Why Christians should reject Partial Preterism

[mkgal1]

I cannot agree with you! I wrote this on another thread. The evidence to the contrary, IMHO, is overwhelming. Please compare the 3 accounts below.

In His discourse in Matthew 23:37-24:2 the Lord warns, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord (the second coming). Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

The religious Jews of Jerusalem were about to witness the destruction of their temple. Moreover, that ruination would remain in place from its demolition right up until the second coming of the Lord. The desolation of the temple significantly occurred on the wing of 40 years of idolatrous temple sacrifices (exactly a generation)? The statement “there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” was plainly referring to, and correlating with, the warning He had just made to the religious Jews about the impending destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. It was also a direct reference to Daniel 9.

Matthew 24:1-2 records, “And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down."

Christ was specifically speaking here of “the buildings of the temple” not the city. You cannot anywhere find that Israel is described as this. This is literal precise detail!

Mark 13:1-2 records, “And as he went out of the temple, one of his disciples saith unto him, Master, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here. And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

In this parallel account, Mark corroborates the thought of Matthew.

Luke 21:5-6 records, “And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, he said, As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.”

The disciples then asked two questions in Matthew 24 in response tom our Lord’s words.

Matthew 24:3 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?”

Mark 13:4 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What shall be the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled (finished or ended)?”

Luke 21:7 records:

1. “When shall these things be?”
2. “What sign will there be when these things shall come to pass?”

Christ addressed both questions and both eras in chapter 24. However, because of the intermingling of His response, many Bible students suffer great confusion in identifying what aspect of the teaching relates to AD 70 and what relates to the second coming.

In His response to the first question in Matthew 24:15-22, He spoke of the end of the 40 year probationary period (AD 70), saying, “When ye (the disciples) therefore shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, whoso readeth, let him understand: Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: For then shall be great tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.”

Mark 13:14-20 says, “when ye (the disciples) shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judaea flee to the mountains: And let him that is on the housetop not go down into the house, neither enter therein, to take any thing out of his house: And let him that is in the field not turn back again for to take up his garment. But woe to them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! And pray ye that your flight be not in the winter. For in those days shall be tribulation (thlipsis), such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be. And except that the Lord had shortened those days, no flesh should be saved: but for the elect's sake, whom he hath chosen, he hath shortened the days.”

This can only refer to the wrath of God being poured out on Jerusalem that destroyed the existing socio-political/cultural/religious system of Judaism, which was an offence to God. This people were decimated. Their religious system was effectively brought to nought. Nothing before AD 70, or after it, could compare in regard to the extent of its demise. Luke 21:20-24 reinforces that we are looking at AD 70.

Luke’s parallel passage, in Luke 21:20-24, records, “when ye (the disciples) shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck, in those days! For there shall be great distress (anagke) in the land, and wrath upon this people. And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.”

A comparison of these three accounts will see the correlation in teaching. Plainly: “the abomination of desolation … standing where it ought not” or standing “in the holy place” relates to the Roman soldiers that would destroy the city of Jerusalem. Luke adds meat to the bones, saying: “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.” Here is the warning sign to run! There is also the limitation of that judgment so that the Gospel would spread to the nations. The Gospel spread as Jewish families were spread throughout the world.

The Lord tells us that unless this judgment upon Jerusalem was shortened “there should no flesh be saved” (Matthew 24:22). In essence, what He was saying was, there would have been no possibility of Jewish Christians surviving it and consequently no hope of a lost Gentile world receiving this great Gospel if God’s wrath would not have been limited to a short time-period in relative terms. If the wrath of God would have continued to be poured out on wicked man as it was on Jerusalem then mankind would have been finished. But it was restricted to Christ-rejecting Jerusalem.

How can futurists seriously relate these parallel accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, which resulted in the unbelieving Jews being dispersed to “all nations,” to a supposed seven-year end-time persecution of the Church of Jesus Christ? Remember, it was this awful approaching judgment upon the Jews that caused Christ to weep over Jerusalem, crying, “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.”

.

 

[sovereigngrace]

I'm not going to presume that you agree with me on this, but I'm just saying my beliefs, in general, are further from Full Preterism than you assume they are (and closer to yours).

I believe the "Exodus" pattern out of the bondage of sin and that death and resurrection are both repeating patterns that will continue until all is restored. We are to be "dying to ourselves" daily (a kind of resurrection), for instance, in order to become "new" and more like Christ. I believe humanity participates with God in His plan of restoration (as we are the Body of Christ when His love is demonstrated through us). So, not ALL is behind us - and definitely not ALL occurred in 70 AD.

But you have argued that the NHNE are here now. That is insane. You have argued that the resurrection of the just and the unjust occurred and 70AD. This is absurd!

When discussing this with you previously, you couldn't even tell me what the resurrection of the unjust was. You were giving me about three different contradictory definitions at the one time.

When I pushed you on what "the age to come" refers to, you made it our current age here now, and at other times it pertains to the intermediate state, and at other times the eternal state. This is utter confusion.

 

[mkgal1]

In Partial Preterist theology the First Advent and the Second Advent take back stage to their obsession with 70AD. It is all about 70AD! It is all they want to talk about

There are plenty of other things I'd wish to talk about, if given the chance (but others seem to hone in on this one detail and want to talk about nothing else but this). So I question where the actual obsession is.
.

 

[mkgal1]

But you have argued that the NHNE are here now. That is insane. You have argued that the resurrection of the just and the unjust occurred and 70AD. This is absurd!

Different from your beliefs =/= "insane" or "absurd".

Try a little charity in your posting.

 

[mkgal1]

When I pushed you on what "the age to come" refers to, you made it our current age here now, and at other times it pertains to the intermediate state, and at other times the eternal state. This is utter confusion.

"Pushed you" is certainly an accurate description. It's "confusion" because you're attempting to see my beliefs through your paradigm. That won't work.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

This thread is hilarious. And that's coming from someone on the road to believing in full preterism

 

[DavidPT]

I believe there are two tribulations in Matthew 24, one relating to AD70 and one preceding the Coming of Christ. Premils seem to miss that. They are different in the nature, origin and their focus. There is the great tribulation of God upon Israel in AD70, and the tribulation of Satan upon the righteous at the end.

There are not two tribs in the Discourse though. There is only one, and like EWQ has pointed out with Mat 24:29-31, that alone proves the trib in question is not meaning 70 AD.

Let's look at some of the texts involved again.

Matthew 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

Notice what I have underlined here. Seriously, how can the trib of those days in verse 29 not be meaning the same trib of those days in verse 21 and 22? Even though I disagree with Preterists who see nothing but first century events in the Discourse, at least they are not, like you are, inventing a 2nd trib that is not even found in the texts.

If there is only one trib of those days in view, and that if verse 21 and 22 are supposed to be meaning 70 AD, but that verse 29 is supposed to be meaning some 2000 years later, well 2000 years is hardly immediately after in that case. Yet you indicated there are two tribs. So show where they are in Matthew 24.


The incorrect way to understand verses 21-22 and 29-31---All of this was fulfilled in the first century.

The incorrect way to understand verses 21-22 and 29-31---Some of this was fulfilled in the first century. Some of it is fulfilled some 2000 years later.

The correct way to understand verses 21-22 and 29-31---All of it is fulfilled in the end of this age leading up to the 2nd coming.

 

[mkgal1]

When challenged, Partial Preterists habitually hide behind the statements of their teachers, and are quick to advancing weblinks to their Preterist mentors. This tactic is normally found among the cults. This shows a distinct weakness in their position and a healthy reliance upon man.

What that shows is a way that people draw their conclusions based on presumption and have never considered other options.

Yes.....I'll admit to a *healthy* reliance upon others that have done their scholarly work and devoted decades to the study of this topic (but I also rely on the Holy Spirit to guide me in determining what's in alignment with God's nature). I suspect you meant UNhealthy......but I don't see anything wrong with learning through others. The Body of Christ is about community - we're not meant to be alone (remember Genesis?).

 

[mkgal1]

There are not two tribs in the Discourse though. There is only one, and like EWQ has pointed out

I agree with you two on that point.

 

[AvisG]

When one steps back from the obsessive and doomed-to-failure approach of trying to make sense of the convoluted end-times passages in Mark, Matthew and Luke, as well as Revelation as a whole, I don't think it's difficult to understand what was going on.

Yes, I'm sure Jesus did speak of a future return and the importance of always being ready. But the historical reality is that Mark, Matthew and Luke were all written during or within a reasonable time after the Neronian persecution and the fall of the temple. These were cataclysmic events that certainly would have appeared like the end times (or the ushering in of the end times) to Christians and Jews alike. By far the most plausible explanation is that these events have been inserted into Jesus' mouth in a somewhat veiled way because he obviously would have been speaking some 30-40 years before the events themselves. They are a pseudo-Jesus speaking to the people (the "generation") who have experienced the Neronian persecution and the fall of the temple and who continue to be persecuted as the Gospels and Revelation are circulating.

There is no question that the Gospel writers, Paul, the author of Revelation and presumably all first century Christians understandably thought the end was imminent. They were simply wrong. It's far less clear that Jesus was wrong, because I strongly doubt he made the "this generation shall not pass away" statement at all. By far the most reasonable explanation is that this is a later insertion for the reasons set forth above.

The end-times passages are a convoluted mess because they overlay what was happening at the time they were written on top of what Jesus actually said during his ministry. Yes, there will be a Second Coming at some entirely unknown and unpredictable future date and we should all be ready at every moment, but all the rest can be plausibly explained only by the preterist position. The end-times stuff that dominates the evangelical airwaves is just nonsense, simple as that.

All just my humble opinion and informed $0.02 worth, mind you.

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

There is no question that the Gospel writers, Paul, the author of Revelation and presumably all first century Christians understandably thought the end was imminent. They were simply wrong. It's far less clear that Jesus was wrong, because I strongly doubt he made the "this generation shall not pass away" statement at all. By far the most reasonable explanation is that this is a later insertion for the reasons set forth above.

Excuse me?? Are you saying that Lord Jesus did not say something that is written that He said? If so, how did you determine that? What is your plumb line (if you know what a plumb line is )?

Yes, there will be a Second Coming at some entirely unknown and unpredictable future date and we should all be ready at every moment,

Umm. This describes imminence.

 

[DavidPT]

There is no question that the Gospel writers, Paul, the author of Revelation and presumably all first century Christians understandably thought the end was imminent. They were simply wrong. It's far less clear that Jesus was wrong, because I strongly doubt he made the "this generation shall not pass away" statement at all. By far the most reasonable explanation is that this is a later insertion for the reasons set forth above.

I don't doubt He actually said that. So I doubt it was later added. In context, it of course doesn't make sense if He was meaning the generation at that time in the first century. Obviously then, at least to some of us, He wasn't meaning those living at that time when He spoke those words. All of the verses surrounding that verse, none of it involves first century events, the fact His 2nd coming never occurred in the 1st century.


Matthew 24:29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: (context does not involve 1st century events)
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.(context does not involve 1st century events)
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.(context does not involve 1st century events)
32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.(context does not involve 1st century events)
34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.(context does not involve 1st century events)
36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.(context does not involve 1st century events)
37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.(context does not involve 1st century events)
38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,(context does not involve 1st century events)
39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.(context does not involve 1st century events)


It would be out of context, plus it would make Jesus look like someone very confused if verses 29-33 and verses 35-39 do not involve 1st century events, but that verse 34 does.

 

[DavidPT]

While it's on my mind, can Preterists, meaning those who see the Discourse only involving first century events, remind me what events they take the coming in Matthew 24:39 to be referring to? Can they also remind me whether they take it to be referring to the same coming in Matthew 24:30 or not? And can they also remind me what events they take the tribulation of those days in Matthew 24:29 to be referring to? Depending on the answers, I may or may not have proof they are contradicting the texts involved.

 

[sovereigngrace]

This thread is hilarious. And that's coming from someone on the road to believing in full preterism

You are proving my point for me. That is the very danger I was warning of! Full Preterism is a denial of the faith, and gross heresy.

 

[sovereigngrace]

When one steps back from the obsessive and doomed-to-failure approach of trying to make sense of the convoluted end-times passages in Mark, Matthew and Luke, as well as Revelation as a whole, I don't think it's difficult to understand what was going on.

Yes, I'm sure Jesus did speak of a future return and the importance of always being ready. But the historical reality is that Mark, Matthew and Luke were all written during or within a reasonable time after the Neronian persecution and the fall of the temple. These were cataclysmic events that certainly would have appeared like the end times (or the ushering in of the end times) to Christians and Jews alike. By far the most plausible explanation is that these events have been inserted into Jesus' mouth in a somewhat veiled way because he obviously would have been speaking some 30-40 years before the events themselves. They are a pseudo-Jesus speaking to the people (the "generation") who have experienced the Neronian persecution and the fall of the temple and who continue to be persecuted as the Gospels and Revelation are circulating.

There is no question that the Gospel writers, Paul, the author of Revelation and presumably all first century Christians understandably thought the end was imminent. They were simply wrong. It's far less clear that Jesus was wrong, because I strongly doubt he made the "this generation shall not pass away" statement at all. By far the most reasonable explanation is that this is a later insertion for the reasons set forth above.

The end-times passages are a convoluted mess because they overlay what was happening at the time they were written on top of what Jesus actually said during his ministry. Yes, there will be a Second Coming at some entirely unknown and unpredictable future date and we should all be ready at every moment, but all the rest can be plausibly explained only by the preterist position. The end-times stuff that dominates the evangelical airwaves is just nonsense, simple as that.

All just my humble opinion and informed $0.02 worth, mind you.

Futurism and Preterism focus on one part of the picture to the neglect of the other. They take truth to an extreme and neutralize it in the process. They spend their time arguing over whether it is heads or tails, when in fact both make up the one coin. They just need to flip the coin over and see that both carry a measure of truth. Contrary to most Preterists, the Holy Spirit and the NT writers were not fixated on AD70, natural Jerusalem and a redundant temple. They were focused on Christ, and His first and second advents. That was the premise of my initial post, and no Pretereist here is even disputing the thesis so far, just defending it. Sad!

 

[Christian Gedge]

I rated your opening post as 'informative' and I think it deserves a fair and impartial read by all of us. Many of the points made have led me to the same misgivings about Partial Preterism, although I do think you come on a bit strong sometimes.

Now to your key points:

What they apply to AD70 is totally unbiblical and insane. They are indeed fixated with that date, whereas Scripture is fixated with the cross and the Lord's final return.

• They have the old covenant ending in AD70.
• They have the new covenant commencing in AD70.
• They have “this age” ending in AD70.
• They have “the age to come” starting in AD70.
• They have “the last days” finishing in AD70.
• They have “the last day” of “the last days” occurring in AD70.
• They have “the day of redemption” happening in AD70.
• They have “the coming of the Lord” arriving in AD70.
• They have “the resurrection” of the just and the unjust happening in AD70.
• They have “the judgment” of the just and the unjust happening in AD70.
• They have the old corrupt heavens and earth being replaced in AD70.
  
• They have “the new heavens and new earth” appearing in AD70.

This is absolutely ridiculous! Such is your obsession with this much vaunted year (AD70), that their advocates and websites can do nothing else but speak on its virtues.

If these observations are true of ALL Partial Preterists then there is indeed a problem. However, in my conversations there are a variety of PP's from neo-full prets to Historicists (a person who sees some fulfillment between AD 70 and the parousia.)

In my own case, I am an Amill-Historicist. Like yourself, Im see Part Preterism eschatology as a step too far into the 'praeter' emphasis. Having said that, I have found some of their historical research to be helpful.

Hey bro's and sisters. Blessings for the new year!

 

[Lost4words]

Jesus said "This generation". Not, the next generation or a future generation! How simple is that?

Some people take the bible literally when they see fit and dont when it goes against what they 'think' scripture is saying.

Revelation 1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants what must soon take place; and he made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads aloud the words of the prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written therein; for the time is near.

Not millenia away!

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

You are proving my point. That is the very danger I was warning of! Full Preterism is a denial of the faith , and gross heresy.

If you were a heretic, you wouldn't even know. That's the real kicker.

And anyways, using the word heretic/heresy = -1 point.

 

[theoneandonlypencil]

Also, do tell how preterism is a denial of the faith. Last I checked, even preterists believed in God and the life & crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

 

[mkgal1]

There is no question that the Gospel writers, Paul, the author of Revelation and presumably all first century Christians understandably thought the end was imminent. They were simply wrong.

I believe C.S. Lewis came to this same conclusion (as have many atheists). R.C. Sproul teaches that's exactly why we, as Christians, ought to know our escatology. It colors the entire Gospel story.

The Last Days According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul <---- support for my assertion - not evidence that partial preterism is like a cult as the accusation implied.