In my last post on hyper-Preterism, I pondered whether hyper-Preterism is a false Gospel. This post is simply meant to be an interlude as to where I presently stand.
As I may have said before, I have had very little contact with hyper-Preterism. I don’t even know anyone personally who believes such. In a lot of ways, the arguments remind me of flat-earth arguments. As Simon Cowell would say, “Sorry.” From a theological standpoint they seem to be very unsophisticated and short-sighted, without a broad knowledge of theological inquiry. It would seem that they take a few problem issues and suppose “simple” solutions that create many more serious problems that seem to escape their notice. Because of its viability, biblically and historically, I did not even include it in the course on eschatology in The Theology Program. (Plus, I ran out of room.)
I understand that some of people who have responded to my last post are hyper-Preterists and I do appreciate their contribution here as well as the tone they have brought. Please forgive me if I seem to be talking down to you who are hyper-Preterists, I don’t mean to (I am sure you get it a lot). But try as I may to understand and find some degree of legitimacy in your theology, I can’t.
I am still not ready to say that it is damnable, but it seems to me to be an extremely serious departure from some essential elements in the Gospel. No matter how one defines orthodoxy, I cannot find a place for the eschatology of the hyper-Preterist. It is about as far as one can deviate from the beaten path.
You must understand where I come from. I make my living at trying to see the other side of theological issues. People who know me know this. So please don’t see me as simply brushing this option off because I feel uncomfortable with it or am so steeped in my tradition that I am unable to consider it. I by no means claim that I can be completely objective, but I do a pretty good job of training my bias to be my slave. It is one thing that I am really good at.
I will continue to examine this in the future, but have yet to find anyone who is balanced and a hyper-Preterist. When too much passion is thrown in the direction of pushing some eschatological issue—whether dispensational, preterist, or otherwise—red flags go up all over. Perspective must be maintained. If someone were to say, “This is what I believe (i.e. hyper-Preterism), but I very well might be wrong and I am not sure about this issue, it is just where I lean,” then I could take them more seriously. I would see that they recognize the enormous problems created by this system and in this recognition display intellectual honesty. I have yet to find this in the hyper-Preterist camp. What I have seen are booths at ETS giving away hyper-Preterist material saying everyone has wrong eschatology but them. I have seen books and websites that seem to think they have solved all the problems in biblical eschatology with a very simplistic answer. I have seen those who arrogantly and confidently dismiss the body of Christ’s consensual agreement about the future coming of Christ. They do this without fear saying, “We have it all figured out…it is so simple, there is no future resurrection!”
Buggers. How did we all get it so wrong?
To claim, as some often do,the legacy of the Reformers would be a serious misunderstanding of doctrinal development and the issues of the Reformation. The hyper-Preterist option to reform eschatology is not in any way parallel to what the Reformers brought to the table with regards to the doctrines of justification or authority. The Reformers did not produce an antithetical option of a historically established doctrine in either case. They had a great fear of introducing something new or outside of established orthodoxy. What they said was that the instrumental cause of justification, faith, was being blurred by works. They sought to reform this doctrine. As well, they believed that the authority of Scripture was being usurped by the institutional church. They sought to reform this as well. In both cases, their reform, agree with it or not, was not antithetical to any historically established truths. It was a correction, not a new creation.
Hyper-Preterism, on the other hand, is different. Not only does it create more serious biblical problems than it solves, but it produces a completely new eschatology that somehow has escaped the notice of the Church for 2000 years. It is not viable with any view history and the providential care of God over his Church. With this view of history, the Gospel that is produced must draw from the restorationist philosophy of the Jehovah’s Witness’ or Mormons. It says that the Church—Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic, indeed, everyone—have the Gospel wrong with regard to our future hope. The redemption of all things, the coming of Christ, judgment, resurrection, and the new heavens and earth is a past or present reality. We have a new Gospel for you. It is based in Scripture.
Sure it is. I challenge you to find one heresy that does not make such a claim.
In the end, I am still wrestling with to what degree this affects the Gospel. Either way, I do believe that hyper-Preterism corrupts the Gospel seriously, I just don’t know whether it produces a different Gospel to the degree of other “Christian” cults.
God help us to deal with such issues wisely.
P.S. Different issue: Do you think this type of posts will get the anti-Emergents off my back? . . . nah . . . I will get under their skin again later.
27 replies to "Is the Hyper-Preterist Gospel a Different Gospel? Part 2: My View"
Michael:
You ask, “Buggers. How did we all get it so wrong?”
Just Google “Charlie Samples The Greatest Hoax” and let Charlie’s booklet explain it to you. Your carnal nature has deceived you.
In Christ,
Larry
Michael,
The current backlash of preterism against orthodox theology poses a grave concern. Essentially, preterism teaches that the canon of Scripture is no longer current. This of course militates against any kind of “sola Scriptura” view, because the historic church has ALWAYS viewed the N.T. canon as current. Any Sola Scriptura theory must start with this assumption. Preterism, in denying that we have a current canon of Scripture, has created a cult worse than the Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Fallible men sit in judgment on the word of God and decide which portions they want to keep, and which to discard. The teachers of preterism are, for the most part, unregenerate men who have bitterly defected from the faith they once received. They now spend their time attempting to undermine orthodox theology. Most of these men do not belong to churches, nor are they affiliated with any kind of mainstream Christianity. They are liberals and skeptics at heart. I would strongly urge your readers not to listen to the lies connected with this heresy, which is basically an invention of the Jesuits. It is my current position that both “full” and “partial” preterists are equally heretical, inasmuch as they equally lead a rationalistic last-days assault upon the people of God.
Peace & Health,
Brian A. Simmons
http://antipreterist.wordpress.com
P.S.– The man who posted comment # is one of these individuals. He contacted me last year via email, accusing me of Asherah (i.e. phallic) worship because I believe in a future day of judgment. Most of these men have defected from the faith delivered to the saints, and now find nothing better to do with their time than to spit vitriol at those who preach and believe the Gospel authorized by Jesus Christ. The texts they hate most are those connected with the last days’ apostasy. That is because all of these texts speak of them personally and their little heresy called preterism.
Brian
Micheal said
“I have seen those who arrogantly and confidently dismiss the body of Christ’s consensual agreement about the future coming of Christ. They do this without fear saying, “We have it all figured out…it is so simple, there is no future resurrection!”
Buggers. How did we all get it so wrong?”
Do you not realize that this is the main argument that was thrown at Luther. You arrogant heretic…all of the Church would be wrong on salvation?
Euhhh…yes sir! We might be wrong but Scriptures are wright.
We are to adjust to the Bible not adjust the Bible to majority.
Hey Brian haven’t you got kicked out of this blog yet?
Shouldn’t be too long you slanderous …person.
Mr. Patton,
I would ask that you seriously reconsider your view concerning “Hyper-Preterists”. I for one believe in this view (prefer Full-Preterism.) I grew up in the Church and was saved early on and always believed in the “Futurist” view of the end times. When I studied for myself, years later on my own I began to question that view. I eventually adopted the “Partial-Preterist” view of the end times. I was very happy in this view for many years all the while not wanting to question the historic creeds of the Church. After even more study and prayer I began to slowly accept many Full-Preterist views until finally I became convinced of Full-Preterism which is what I believe today.
Full Preterism may not agree with only a few points of the Nicene Creed but I still believe most of what Orthodox Christianity has taught for the past 2000 years. Partial Preterists are argued with and told they are crazy but are still considered part of the one body of Christ. Full-Preterist’s are considered heretical and outside the faith and somehow ones belief in end time theology suddenly questions their salvation. We are ostrasized as a danger to the faith and considered as unwelcome even more then Atheists event though we proclaim that Christ is Lord and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
We have never questioned that Jesus was fully man and fully God and came down from heaven by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin mary, was crucified to reconcile us to God our Father and was resurrected physically on the third day. We have never questioned that God is three in one (doctrine of the trinity) and that only through Christ’s shed blood on the cross are we saved and that no one comes to the Father but through Him.
Full-Preterism does not believe in replacement theology that the Church replaced Israel but that all who call on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ are saved (encompassing Jew and Gentile alike.) We are all one through the atonement of Christ. There was nothing that anyone can do to be reconciled to God but only through His Son our Lord. Full-Preterism has been an advocate of a bodily resurrection of Christ and has never disputed that this has happened.
Full-Preterist’s are defenders of the faith and consider all who call on the name of the Lord are believers whether Futurists, historicists, Idealists or Preterist’s (partial or full.) End time theology is not a salvation issue. Salvation is based on what Jesus did for us, not wether we believe Matthew 24 is fulfilled or not. We are all part of the one body of Christ through Christ’s work and our faith in Him.
Full-Preterist’s may not believe that Jesus is coming back but so what! Do not all believers believe that Jesus is with us right now? Do we not all believe that He reigns within us to the glory of our Father. That all are forgiven who come to Him and repent? Is not Christ with us in all truth forever when we received Him as Lord?
Since we all agree that the above is true, how is the belief that all was fulfilled in the generation that Christ was speaking to suddenly change our salvation through the cross?
Are we not all brothers and sisters in Christ. Do Full-Preterist’s speak to Futurists as unsaved and to be excommunicated from our midst simply because they do not conform to our view? Never, even though I may disagree with their view, they are my brother and sister through Christ.
Wether Futurist, Historicist, Idealist, Full Preterist or Partial-Preterist Christ died for all of us and all of us believe in what He did.
Please understand, hate is what simply divides the body of Christ. We are to speak to all in truth but most importantly in Love. Anyone that calls upon the name of the Lord is my brother or sister no matter their eschatology.
Full-Preterism has never questioned that Christ is Lord of all and through His work has reconciled all who call upon His name to heaven once again to be in the presence of God our Father.
Salvation is through Christ alone. I hope that one day all will see only that and not eschatology and receive all who are one in Christ.
God Bless you and everyone here.
Luk 18:7 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them?
Luk 18:8 I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
“Nevertheless, etc. — that is, Yet ere the Son of man comes to redress the wrongs of His Church, so low will the hope of relief sink, through the length of the delay, that one will be fain to ask, Will He find any faith of a coming avenger left on the earth? From this we learn: (1) That the primary and historical reference of this parable is to the Church in its widowed, desolate, oppressed, defenseless condition during the present absence of her Lord in the heavens; (2) That in these circumstances importunate, persevering prayer for deliverance is the Church’s fitting exercise; (3) That notwithstanding every encouragement to this, so long will the answer be delayed, while the need of relief continues the same, and all hope of deliverance will have nearly died out, and “faith” of Christ’s coming scarcely to be found. But the application of the parable to prayer in general is so obvious as to have nearly hidden its more direct reference, and so precious that one cannot allow it to disappear in any public and historical interpretation.” ~Jamieson Fausset and Brown
so what!????????! you have to be kidding! to Christs second coming you say so what!! I’ve been back on the computer but a couple days. There is nothing but confusion and trash.
Is this where Replacement Theology comes from?
The Jews that are believers.
Read in OT how much they loved God and followed His covenant. They did not. God punished them many times. Sending them into captivity to Assyria,Babylon,Egypt.
He eve built another temple for them but the dame again.
This why He brings in a new covenant wriyten in their(Jews)
He came 1st century to save His lost sheep of Istael but the Hews still wanted to kill him. Read His parables.
Oh,
I just read about Preterism. Do people really think this way? No honestly, do people really think this way? This makes me sad. No wonder Hank Hanegraaf is always beating on John Hagee.
There’s not really a whole lot to say on this one.
Romans 11
1I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel saying,
3Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
A remnant of Israel elect by grace on no merit other than being chosen of God.
No idea what u are saying.
Read Isaiah,Jeremiah,Ezekiel.
They rejected God. They did. Read it. I did finally.
He did not quit loving them as His people. They could not and would not keep covenant with Him. He brought in the new covenant. A spiritual one written on their hearts.
Dalvation was fir the Jews. They rejected Him and His warnings.
Is Israel the body of Christ today?
No. The church is. Get mad at God if you believe He replaced you with the church for eternity.
Eph3:20,21
God wanted a real body of Saints at His expense.
Oh is it haggu who reaos 300k/yr.????
Kara, go read about futurism, with ideas such as a future holocaust sequel and ask if people are able to look it and think that’s sad too.
The thing that’s important to preterists is that Jesus himself gave assurance that many events would be coming soon, within that generation. Freed from the need to literalise apocalyptic language they see Revelation presaging the destruction of Jerusalem and the victory of the Christian Church over Rome. However partial preterists are also waiting for the resurrection from the dead and the final judgement. The Olivet discourse describes the destruction of Jerusalem and warns those listening to flee when the opportunity presents itself.
Jason C,
Jesus said in Matthew about the coming of the end of the age. We can see it is going to happen. People have long disputed that it will happen but we must go on what the Bible says without leaving parts out.
Matthew 24 Jesus says the temple would be torn down brick by brick and built up again in three days. Now if people refer this to his death and resurrection that means according to the hyper-preterists that his death and resurrection would have occurred in 70 ad. But to look at what happened at that time.
Antiochus Epiphanes was a worshipper of Saturnalia and his soldiers carried the banner into the temple at Jerusalem. It was Antiochus Epiphanes who burned the pig sacrifice. That was pagan destruction so I don’t see how the Christians can say a pagan overthrow established Christianity, unless there were Christians who took the pagan’s side in it. And if they did they violated the very Bible they believe in.
The things people don’t read, because what they read might tear apart the doctrine they hold, does tell a story of future holocaust. And if we were to deny that part we just don’t believe in the Bible. Why is Jesus in the book of Revelation a very Jewish rabbi? He holds a menorah, the furnishings of the holy of holies are there, the temple is exactly the same in design, and the New Jerusalem is built with the same blueprint. The twelve gates are not named for Christians…but one for each tribe is on the gates.
I have heard people of some churches say to me they don’t believe in the Old Testament because we are no longer under it so it must be disregarded, those same people say also they don’t read the four gospels because they also are under the old covenant, and these same people say they start reading the Bible at Acts 28, skipping parts of Romans, some Hebrews, most of what Peter wrote, the book of Jude, the book of James and the first part of Revelation.
So if you miss out on these books and chapters then you get an incomplete view of the Bible and teach this same misinformation. The fig tree simply does not apply to the Jewish state of Israel, because Jesus Himself applied the olive branch to the Jews, as did Paul. Any teaching that denies the Jews is merely a throwback to the original church fathers hatred and anti-semitism. We know from historical accounts that Christians were asked to help the Jews…and some Christians turned their backs because they were taught to do so. There simply is no excuse for anti-semitism and preterism is more about anti-semitism than it is about being Christian. That’s what I say and I believe.
What I am beginning to see is this, there are two kinds of Christianity…one kind is descended from Judaism with Judaism as the mother faith….and the other kind is descended from pagan religions. I am by no means a “Judaizer” because we have come through Jesus Christ and can’t fall back on former works.
The Christianity that comes from paganism still invokes paganism in their views and still follows those old traditions in some form. Christianity is not really a newer tradition.
“Where is He that is born King of the Jews?” and INRI….King of the Jews, Son of God. If you deny Jesus then you deny his natural heritage and his mother’s relatives who still may be living today. If Jesus is a man who was born by GOD’s own pleasure to the Jews, then who are we to toss them aside?
********************************************************
Cadis
so what!????????! you have to be kidding! to Christs second coming you say so what!! I’ve been back on the computer but a couple days. There is nothing but confusion and trash.
********************************************************
The issue is, is the belief in Christ’s 2nd coming as physical necessary for salvation? I don’t believe it is. Full-Preterists believe that if the Old Testament “comings” of God in His judgements against Babylon, Edom, Nineveh etc. were not physical, since none of the celestial events and cloud comings never physically occurred and yet those empires that existed in the time of their prophetic writings to Isaiah do not exist anymore and therefore fulfilled, then the “comings” in the New Testament should be viewed in the same way. This is scripture interpreting scripture. If God’s audience in Isaiah were for empires in the future (even though they existed in the time of Isaiah and therefore the audience) then the audience that originally heard the prophecies were wrong in their assumption that they were to be fulfilled against the nations currently in opposition to Israel. How is this correct? Are Babylon, Edom, Nineveh etc. TODAY guilty of the sins of the nation that existed in the time of Isaiah? This I don’t believe to be correct but nonetheless:
How is this view a threat to ones salvation? Most may not believe the Full-Preterist (and partial as well) as being correct but how does this suddenly cast the believer outside of the Church when Christ is still Lord of our lives? We are all the same through Christ’s atoning work on Calvery.
********************************************************
Kara Little
Is this where Replacement Theology comes from?
********************************************************
First off as I explained before, Preterism (full & partial) do not believe in “replacement theology”. It cannot since Israel in the 1st century did receive the Gospel. The Jewish believers of the 1st Century such as the disciples and many others that were preached to by Peter and others did receive the Gospel. The one tree was made up of Jewish believers first and then the believing gentiles were grafted in and has been growing for 2000 years as more and more believers from every nation on earth have received the Gospel. The Jewish believers of the 1st century was the remnant God spoke about that would receive Him. Since Preterism believes this, there was never a replacement. Also, the Church was not some hiccup that happened due to most of ethnic Israel’s unbelief but was always meant to be part of the Kingdom of God. The very fact that many Jews received the Gospel means there cannot be a replacement. Israel did receive the Gospel and ever since the 1st century is open to them as well as every other nation. Israel received the Gospel first and then it went to the gentiles. This is in accordance with Jesus’s own words that
“not all Israel is Israel”
Only those who received Him were Israel. Those of ethnic Israel who did not receive Him were not Israel. Only with those of faith are Israel. If Christ meant that only Israel in the end of days would receive Him then Christ’s own words that they would be saved have no meaning whatsoever since it was meant only for the last generation of Israel, not those who originally heard Him and received the Gospel. If that is true then most of Israel for the past 2000 years has been lost and only the last generation is in the plan of God. That was never God’s plan. His plan was for Israel (those of faith, not just of ethnicity) would be drawn to Him and they have been for the past 2000 years each and every day along with believing gentiles making ONE people of God.
Remember the scripture in Romans “there is no Jew or Gentile, all are one in Christ”. Blood line or race has no meaning. It is only by faith in Christ that we are saved. Most of Israel argued with Jesus in saying we have Abraham as our Father. Jesus Himself stated that if Abraham was their Father then they would receive Him because Abraham look forward to this day (when Jesus came) but since they did not receive Him and said He had a demon in Him Jesus stated that their Father was not Abraham.
The whole purpose of the Old Covenant was to reveal the New Covenant in Christ. If you rejected Christ (the New Covenant) then you also rejected the Old Covenant. That is what Jesus meant.
********************************************************
Matthew 24 Jesus says the temple would be torn down brick by brick and built up again in three days. Now if people refer this to his death and resurrection that means according to the hyper-preterists that his death and resurrection would have occurred in 70 ad. But to look at what happened at that time.
The things people don’t read, because what they read might tear apart the doctrine they hold, does tell a story of future holocaust. And if we were to deny that part we just don’t believe in the Bible.
********************************************************
Matthew 24 never stated that the temple would be rebuilt in 3 days. Jesus stated this in John 2 after He threw out the money changers and the Jews asked Him what authority does He have to do this. The scripture was clear that Jesus was speaking of His body and not the physical temple. All Christ stated in Matthew 24 was one statement that the temple would be destroyed and nothing else when the disciples were admiring the physical temple. Jesus then stated the signs that it would occur and stated that “this genration” would not pass away until all these things have happened. In every place in scripture that the term “this generation” is used it always meant the generation then living. The word for generation is “genea”. If in every other place in scripture “this generation” meant those currently living, how can we change the meaning in Matthew 24. Most common translations state “or race” so to throw the audience into any time in the future but if Jesus meant another generation, He would have stated “that generation”. Jesus did not say that. Also the greek word of generation is “genea” in Matthew 24. If Jesus meant race then we would have to have the Greek word “genos” which means race. That is not the case. This was fulfilled exactly when Jesus said it would be. Christ spoke the Olivet Discourse around 30-33 A.D. 40 years later which is a biblical generation the temple was destroyed.
Preterists do not make up anything to fit there view. Jesus was clear that “this generation” would witness the destruction of the temple and they did. This is direct accordance with Matthew 23 when Jesus stated to Israel that because they would stone the prophets and reject the Son of Man that their temple would be left to them desolate. Matthew 24 is the prophetic fulfillment of that Judgement a chapter earlier.
********************************************************
So if you miss out on these books and chapters then you get an incomplete view of the Bible and teach this same misinformation. The fig tree simply does not apply to the Jewish state of Israel, because Jesus Himself applied the olive branch to the Jews, as did Paul. Any teaching that denies the Jews is merely a throwback to the original church fathers hatred and anti-semitism. We know from historical accounts that Christians were asked to help the Jews…and some Christians turned their backs because they were taught to do so. There simply is no excuse for anti-semitism and preterism is more about anti-semitism than it is about being Christian. That’s what I say and I believe.
********************************************************
How does Full-Preterism remove Israel from the Olive Tree? Jesus was clear that only those who had faith in Him were Israel. Those without faith had the devil as their father. The Jewish believers of the 1st century (the remnant) did receive Him so Israel was not done away with. Believing gentiles were then added along with them to the Olive tree of which they all shared in the blessings of God. There cannot be any replacement or doing away of Israel. Only those of faith could become part of the Kingdom of God. The very fact that Jews did receive Him means that Israel did receive the Gospel.
How is Full-Preterism or Partial-Preterism anti-semetic? We believe that only Israel of the 1st century was guilty of the blood of the saints and that generation was judged for their unbelief and rejection of Christ who came to them first in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 A.D. exactly a generation after Jesus spoke judgement against them. Israel today is not guilty of the actions of their ancestors or the blood of the saints. Israel today has no prophetic significance, anymore then India, Pakistan, Russia, or any other nation. If Matthew 23 and 24 were not about 1st century unbelieving Israel then Israel today can look forward to being regathered to Palestine and suffering a cataclysmic judgement resulting in 2/3 of their city being destroyed when the end of days occurs for unbelief and the blood of the saints of the 1st century. Israel today will not be judged for the actions of Israel of the 1st century. The Gospel is open to all Jews and Gentiles and haas been for 2000 years. The Israel of Faith has been growing everyday since Christ made up of all who have faith in Jesus.
Ethnic Israel today will not be destroyed and has been given the Gospel as well as everyother nation in the world. How is this anti-semitic? God is drawing not just ethnic Israel but every person in every nation of every race and sex to Him and will continue to do so. Ethnic Israel has the Gospel available to them. I believe that the Kingdom of God is not in physical building in accordance with Christ’s words that
Luke 17
20Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, 21nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within[b] you.”
The Kingdom of God is not physical. It is in those of faith who have received Him. It is not fulfilled with physical buildings coming from heaven or by anything physical on earth but by the great commission for all nations to be baptised in Him. As new believers receive Him each and everyday the Kingdom of God is spread. The Kingdom of God is revealed not by buildings but by those who already inhabit it……us! We are the Kingdom of God of whom members from every race including ethnic Israel have entered through the blood of Christ. One day the entire earth will be filled with all believers in Him. Why have we given up on the idea that we are to preach the Gospel to the Nations (not just people) and that all nations will one day receive Him because God is able to convert the world since Christ is on the throne and seated at the right hand of the Father.
We have been seated with Him. Praise God!
God Bless!
An interesting perspective on the exegetical misuse of the the term “this generation” in preterism can be found here.
http://www.cicministry.org/commentary/issue100b
mbaker,
I think I might be blind–I can’t see the article you are referring to at the above link. Help?
Please pardon my ‘oops’. The link should be:
http://www.cicministry.org/commentary/issue100b.htm
Thanks, I’ll read it as soon as I have the opportunity.
The Thayer’s Lexicon definitions of the Greek word translated generation, gives the specific meaning of the word discussed in the article linked above.
So are we to believe the preterist point of view by taking the word ‘generation’ literally to mean just that applied to that particular generation of believers who saw Christ in person, or what the rest of the Bible says about Christ’s coming in context of the entire counsel of God?
It seems to me just taking it as a generational concept would cancel out large, and extremely important parts of the God’s word to us, and prove Christ to be a liar as to Him dying for the sins for all past, present and future generations. The Saduccees, for instance, believed the second coming had already taken place, and there would be no other.
How does that coincide, one way or another, with the His coming promise to judge the world in person? It seems to me that would cancel out whole books of the Bible in order to proof text a personal agendas well as those of us in generations that followed His.
mbaker,
I have been wondering the same thing. The last chapters of the Book of Revelation specifically would seem to be canceled totally by such an approach. I noticed someone above talked about not taking a lot of things in the Bible literally to make the preterist approach work. I don’t see how one could even spiritulize huge portions of the Bible and have them make any sence at all.
Somehow, it would seem to me like a very strange way of interpreting the Bible if a person is to take one particular verse and then bend the whole rest of the Bible to fit that one verse.
mbaker and cheryl u,
perhaps it will be easy to follow your discussion as it has more clarity and thoughtful consideration.
Marcelo
Matthew 24, that’s what I offer and I believe Jesus knows what He is talking about. There is simply too much in the Bible too reference for this. But consider this…did God raise up the stones to Abraham’s children? He could have and that is the point that was being made. He could have. But He didn’t.
We are Israel by faith only because we have been adopted and grafted in. And we come to Jehovah through Jesus, that is what makes us spiritually Israel, but all the spiritual has a natural and the Jews are the natural children of the flesh of Abraham, they came first, God blessed them and said we all must bless them as well.
I read Matthew 24 as a futurist. Not a preterist. The chapter ends with “immediately after the tribulation of those days..then shall the end come”.
I am saddened by this whole concept of preterism. There is nothing about it that gives me comfort because I realize that since the days Israel has gone into Egypt they have been persecuted so many times. And to deny them today of who they are ethnically is a gross injustice. When the city was sacked in 70 ad it merely proved what the world really thinks of them.
The Jews were forced into Europe because of the Crusades. Then people say they can’t be who they say because they were in Europe. What happened to the Sephardic Jews of Spain and Portugal? They were forced out. So by edicts and pogroms and forceful expulsions these people were made to move from country to country.
They made significant contributions in the countries they went into, their money was taken from them and then they were forced to live in smaller communities until time after time they were forced to leave again. And now people deny them from even being people. What a gross injustice to the millions and millions of Jewish people of the Diaspora. I am just upset and saddened.
********************************************************
Kara Kittle on 06 May 2009 at 10:39 pm #
Marcelo
Matthew 24, that’s what I offer and I believe Jesus knows what He is talking about. There is simply too much in the Bible too reference for this. But consider this…did God raise up the stones to Abraham’s children? He could have and that is the point that was being made. He could have. But He didn’t.
We are Israel by faith only because we have been adopted and grafted in. And we come to Jehovah through Jesus, that is what makes us spiritually Israel, but all the spiritual has a natural and the Jews are the natural children of the flesh of Abraham, they came first, God blessed them and said we all must bless them as well.
********************************************************
Kara
Jesus said He would raise up children for Abraham. What about the 1st Century Jews who received the Gospel such as Luke, Matthew. Mark, John, Stephen, Barnabas and all those preached to by the disciples who received Christ in the cities? To believe that Christ did not raise up children for Abraham is to forget about all the Jews that received Him. Are they not a remnant of the majority of Israel who rejected the Gospel, the first fruits of the Great Commission?
Were not the first century believers through the disciples all Jews and then Paul began bringing the Gospel to the gentiles? Why ignore them. Jesus did raise up children for Abraham.
Jesus was firm when He told the crowd that not all Israel is Israel. They claimed Abraham as their Father because of race/lineage. Jesus said otherwise. Jesus said Abraham looked forward to His day. Abraham was credited with righteousness through faith and Jesus was clear that Abraham would receive Him (faith.)
If race/lineage made Israel the chosen people why Did Christ state that since they would not receive Him they did not have Abraham as their Father? This is Christ’s words. Those who did not receive Him were not Israel. Only those of Israel with faith in Him were Israel. The gentiles with faith in Christ were then included with believing Israel making one people of God. The Israel of faith.
The plan of God was for all people, not just ethnic Israel to receive Him. The Gospel came first to Jews and then to the Gentiles. Only those of faith could come to the one olive tree whose first fruits were the Jewish believers of the 1st century. Does God see race or sex? See Romans:
Romans 10
12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”[f]
Scripture is clear that there is no distinction, if there is then there are 2 people of God, the Church and Israel. Israel would then be limited to a final generation in the future while all past generations for the past 2000 years have been lost. Does that make sense?
Jews and Gentiles of faith in Christ together since the 1st century make up the one children of God and has been going on for the past 2000 years and will not stop. This is Israel. All of every generation of every century through all time who call on the name of the Lord is Israel. That is a plan. It is ALL based on faith.
God Bless.
Kara,
Thanks.
It’s interesting that folks who would persecute Jews because of their ethnicity forget that Jesus was a Jew Himself, and an often overlooked factoid is that Jews usually stoned people to death, like they did Stephen.
However, we can see that they did not stone Jesus, even though he was turned over to them, but He instead was crucified after the Roman custom. So it was a divine prophecy being fulfilled, despite the decrees and the traditions of men.
I think some forms of preterism are like that of the gnostic teaching that the resurrection represented Christ’s ‘second’ coming, which obviously was taken by them literally as well, to mean that it was already a done deal. That’s why I think it is silly for anyone to take literally the parts of the Bible that are obviously meant to be comparisons to prove a point, not the point itself. Otherwise we would all be walking around with no eyes, if we took that scripture literally and plucked them out when we sinned!
However, I think one thing that really blows holes in the preterism theory is that His own disciples, and the apostle Paul, preached salvation and the future coming of Christ as a hope for all generations who would follow them. They obviously were not referring just to their generation, otherwise we could not accept the words of John, the disciple of Christ,who wrote Revelation, as truth.
In fact, Christ Himself also said no one knew the hour of His return, including Him, so one would not think He would have said such a thing if He was just referring to His own generation.
And certainly, if anyone is going to take the preterist point of view seriously, then it wouldn’t make any sense at all for the book of Revelation to have been necessary to have been included in the Bible in the first place. It is called a Revelation of Jesus Christ, and deals with aspects of Christ’s coming back to judge the world. Certain future events, which it gives in much detail, have to take place first.
That’s why I think that preterism is really more of an over actualized concept of eschatology, rather than valid theology.
mbaker,
that is right, if the gathering away already happened, then where is our hope? We know that Mary and Martha both believed in the Resurrection in the last day. And old prophets did come out of their grave when Jesus died.
Marcelo,
Jesus said God could, but never did say he would…you need to understand the difference in those words. Jesus said…you say you have Abraham to your father…but wait..wasn’t He also a child of Abraham Himself? And did He not say of the woman who was healed “Is she not a daughter of Abraham”?
Jesus said could, indicating the power that God has. Jesus said there would be some standing here who would not taste death…and that was before He even died. What about that?
Perhaps people should educate themselves before condemning a particular view. Listen and learn: http://www.bereanbiblechurch.org/eschatology.php
If you still don’t see how preterism is Biblical then at least you do so with the knowledge of what it is.