthood. If there were more saints than this one man being translated so that he would not see death, then the picture type when compared to Christ would have lost its totally unique quality.

The man Enoch / Melchizedek was an anomaly that would never be duplicated again on earth. After Enoch / Melchizedek, no other saints would ever experience a translation change of their bodies without dying, because that would contradict Hebrews 9:26-27 and its rule that all are appointed to die the one time.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

As for Elijah, the scripture account of Elijah's transport in the LXX says that Elijah was taken "AS IT WERE into heaven" - which meant the sky, or the atmospheric heaven - not the heavenly realm where God dwelled. We know that in 2 Chronicles 21:12, Elijah wrote a letter to King Jehoram some 10 years or so later after his whirlwind transport through the skies, so Elijah was still on earth - just in another unknown location to where the whirlwind had transported him. Elijah died a natural death just as everyone else did.

As for Enoch, we know that scripture says that God "took" him. Just where God "took" Enoch is not described, but it cannot possibly have been into God's presence in heaven, because Christ told Nicodemus in John 3:13 that "no man hath ascended up to heaven but He that came down from heaven..." Speaking of heaven's temple, we are also told in Revelation 15:8 that "no man was able to enter into the temple, till the seven plagues of the seven angels were fulfilled." No access for resurrected humanity into heaven's temple until those plagues were all done. That included Enoch and Elijah.

Enoch is the single, unique example of a translation change of the human body of one who did not pass through death. I believe God used that single individual's example to be introduced to us later as the man Melchizedek: King of Salem, and priest of the Most High God. At the time he was introduced in scripture, this man Melchizedek had no obvious beginning of life, nor end of days, and was still living at the time when Hebrews 7:8 was being written because he had been "made like unto the Son of God" by remaining a deathless priest continually. This was just like Christ, whose priesthood was a copy of Melchizedek's deathless priesthood order, and not a copy of the Levitical priesthood whose members did die with regularity. There didn't need to be more than this single example of the deathless Enoch being translated, to establish the deathless order of the Melchizedek priesthood. If there were more saints than this one man being translated so that he would not see death, then the picture type when compared to Christ would have lost its totally unique quality.

The man Enoch / Melchizedek was an anomaly that would never be duplicated again on earth. After Enoch / Melchizedek, no other saints would ever experience a translation change of their bodies without dying, because that would contradict Hebrews 9:26-27 and its rule that all are appointed to die the one time.

Well that’s interesting! So do you think that the people who Jesus and the disciples raised from the dead did not die again?

 

[3 Resurrections]

So do you think that the people who Jesus and the disciples raised from the dead did not die again?

I am absolutely convinced from scripture that those raised from the dead by Jesus and the disciples never died again. This is not even possible, considering that the "children of the resurrection", once raised from the dead, "Neither CAN they die anymore", because they mimic the elect angels in this deathless characteristic (Luke 20:35-36).

Again, Hebrews 9:26-27 not only dictates a one-time death for everyone, it strictly limits it to one physical death ONLY per person. (For those who say that the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 applies to people - it doesn't. It applied to the city of Jerusalem and the temple dying for a second time, similar to the first time that the city, the temple, and the nation of Israel died under the Babylonian invasion.)

If it were possible for a resurrected person to physically die more than once, then we will have no rest or peace of mind when our own resurrected, glorified bodies arrive in heaven - knowing that this might only be a temporary condition for us. It would also open the door to the idea that Christ might also be at risk of dying again, and we know that this is declared to be an impossibility in Romans 6:9. "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." Any other bodily resurrections granted to people in scripture are of the same permanent nature as that of Christ's resurrection. Christ never performed half-baked resurrections, and neither did His disciples.

The permanence of the physically-resurrected condition of the body was meant to portray a picture of the permanence of the spiritually-resurrected condition for the souls of the believers. One is a mirror of the other. Once a son of God, always a son of God. Once a bodily-resurrected believer, always a bodily-resurrected believer.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

I am absolutely convinced from scripture that those raised from the dead by Jesus and the disciples never died again. This is not even possible, considering that the "children of the resurrection", once raised from the dead, "Neither CAN they die anymore", because they mimic the elect angels in this deathless characteristic (Luke 20:35-36).

Again, Hebrews 9:26-27 not only dictates a one-time death for everyone, it strictly limits it to one physical death ONLY per person. (For those who say that the "second death" in Revelation 20:14 applies to people - it doesn't. It applied to the city of Jerusalem and the temple dying for a second time, similar to the first time that the city, the temple, and the nation of Israel died under the Babylonian invasion.)

If it were possible for a resurrected person to physically die more than once, then we will have no rest or peace of mind when our own resurrected, glorified bodies arrive in heaven - knowing that this might only be a temporary condition for us. It would also open the door to the idea that Christ might also be at risk of dying again, and we know that this is declared to be an impossibility in Romans 6:9. "Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him." Any other bodily resurrections granted to people in scripture are of the same permanent nature as that of Christ's resurrection. Christ never performed half-baked resurrections, and neither did His disciples.

The permanence of the physically-resurrected condition of the body was meant to portray a picture of the permanence of the spiritually-resurrected condition for the souls of the believers. One is a mirror of the other. Once a son of God, always a son of God. Once a bodily-resurrected believer, always a bodily-resurrected believer.

So you think that those who Jesus and the disciples raised were raised with a glorified body ? Me thinks you read into the text things that are not in them.

 

[parousia70]

I am absolutely convinced from scripture that those raised from the dead by Jesus and the disciples never died again. This is not even possible, considering that the "children of the resurrection", once raised from the dead, "Neither CAN they die anymore", because they mimic the elect angels in this deathless characteristic (Luke 20:35-36).

Again, Hebrews 9:26-27 not only dictates a one-time death for everyone, it strictly limits it to one physical death ONLY per person.

So Lazarus would be the "exception that proves the rule" then?

The permanence of the physically-resurrected condition of the body was meant to portray a picture of the permanence of the spiritually-resurrected condition for the souls of the believers. One is a mirror of the other. Once a son of God, always a son of God. Once a bodily-resurrected believer, always a bodily-resurrected believer.

Then what is the "better resurrection" spoken of here?:
“Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:” Hebrews 11:35

Apparantly, according to the writer of Hebrews, there is a "better resurrection" than merely being physically re-animated, as this "better resurection" is being directly contrased to these women who actually received their dead raised to life.

This fits with the fact that in each of the recorded instances of physical "raisings" (except Jesus), we have no indication that those people went on to do anything but physically die again, like Lazarus.

Christ was the only one who was promised that His flesh would not see decay.

1 Corinthians 15 is quite clear that in the (better) "resurrection of the dead" the resurrection body is a spiritual one, and in none of the "raisings" quoted were their bodies anything but the exact same mortal, physical bodies that they previously occupied.

 

[3 Resurrections]

So Lazarus would be the "exception that proves the rule" then?

I'm afraid I am missing the point you are making here. Lazarus was no exception to the rule that there is one physical death only per person. Lazarus never died again either, once Christ had resurrected him. The Jewish chief priests were consulting together if they might be able to kill Lazarus as well as Jesus, and were scheming about it in John 12:10. However, wishing they could do this didn't make a second death for Lazarus a possibility. There is zero evidence in scripture that anyone bodily resurrected in scripture died a second time. I don't know why people keep saying that there is when it isn't true. In fact, that assumption of anyone dying physically a second time goes totally contrary to the rule in Hebrews 9:26-27 for a one-time-only physical death experience for everyone.

Then what is the "better resurrection" spoken of here?:
“Women received their dead raised to life again: and others were tortured, not accepting deliverance; that they might obtain a better resurrection:” Hebrews 11:35

It is best to stick to the context's own definition of what a "better resurrection" is. Hebrews 11:40 tells us what that "better thing" is that God provided. That "better thing" was "that they without us should not be made perfect". God planned for a massive, group bodily resurrection in AD 70 for all the saints who had died anytime before AD 70 to participate in together. Christ gathered them all from the four points of the compass and returned to heaven with them - all those who were newly resurrected, and those cases which had been individually resurrected before then, but who had been remaining on earth in their glorified, incorruptible bodies until Christ's AD 70 return.

For those relatively few isolated individuals such as the two OT women having their sons raised to life again - their bodily resurrection to life again was wonderful, but even so, they were not taken immediately to heaven at the time to be face-to-face with their Creator. All those examples of resurrected individuals (including the Matthew 27 saints raised the same day as Christ) had to remain on earth in those living, glorified, resurrected bodies until the day came in AD 70 when they were finally transported to heaven with Christ along with all the other newly-resurrected saints. "The more, the merrier", as they say.

As you yourself have written above, parousia70, the culmination of our salvation experience is not just to get our dead bodies above ground in a glorified, re-animated condition. The final step is for those glorified, resurrected body forms to be in face-to-face fellowship with God - an intimate fellowship that humanity was originally created to experience to the full. The AD 70 "better resurrection" which the Hebrews saints were waiting for included that final step for them all to participate in by together being ushered into God's presence in heaven. Because heaven's temple was not opened up for any one of resurrected mankind to enter it until the last of the 7 plagues had been poured out in AD 70 (Revelation 15:8).

Jude 1:24 spoke of all the saints being "presented faultless before the presence of His glory with exceeding joy". THIS was the "better resurrection" event that the first-century was anticipating in their near future. THIS was for the bodily-resurrected saints to be "made perfect" in that final step of joyful union together in God's presence.

 

[3 Resurrections]

So you think that those who Jesus and the disciples raised were raised with a glorified body ? Me thinks you read into the text things that are not in them.

I certainly do think all those were raised with glorified bodies. Didn't Jesus tell Martha in John 11:40 that if she believed in Him (that He was the resurrection and the life), that she would see the glory of God on display? To see her brother Lazarus, the beloved disciple, raised to life again WAS to see the glory of God of display.

It didn't matter if Lazarus had not been raised until the "last day", or if Jesus raised him to life again at that very moment in John 11. The results for Lazarus would have been the same either way, because Jesus Himself WAS the embodiment of the resurrection and the life, and He could grant a glorified, resurrected life any time He chose to give it to a dead saint.

 

[Andrewn]

Lazarus was no exception to the rule that there is one physical death only per person. Lazarus never died again either, once Christ had resurrected him.

No one was resurrected with a spiritual glorified body before Christ. Lazarus was resurrected with a mortal body and died again. This is standard Christian teaching and it does not help your case (which is already controversial) to contradict it (thus making your case double controversial).

 

[3 Resurrections]

No one was resurrected with a spiritual glorified body before Christ. Lazarus was resurrected with a mortal body and died again.

These may be considered standard teachings of the church, but they are never backed up by any scripture whatever by those who believe this. There is a difference between Christ being the very first one to ascend into heaven in His glorified, resurrected body, (for which we do have scripture proof), and the claim that Christ was the first to be resurrected with a glorified body (which goes against scripture).

The Hebrews 9:26-27 rule for a one-time-only physical death experience for everyone is a text that must be ignored or swept under the rug for people to believe that those like Lazarus died a second time, or that Christ was the first one to be resurrected with a glorified body.

My view reconciles these texts with each other. The traditional, standard teaching that those such as Lazarus died again creates a contradiction between the scriptures, which I am not comfortable with doing.

 

[Andrewn]

The Hebrews 9:26-27 rule for a one-time-only physical death experience for everyone is a text that must be ignored or swept under the rug for people to believe that those like Lazarus died a second time,

Heb 9:27 And just as human beings are destined to die but once, and after that to face judgment,

Calvin wrote, "If any one should object that some are twice dead, such as Lazarus and the like, the solution is easy, that the Apostle is here to discuss the condition of the ordinary people."

The point of the verse is that people are judges immediately after death.

 

[3 Resurrections]

The point of the verse is that people are judges immediately after death.

Not exactly. The major theme of Hebrews 9:26-27 is focused on CHRIST being offered in death ONLY ONCE, unlike the other former OT sacrifices which had to be offered continuously over the centuries. The author of Hebrews then used the comparison to the case of mankind only dying ONCE physically, just like Christ died ONCE ONLY in the end of the age. The "AS / SO" comparison in these two verses connects these two like things with each other. Just like men only die ONCE, in the same manner Christ was ONCE offered to take the sins of many.

If we completely reject that men can only die physically once only, (proposing a double death experience for Lazarus and those like him), then we have effectively ripped up the evidential proof that the Hebrews author was giving that spoke of Christ's ONCE ONLY sufficient sacrifice for the salvation of many.

There is major doctrine hanging in the balance on this one point.

 

[Gensys]

Does this mean we're already in the new heaven and new earth?

Do you mean, have all things been made new (Rev 21:5)?

 

[Andrewn]

Do you mean, have all things been made new (Rev 21:5)?

Yes, and Rev 21:1. I guess the whole chapter.

Welcome to the Christian Forums.

 

[Gensys]

The common error that Futurists assert is to render the change as physical. I would ask, do you consider yourself a "new creation"? If you say "yes" then I could simply say, "how? You're the same physical person as before. What's new about you?"

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come (2 Cor 5:17)

In that same sense the new heavens and earth have come when Jesus established His kingdom. It was a spiritual transformation, not a physical one. Now, you may be asking "how did king Jesus establish His kingdom? I don't see it". Again, it is not something meant to be seen physically...

Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you (Luke 17:20-21).

We know these changes happened because we believe it, not because we see it...

for we walk by faith, not by sight (2 cor 5:7)
.

 

[Andrewn]

Now, you may be asking "how did king Jesus establish His kingdom? I don't see it". Again, it is not something meant to be seen physically... Being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he answered them, “The kingdom of God is not coming in ways that can be observed, nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you (Luke 17:20-21). We know these changes happened because we believe it, not because we see it... for we walk by faith, not by sight (2 cor 5:7)

I believe that born-again Christians are a new creation and that God's kingdom has already come. Yet I pray, "May your kingdom come." The kingdom is past, present, and future. It is both now and not yet.

As far as the new heaven and new earth are concerned, I consider them to be the future aspect of the kingdom.

 

[Gensys]

I believe that born-again Christians are a new creation and that God's kingdom has already come. Yet I pray, "May your kingdom come." The kingdom is past, present, and future. It is both now and not yet.

As far as the new heaven and new earth are concerned, I consider them to be the future aspect of the kingdom.

Yes. The view you presented falls under the purview of the "not-yet" concept held by Partial-Preterists, Futurists, Historicists and some Idealists. But under Fulfilled Eschatology, it is seen as a compromise. Full Preterists, Preterist-Idealists, and Realized-Preterism see themselves as strict adherents to Sola Scriptura.

Here's what they see...
"Thy Kingdom Come..." was still in the future at the time Jesus made the prayer, but is now fulfilled.

Jesus, during His ministry, said...
"But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out demons, THEN THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAS COME UPON YOU." —Matthew 12:28

Of course, the Jews were expecting something tangible, something they could see in order to believe, but Jesus upset their expectations by letting them know that the "Kingdom does not come with observation " (Luke 17:20-21). We will notice that Jesus does not follow it by saying, "but eventually it will be seen and will be observed", thus nullifying the not-yet expectation.

And so, in Fulfilled Eschatology, the "will" of God was done, and the Kingdom is a full present reality that's already here.

Likewise, the New Heavens and New Earth (all things made new) came at the regeneration of the Church, from a historical point of view. But we can also look at it from the perspective of each person that converts and comes to Christ. When someone becomes "born-again" or is "in Christ" then everything becomes "New"...

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." —2 Corinthians 5:17

When once they could not see, or comprehend the Kingdom of God, upon being Born-Again they could...

Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” —John 3:3

Only until we've entered the Kingdom can we truly appreciate its reality...

Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God." —John 3:5

It takes being Born-Again or being born in the Spirit to realize the Spiritual Kingdom of God...

“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ —John 3:6-7

 

[parousia70]

As far as the new heaven and new earth are concerned, I consider them to be the future aspect of the kingdom.

I concur with:
C.H. Spurgeon - (NOT a Full preterist) On New Heavens and Earth (1865)

"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? Did you ever pine for the feast of tabernacle, or the dedication? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under the new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, vol. xxxvii, p. 354)

So, as we can see, adoption of the full preterist position is NOT required to understand and accept the truth of the past arival and present reality of the prophesied new heavens an earth.