Preterism

Preterism
​

It is an ironic development - for me at least - that I have finally become
convinced of the Preterist view. I say "ironic" because, years ago, I would argue against the position, even banning the topic for awhile at ABCProphecy, a discussion group I started at Yahoo back in the 90s.

And yet there are certain scriptural sticking points that just would never get resolved otherwise. Even Amillennialism had no answer for these.

Perhaps the biggest factor that turned me towards Preterism was that my previous belief of Amill - much as I hated to admit it - just had no answer for Christ's many promises to come to His own "soon", or "quickly". And that He had told them at the time of the Transfiguration that some of them would still be alive when He came into His kingdom.

Have you ever really thought that about Christ's prophecy to His disciple before the Transfiguration? He clearly said that "some here" (= some who were at that very time listening to Christ's words) would not see death until they see the Kingdom coming in power, Christ coming into His kingdom? When did this happen?

"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." Mark 9:1

The Bible Gateway, I noticed, try to steer the interpretation with their
interposed and (of course) uninspired titles:

They have rendered the NKJV of Matt. 16:27 - 17:1 like this:

____________________

27 For the Son of Man will come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and then He will reward each according to his works.

Jesus Transfigured on the Mount

28 Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom."
_____________________

Where did that subtitle "Jesus Transfigured on the Mount" come from? From the editor's presupposition, that is where. By putting that title right between verses 27 and 28 they try to steer the latter verse away toward the subsequent transfiguration account.

But does it belong there? No. Not at all. I believe they are sundering
what God has put together.

Consider how lame a prediction Jesus would be making if the transfiguration was indeed the fulfillment of v. 28: "Some of you disciples will be alive still in a few days." That clearly cannot be the intent of the prophecy.

What about the fulfillment at Pentecost? That would still be too soon, merely a matter of weeks.

But neither can it be way in the future. All of the disciples Christ was
speaking to would have been long-dead. No, the only option IMO would be AD 70.

There is more to this than this one proof, but this is all I have time for now.

Postscript: I have already been asked now by a number of readers: What type of Preterism do I subscribe to? Well, I don't subscribe to any of them (Partial, Full, Consistent, Hyper, etc.). It is not good to rush to identify with certain groups that, for all I know, have serious heretical beliefs - and such is the case with some who call themselves "preterist". Of course, the same is true for every other "ism".

All I know is this: Bible evidence has fully convinced me of the validity of that main issue for which preterism is known - Christ's coming into His Kingdom within the timeframe which He had given His disciples.

 

I would rather follow what Christ plainly said - that He would come back into His kingdom within the lifetime of most of His disciple he was speaking to.

"Let God be true and every man a liar."

There have been in my lifetime just a very few "click!" moments. This preterism issue, for me, is one of those. It makes total sense. And it doesn't make Christ into a liar or - as CS Lewis characterized Him - ignorant.

 

Anyone reading the last book of Josephus's Jewish War can see how calamity found out the Jews throughout Judea and many other far-flung places in the Empire. For that matter the Roman Empire itself at this very time suffered tremendous upheavals in places like Rome (69AD - the year of 4 emperors), Gaul, Britain, Spain, Parthia, Libya, etc.

A quicker read of the above events can be found in the recent addition of Ussher's Annals of World History. This excellent new edition (edited by Pierce) has a convenient tabulation of the casualties suffered by the Jews in all of these places.

 

Please read more carefully those verses that describe the reign of Christ. He rules amidst His enemies. That is happening right now.

 

I would have to say I am a full preterist. That is not the same as a hyper preterist. Unfortunately I don't have time at present to elaborate.

 

Here is a quote that pretty much explains my position. See also my comments below it. His quotes are in green. The quote is from:
http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/the-nature-of-the-resurrection?commentId=1632544%3AComment%3A71894

Jesus was demonstrating by his resurrection, as he stood in front of his disciples with the SAME body he had in the tomb, what the NATURE of resurrection is: freedom from Sin and Death that came "through the one man" Adam. One does not have to be whisked away from earth. One does not need a "new body" free from blemishes. One needs to be put to death in Christ (sown), and raised with him in "newness of life" (raised). No new bodies needed. Only faith in the Resurrection, Jesus Christ, will do.

Now, church history has seen this perspective, and call it "positional resurrection" or "spiritual resurrection" in that through participation "in Christ" we "have been made alive with Christ". BUT, they ADD that one day, we will "really" and "fully" be "like Christ" with glorified bodies.....but this is precisely what brings us around to the 3 problems-solutions I mentioned above. Preterism sees those problem, and fixes them, but jettisons the "traditional" addition of Augustine as unnecessary. Paul is not talking about "getting new bodies" or "glorified bodies" at all.

As I understand it, as believers we were raised in Christ. I know that when I die -when this physical body is gone - I will ever be with the Lord.

 

I was partial preterist for a long time but there were some verses that finally nudged me onward. One such verse is Hebrews 9:28. Here is the context, 9:26b - 28:

but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, 28 so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

I noticed here there were only two comings, not three. The first coming was in His incarnation (v.26 - 28a). The second was, apart from sin, for salvation (28b). These two comings - not three - meant that all of Christ's comings that weren't of the Gospel times had to be either:
A. All AD70
B. All at some future date.

Well, since I was clearly convinced that some of the verses in the Bible refer to AD70 then the rest of them must also. And, personally, the more I studied this the more I find that they fit in quite nicely.

 

I would say that I am full preterist. Please see my other comments in the "first resurrection" thread.