Partial Preterism

[Zinc]

I am indeed a big fan of NTW. I think that indeed makes me a "partial preterist". And as per another thread, I do not believe Matthew 24:30-31 speaking of the 2nd Coming.

William Lane Craig commenting on partial preterism:

"Finally the third point that I want to make is that like the rapture view I think the real Achilles heel of the preterist view is the resurrection of the dead. You see, Paul looked forward as we read to Christ’s parousia, or coming, and the resurrection of the dead. Remember in 1 Thessalonians 4 he says that Christ himself will descend from heaven with a shout of command and the archangels call and the trumpet of God and the dead in Christ will rise first. And in 1 Corinthians 15 he says that the trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised imperishable and we shall be changed. He connected the return of Christ to the resurrection of the dead and the destruction of death itself. Now Paul’s letters were written prior to AD 70. 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians were written in the AD 50s. So what the preterist has to say here is that Paul was looking forward to some other event than the event predicted by Jesus of Nazareth in his Olivet Discourse. And to me that’s just utterly implausible. Where do you think Paul got his ideas? He got them from Jesus, and from Jesus’ teaching on the second coming. In order to break apart the resurrection of the dead from the coming of the son of man these preterists have to say that what Paul writes about in 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians, is not the same event that Jesus is talking about, but he’s looking for some other event. And that just seems utterly implausible. It’s drawing distinctions where in fact no distinctions exist. So, for those reasons, as attractive as this view is in terms of explaining Mark 13:30 – that this generation shall not pass away before all these things take place – at the end of the day I’m just not persuaded that this view holds up. It seems to me that it’s just too implausible, and that it’s forcing texts to say something that they really don’t say."

http://www.rfmedia.org/RF_audio_video/Defender_podcast/20080224TheDoctrineoftheLastThingsPart3.mp3


There are various parallels between 1 Thess. 4/5 and the Olivet Discourse. I would agree with Craig here that splitting up 1 Thess. 4 and Matt. 24:30-31 as two different things looks "utterly implausible". It's not only a tactic of partial preterism. I believe that dispensationalism also does it.

 

[Zinc]

This entire positions rests on a radical misunderstanding of how these texts are used in the Biblical tradition. We know for a fact that such language is not intended to be taken literally – it is a literary device used by the prophet to emphasize the theological significance of events that do not involve the end of the world but rather changes in the socio-political order, the rise and fall of specific nations and empires. There are many examples of this. Consider this from Isaiah 13...


Jesus was born into this tradition, he was steeped in this tradition. No first century Jew (who knew his Old Testament) listening to the discourse of Mark 13 (or its parallels) would take such language literally as denoting literal end of the world events. He would have interpreted such language in accordance with Biblical precedent – as a literary device to ascribe theological significance to non end of the world events....


So when Jesus uses such language in the New Testament, we need to remember the cultural convention of His day re how that language would be read. Such statements are not to be taken literally.

The position of N.T. Wright is controversial:

"For Wright, such passages show that the Old Testament prophets used cosmic calamity language for events in the socio-political realm. He then maintains that Jewish apocalypticists and other Jewish writers did likewise. But he does not demonstrate the latter point through a careful analysis of the relevant passages in post-Biblical apocalyptic and related writings. Indeed, he hardly engages with this material at all."

"even if the orginally intended meaning of the catastrophe language in Isaiah 13; 34, etc., could be establised with absolute certainty, subsequent post-biblical Jewish usage of this kind of language... has to be regarded as more important for interpreting Mk 13.24-25, and the fact remains that this evidence does not support a narrow socio-political reading of these verses."

(Edward Adams, "The Stars Will Fall from Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and its World")

 

[Zinc]

Here is part of the reason. In Matthew 24:30-31, Jesus quotes from Daniel 7 when He uses the phrase "the Son of Man coming on the clouds". What is Daniel 7 about. It is not about a descent of the Son of Man (as would be the case if you see Matthew 24:30-31 as describing the second coming. It is instead an ascent in vindication following the defeat of the "beast".

I would say, "quotes from", is going a bit too far. What is undoubtedly correct is that the language has been influenced by Daniel 7:13. When the New Testament uses the Old Testament, are we always talking strict use? Or how about the NT may use the OT in a more "loose" non-literal way?

If the NT takes influence from the OT in this kind of way, then fair enough, the OT text in question is worth considering. But it doesn't logically determine the meaning of the New Testament.

I think we have strong evidence from the NT that Matthew 24:30 was intended to speak of a "coming to earth". As mentioned, I would consider 1 Thess. 4/5 to be a parallel tradition. And I would take that as a "coming to earth".


Looking at the Didache:

"And then shall appear the signs of the truth: first, the sign of an outspreading in heaven, then the sign of the sound of the trumpet. And third, the resurrection of the dead -- yet not of all, but as it is said: "The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him." Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven."

Didache. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (translation Roberts-Donaldson).

It makes a similar statement to Matthew 24:30. And it is tied to a resurrection that seems to be of the same type as in 1 Thess. 4.

So we have a first century source using the language for a "coming to earth".


Also, as you want to bring in Old Testament allusions:

For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. (Matthew 24:21)

Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 13:43)

[1] And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.
[2] And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.
[3] And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever. (Daniel 12)

The Olivet Discourse and the related Matt. 13 text appear to allude to a resurrection.

 

[Drew]

The position of N.T. Wright is controversial:

"For Wright, such passages show that the Old Testament prophets used cosmic calamity language for events in the socio-political realm. He then maintains that Jewish apocalypticists and other Jewish writers did likewise. But he does not demonstrate the latter point through a careful analysis of the relevant passages in post-Biblical apocalyptic and related writings. Indeed, he hardly engages with this material at all."

I have read 2 of Wright's "big books", but I cannot remember with certaintly whether he deals with the "latter point", but I think that that he did. Now I am not sure what the objection is here - it is not clear what the writer quoted here would see as a "careful" analysis".

But even if NTW did not deal with non-Biblical writings, the Biblical material itself strongly supports his argument - the predictions of the fall of Babylon and Edom (from Isaiah) are both expressed using the language of cosmic collapse.

"even if the orginally intended meaning of the catastrophe language in Isaiah 13; 34, etc., could be establised with absolute certainty, subsequent post-biblical Jewish usage of this kind of language... has to be regarded as more important for interpreting Mk 13.24-25, and the fact remains that this evidence does not support a narrow socio-political reading of these verses."

(Edward Adams, "The Stars Will Fall from Heaven: Cosmic Catastrophe in the New Testament and its World")

I suspect Adams is saying this "even if such "cosmic catastrophe" language is used in Isaiah, the Jewish culture could have evolved between the time Isaiah was written and the time Mark was written, so we cannot be sure that the same literary conventions were still in broad use". Well, perhaps, but perhaps not.

This material from Adams is simply a statement. And statements are easy to make. I am prepared to research what NTW really puts forward as the relevant evidence if you (Zinc) are willing to actually make a case to challenge this.

From my admittedly fuzzy recollection, I do believe that NTW did indeed treat this whole issue of apocalyptic in great detail in either "New Testament and the People of God" or "Jesus and the Victory of God". And I do think his argument embraced more than simply Old Testament material.

 

[Zinc]

I suspect Adams is saying this "even if such "cosmic catastrophe" language is used in Isaiah, the Jewish culture could have evolved between the time Isaiah was written and the time Mark was written, so we cannot be sure that the same literary conventions were still in broad use". Well, perhaps, but perhaps not.

This material from Adams is simply a statement. And statements are easy to make.

Well in his own work he spent a chapter--close to 50 pages I think--going through the relevant Jewish literature. He obviously doesn't think Wright did that.

 

[Zinc]

From an early Christian source:

Barnabas 15:5

And He rested on the seventh day. this He meaneth; when His Son
shall come, and shall abolish the time of the Lawless One, and shall
judge the ungodly, and shall change the sun and the moon and the
stars, then shall he truly rest on the seventh day.

The Epistle of Barnabas (translation J.B. Lightfoot)

This language seems to be some sort of parallel to that used in the Olivet Discourse. Compare with:

And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in the stars... (Luke 21:25)

Is it symbolic language?

Whatever the case, the source is dated after 70 CE. So presumably this type of language can be used just fine for a "2nd coming"?

 

[Lehigh3]

It was apocalyptic language, just as the prophets used.

From the Epistle of Barnabas:

16:16 Again, it was revealed how the city and the temple and the people of Israel should be betrayed. 16:17 For the scripture saith; 16:18 And it shall be in the last days, that the Lord shall deliver up the sheep of the pasture and the fold and the tower thereof to destruction. 16:19 And it came to pass as the Lord spake. 16:20 But let us enquire whether there be any temple of God. 16:21 There is; 16:22 in the place where He Himself undertakes to make and finish it. 16:23 For it is written ; 16:24 And it shall come to pass, when the week is being accomplished, the temple of God shall be built gloriously in the name of the Lord. 16:25 I find then that there is a temple. 16:26 How then shall it be built in the name of the Lord 16:27 Understand ye. 16:28 Before we believed on God, the abode of our heart was corrupt and weak, a temple truly built by hands; 16:29 for it was full of idolatry and was a house of demons, because we did whatsoever was contrary to God. 16:30 But it shall be built in the name of the Lord. 16:31 Give heed then that the temple of the Lord may be built gloriously. 16:32 How 16:33 Understand ye. 16:34 By receiving the remission of our sins and hoping on the Name we became new, created afresh from the beginning. 16:35 Wherefore God dwelleth truly in our habitation within us. 16:36 How 16:37 The word of His faith, the calling of His promise, 16:38 the wisdom of the ordinances, the commandments of the teaching, He Himself prophesying in us, He Himself dwelling in us, opening for us who had been in bondage unto death the door of the temple, 16:39 which is the mouth, and giving us repentance leadeth us to the incorruptible temple. 16:40 For he that desireth to be saved looketh not to the man, 16:41 but to Him that dwelleth and speaketh in him, being amazed at this that he has never at any time heard these words from the mouth of the speaker, nor himself ever desired to hear them. 16:42 This is the spiritual temple built up to the Lord.


The "last days" passed. That is when the Lord returned above the skies of Judea. Both Tacitus & Josephus record the "cosmic" & terrestrial events.

 

[Stormcrow]

From an early Christian source:

Barnabas 15:5

Whatever the case, the source is dated after 70 CE. So presumably this type of language can be used just fine for a "2nd coming"?

Since you couldn't find any canonical works in the NT credibly dated after 70AD to prove your point, you've decided to cite non-canonical works instead???

 

[Stormcrow]

WOW! LOOK AT THIS!!!

"Scarlett, when you are forty-five, perhaps you will know what I'm talking about and then perhaps you, too, will be tired of imitation gentry and shoddy manners and cheap emotions. But I doubt it. I think you'll always be more attracted by glister than by gold. Anyway, I can't wait that long to see. And I have no desire to wait. It just doesn't interest me. I'm going to hunt in old towns and old countries where some of the old times must still linger. I'm that sentimental. Atlanta's too raw for me, too new."

"Stop," she said suddenly. She had hardly heard anything he had said. Certainly her mind had not taken it in. But she knew she could no longer endure with any fortitude the sound of his voice when there was no love in it.

"Gone With The Wind" by Margaret Mitchell

Not a single mention of Christ's 1st century return and it's written LONG AFTER 70 CE!!!

Gee! Just guess it goes to show you can use just about anything to prove any point you want to make, huh???

 

[Zinc]

Since you couldn't find any canonical works in the NT credibly dated after 70AD to prove your point, you've decided to cite non-canonical works instead???

Firstly, there is nothing wrong with bringing in extra-Biblical sources to show how language was used.

Secondly, the Bible has numerous works that were very possibly written after 70 CE.

 

[Zinc]

WOW! LOOK AT THIS!!!

Not a single mention of Christ's 1st century return and it's written LONG AFTER 70 CE!!!

Gee! Just guess it goes to show you can use just about anything to prove any point you want to make, huh???

This is one of the most foolish examples I have ever seen!!

You quote a modern fictional work that doesn't mention a first century "2nd coming".

This isn't the same at all as the fact that we have early-ish Christian sources (including very possibly Biblical works) that do comment on the parousia and which contradict the teaching of full preterism.

Your example is just utterly irrelevant folly. And of course it has nothing to say about my use of the source in this thread and the point I am making here. (That the type of language could be used for an "end of the world" 2nd coming.)

 

[Zinc]

It was apocalyptic language, just as the prophets used.

Used for what in this source? Presumably an "end of the world" 2nd coming?

 

[Stormcrow]

This isn't the same at all as the fact that we have early-ish Christian sources (including very possibly Biblical works) that do comment on the parousia and which contradict the teaching of full preterism.

Name one. Just one.

And yes, I was using the absurdity of Margaret Mitchell to illustrate the absurdity of your using the Epistle of Barnabas, a non-canonical book which cannot in any way, shape, or form be trusted as an authentic product of New Testament apostleship or authority!

If you're going to resort to nonsense like that, I'll continue to illustrate it with examples like mine.

Secondly, the Bible has numerous works that were very possibly written after 70 CE.

You've yet to provide any credible evidence to support this oft-repeated statement of yours. Even your sources are ambivalent about the books they say were written after 70 AD (got a problem with Anno Domini, do we?)

Further, you've yet to provide a single verse from any canonical source that supports your view that a 1st century parousia didn't happen: something which should be easy to do if - as you say - parts of the NT were written after 70 AD!

 

[Zinc]

And yes, I was using the absurdity of Margaret Mitchell to illustrate the absurdity of your using the Epistle of Barnabas, a non-canonical book which cannot in any way, shape, or form be trusted as an authentic product of New Testament apostleship or authority!

There is no problem at all using extra-Biblical works as evidence for how language could be used.

Your own example, however, is just extremely foolish. The only thing it "illustrates" is the irrationality of the person trying to use it.

 

[Zinc]

Name one. Just one.

Works have already been mentioned.

Further, you've yet to provide a single verse from any canonical source that supports your view that a 1st century parousia didn't happen: something which should be easy to do if - as you say - parts of the NT were written after 70 AD!

You will assume for the sake of argument that they are late dated? Then I will show you verses which contradict preterism...

 

[Lehigh3]

Works have already been mentioned.

But you ignored the Christian scholar in the link I told you about the history of Preterism in the church. I must correct you immediately. They all had preterist leanings yet were torn to sell an agenda too. Note how St. John Chysostom of Antioch (AD.375) said "and no one dares say it" That's friggin' amazing!
The Road Back to Preterism A Brief History of Eschatology and the Church

You will assume for the sake of argument that they are late dated? Then I will show you verses which contradict preterism...

Can't prove anything from the canon? All was written before AD70- if not we would see the fall of Jerusalem as an established fact for such a Jewish book of salvation. Fact is, we do not in any of the gospels or epistles. Not one mention of the temple & city being destroyed in the past tense. All state Christ's return, the Resurrection & Judgment as being imminent .
But did you notice in Barnabas epistle how he claimed that that the temple & the Jews were destroyed as God said it would happen?
There's a gotcha, even with the possibly specious writings. You chose to ignore that fact too. Is there any fact you can produce to disqualify the written Text now?
I think you should concede that full preterism is true & partial-preterism is inconsistent (as you once stated yourself).

 

[Stormcrow]

Works have already been mentioned.

You mean the "early Christian writings" site from your other thread? The source that equivocated on the very dates you thought would prove your point?

The site about which you wrote this?

Now the "Early Christian Writings" site may not be perfect.

That site?

Oh, and one more thing: this is what you wrote about your sources:

They are still evidence that no one noticed any parousia so far as we can tell.

You set the bar for your "evidence" fairly low with that post. By that standard, Margaret Mitchell, Elmore Leonard, and Chilton's Auto are all equally viable "evidence."

On the other hand, if you want people to take your "evidence" seriously, perhaps you should aim a little higher.

For what it's worth.

 

[Zinc]

By that standard, Margaret Mitchell, Elmore Leonard, and Chilton's Auto are all equally viable "evidence."

Repeating the same nonsense over and over again doesn't make it any better.

As I said:

You quote a modern fictional work that doesn't mention a first century "2nd coming".

This isn't the same at all as the fact that we have early-ish Christian sources (including very possibly Biblical works) that do comment on the parousia and which contradict the teaching of full preterism.

Your examples are just nonsense. I doubt ANYONE other than yourself around here would take them seriously.

Are modern books the same as works produced by the early-ish Christian community? No they aren't. There is a BIG difference.

Is a modern book that says nothing about the 2nd coming, nothing about Christianity, the same as an early-ish Christian work which DOES SPEAK about the 2nd coming?

No they aren't the same at all.

 

[Zinc]

All was written before AD70

Lots of Bible scholars disagree with you.

 

[Zinc]

Note how St. John Chysostom of Antioch (AD.375) said "and no one dares say it" That's friggin' amazing!

That looks like a misquote. It says:

"and no man gainsays it"

The Road Back to Preterism A Brief History of Eschatology and the Church

Right, your article which says:

"None of the writers above were Preterists; one and all still looked for Christ to come a second time."

It goes on to say:

"Yet, their writings evidence definite Preterist strains and influences."

Church fathers did speak about some first century fulfillment. Hey look, dispensationalists today will speak about a little first century fulfillment. Some church fathers may go further than dispensationalists, but the point is, is that talking about some first century fulfillment does not make someone a "preterist".