If the full preterism is true (and I am inclining to accept it), then we are the children of people who were left out of the wedding, right?
That would make us to live in "outer darkness". But full preterists seem to believe that we are actually in the "kingdom of God", which is not logical.
If some full preterist is here who can explain it, I would appreciate.
First, let me make a few comments about
method. If a person want to discuss something that is genuinely not understood because there is a genuine motive to understand then it is incumbent upon that person to be as specific as they can be concerning their own inquiry
and provide whatever information is helpful in understanding what is being asked. This provision should, but is not limited to, the scriptural references upon which any inquiry is based. In this case are you asking about the wedding of Matthew 22, the wedding of Matthew 25, the wedding of Revelation 19, or some other wedding in which some are left out?
The the inquiry, "[Are] we the children of people who were left out...?" also warrants clarification. Do you mean to ask if we are the biological progeny of those left out of the unspecified wedding? Or are you asking if we are the spiritual progeny?
Now since you've mentioned "outer darkness," I will assume for the moment this is a reference to Matthew 22's wedding feast and attempt a response accordingly, even though I am not full-pret. Those who do subscribe to that position can correct my post where warranted.
First, do the exegesis. To whom is Jesus speaking? He is speaking specifically and directly to the disciples, "
the chief priests and the Pharisees," (vss. 21:33,45) and various Jews assembled in the temple. This is the day after his entrance into Jerusalem, the City of Peace (jeru=city; salem=peace), the day after he chased out the money-changers from the temple and cleaned it out from having been a "
robber's den." Note also that this parable occurs early in what encompasses
a single day that is accounted for in a narrative that covers sixe chapters (Mt. 21:18 through Mt. 26:5)!
In other words, Jesus is
not specifically speaking to 21st century Christians about conditions necessarily in our future but he is observably speaking to first century Jews about conditions and events in
their future. Jews, not Christians. There were no Christians at that point in history. This passage occurs prior to Calvary and prior to Pentecost.
Next, note that because of this audience affiliation the parable is spoken to Abrahamic and Mosaic covenant people, not Abrahamic and Christ covenant people. Note also that after Jesus chased out the robbers and returned he was teaching
about the chief priests and Pharisees, as explicitly stated in
Mt. 21:45. Note also that after entering Jerusalem Jesus' teaching becomes judgmental and eschatological. His focus becomes Jerusalem, Judaism, and the Jewish religion institution(s).
At this point I encourage you to take a break from the post and examine the scriptures to verify what I have posted. Look it up.
Next, note that thise specific wedding parable is explicitly about "
the kingdom of heaven," (vs. 22:1) so in order to understand what he's talking about it will require us to examine all of scripture as it pertains to the kingdom of heaven. Some believers make distinctions between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. I do not. Some make distinctions between the kingdoms of God and heaven and the kingdoms of the earth but when we survey all that scripture says about the kingdoms of God and heaven we see that the kingdom of heaven was
then "at hand" (Mt. 3:2, 4:17) and in their midst there on earth in the first century, as well as a future place/condition that would be entered. Earlier Jesus had said the kingdom of heaven was for the poor in spirit and those persecuted and not for those who set aside the law -
the law that testified to Christ!
Next, note that the king in the parable sent out his slaves to gather those who'd been invited to the wedding. So... we mst ask ourselves, "
Who are the slaves of the king?" and "
Who was already invited to the wedding at the time of this parable?" While the answer to the first question may be of some debate, I will argue it is those who are slaves to righteousness, not those who are slaves to sin. The answer to the second question is quite easy and apparent:
the Jew!
Now I'm going to stop at this point because I believe you have enough information to either answer your own question or continue on exegetically examining the passage to do so. The parable is about the first century Jew(s) and the Judaic leadership. It is not about some unidentified future set of Christians.
The preterist, whether partial or full, will note God did send an army and he did "
destroy those murderers and set their city on fire." He did so in 70 a.d.
So... in answer to the specific question specifically asked the answer is, "
No, we are not the children left out of the wedding, unless perhaps you are of Jewish descent."
Now some will say, "
That's all well and good for the specifics of the parable, but what about the principles illustrated in that parable that may well be timeless and still relevant to our day and age?" Great question. Off-topic, but great question. In order to answer
that inquiry those "timeless principles" will have to be identified and justified, not made up based on eisegetic inferences. For the Dispensatonal Premillennialist (DP) this will pose a problem because that hermeneutic demands a literal interpretation of prophesy and an overt eschewing of figurative interpretations.
Literally, the parable is about Jews in the first century. So any futurist interpretation violates the DP hermeneutic. Can't have it both ways.
(apologies for the length)
