The Preterist Chimera is Easily Refuted

[Eugene]

To refute Preterism, you only need the presence of mind to see that three verses are parallel and then be able to exegete these verses correctly.

1. Then He told them a parable: “Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near.” Luke 21:29-30.

2. “But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” Luke 21:28.

3. “But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.” Luke 21:36. Item number 1 points to Matthew 25:31-46. In brief, “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.” The words, “when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near” doesn’t mean that we’re talking about the mount of transfiguration.

Item number 2 points to redemption. When does that arrive? “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” Romans 8:22-23.

Not wanting to see the consummation or the end in point number 2, one Preterist actually interpreted Luke 21:28 as saying, “When the apocalyptic end-time disasters begin to fall, straighten up and lift up your heads, because Christ’s death on the cross is about to happen.”

Item number 3 refers to “standing before the Son of Man.” This too is Matthew 25:31-46. “We will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Romans 14:10). This judgment isn’t a limited, temporal punishment as in 70AD. It’s the final judgment. “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad” (2 Corinthians 5:10).

No other conclusions are possible. The Olivet Discourse reaches to the consummation of all things. The kingdom of God and the final judgment didn’t arrive in 70AD.

[Evangelion]

Showing a bit of pluck, eh?

Good for you!

:D

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Eugene:

I am really trying to keep at least this subject (where I seem to be the most active "pro-preterist" participant) not scattered over multiple threads. Would you have a problem posting your objections over on the already existing preterism thread to keep everything in one location??

Also, I see you used the word "chimera." You know a bit about me and know that I don't blink from using aggressive terms and terminoloy... especially for the heterodox like the two-bit peanut from the peanut gallery that keeps chiming in with inanity after inanity, but you and I have not used "sharp" or overly polemical terms with each other. Are you sure you want to go there?? I mean, I have developed more respect for you than to start mouthing off and using terms like the "futurist fraud."

Let me know what you think about moving this over to the other thread. It is hard for me to keep track of multiple threads with the other things that I am doing... also some of the other preterists such as MrSnacks and Hitch and JackS already check over there periodically and you may not have the benefit of their input here. Just a thought.

[Evangelion]

"Chimera."

Great word. Quite poetic. And so appropriate. :)

[theophilus]

You're Gene Shubert?

[Eugene]

Dearest Dee Dee,

I’m not trying to use ‘sharp’ or overly polemical terms. I’m simply trying to awaken pesky Preterists to my challenge, draw them into my corner and then give them a severe beating.

I thought I gave SteveT a good thrashing on page 2 of A Conditionalist Interpretation of the Apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2600) (07-10-2002 10:46 AM and 07-11-2002 08:32 PM) but my conscience began troubling me for pounding on amateurs so unmercifully. Now I’m of the conviction that I should be giving severe beatings to the Goliath types.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Eugene:

Here is my response to your challenge. I first want to kindly chastise you for over-confidence and patronizing (and yes I know you meant no harm, but a gal's just gotta complain). What do I mean… well, you said,

To refute Preterism, you only need the presence of mind to see that three verses are parallel and then be able to exegete these verses correctly.

Are you insinuating that I don’t have presence of mind?? I mean that is okay if you think that, Lord knows I feel that way about a lot of people I meet on the ‘Net, but I did not think that you had that opinion of me. If not, you really should not have worded that sentence that way. Remember, in an earlier conversation challenging my view that satan is currently bound you ended by saying

These verses prove that Preterist eschatology isn’t realistic.

and then after hearing me out, you did concede

You made a good case for Satan’s power being greatly diminished by Christ in the first century.

Additionally, you know me well enough to know that I am very well-studied, even if I turn out to be wrong. So, it really isn’t just a matter of having the “presence of mind” to figure out three verses as if I were too dense to ever see that. Okay I am done lashing you with a wet noodle….. at least for now :) Not bad for a pesky little preterist huh??

Okay, let’s look at the texts you raise as well as some (I believe) erroneous presuppositions you bring to the texts.

The texts are –

Luke 21:29-30: Then He spoke to them a parable: “Look at the fig tree, and all the trees. When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.

Luke 21:28: Now when these things begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws near.

Luke 21:36: Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man.

I have underlined the portions of these verses which you are relying upon for your case. Now first of all, you claim that these verses are “parallel.” They are not “parallel,” they are part of one unified discourse recorded by same human author. Now in attempting to prove your point, you do then bring in some parallels, in response to which I have a few of my own J

Okay, you then claim that Luke 21:29-30 is pointing to Matthew 25:31-46 – “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.”

Yeah the two are related but I don’t see how that proves your point or refutes preterism in the slightest. Since I am unclear what you were trying to prove here, let me make a proof of my own. There is an ancient Jewish hermeneutical rule which states that the meaning of two complementary texts can often be made clear by bringing in yet a third, and here is yet my third which is fatal to futurism….

Matthew 16:27-28 – 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. 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.”

The coming of the Kingdom was something that some of first century audience that Jesus was speaking to would live to see come. This fits in perfectly with –

Matthew 24:35 – “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.”

You may find this surprising, but the coming of Christ in His Kingdom is actually an event that took a generation to accomplish. How do I know this… take a look at Daniel 7:13-14 –

I was watching in the night visions, and behold, One like the Son of Man, coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, and they brought Him near before Him. Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.

This is not about Christ’s Final Advent (or Second Coming), it is about His ascension to the Father to sit on His glorious throne (as per Matthew 25). This began with Christ’s ascension and was confirmed in His destruction of apostate Judaism in 70AD. Notice that the direction of His coming is “up” and not “down.” And once He goes “up,” that is when His Kingdom begins. Psalm 110 speaking of the Messianic reign places it as beginning when the Messiah is told to sit at the right hand of the Father which began in the first century. There is much more that could be said, but I’ll leave it at that for now.

You then go to the next verse and say that it points to redemption. When does that arrive? “We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.” Romans 8:22-23.

Surely you are not denying that Scripture can use the same words in different senses are you?? Let me prove it once again –

There is a phenomena in Scripture called the "now/not yet" phenomena where the Biblical writers often, in almost the same breath, say an event is done, and then say we are waiting for the event to be done. Some examples are:

The Kingdom of heaven: Christ says it was among them right then (Matthew 12:28, Luke 17:21), but then also said that they were waiting for it (Matthew 6:10, Luke 21:31)

The Adoption: Paul says that we have no received the spirit of adoption (Romans 8:15), and John says that we are now children of God (1 John 3:2), but Paul also says that we are waiting for the adoption (Romans 8:23, see also 1 John 3:2)

Salvation: We have been saved (Eph 2:8, 2 Tim. 1:9), we are being saved (1 Cor. 1:18, Phil 2:12-13), we are waiting to be saved (Acts 15:11, 1 Peter 1:9)

Eternal Life: We have it now (John 6:47), we are waiting for it (Mark 10:30)

Judgment: the world has been judged (John 12:31), the world is being judged (Matthew 25), the world will be judged (Matthew 12:41, Hebrews 9:27)

Death: It has been abolished (2 Timothy 1:10), it will be abolished (1 Corinthians 15:26)

So, these types of events are progressive and consummational. The late David Chilton described it in this manner: "This introduces another basic Biblical pattern, a threefold pattern... Scripture presents salvation in terms of a definitive-progressive-final structure, and this is why Biblical prophecies often seem to overlap. Salvation was definitely accomplished in the perfect, finished work of Christ; it is progressively and increasingly applied during this age, personally and institutionally; and it will be finally achieved, in its highest fulfillment, at the end of history on the Last Day."

It is the same idea with the word “redemption.” I can prove that as well. Paul says in the verse you brought up that we are waiting for the redemption of our bodies, clearly a reference to the resurrection… yet in the Olivet Discourse there is no mention at all of resurrection. You want to see a reference to it in the word “redemption,” but that would entail that that is all that this word can mean and that Jesus would be so vague on a cornerstone of the Christian faith, the resurrection. Colossians 1:14 says we already have redemption…. Must that also mean the physical resurrection? The word also carries the connotation of “deliverance” as in Hebrews 11:35.

You said, Not wanting to see the consummation or the end in point number 2, one Preterist actually interpreted Luke 21:28 as saying, “When the apocalyptic end-time disasters begin to fall, straighten up and lift up your heads, because Christ’s death on the cross is about to happen.”

Well you never heard me say anything even remotely near that. I don’t see the consummation in the Olivet Discourse because it is not there. The resurrection is not mentioned, and the end of the “age to come” is not mentioned, only the current age in which Jesus was teaching. The resurrection cannot happen until the end of the “age to come” as I demonstrate at www.tektonics.org/soon.html

With your point number 3, you make the same error of trying to technicalize words to only one rigid meaning, that of the final judgment. Well it certainly can be the final judgment in the Lukan passage you relied upon because it is only the “survivors” that are said to “stand,” and the final judgment will involve the living and dead of all time.

[Evangelion]

This was hilarious:

I first want to kindly chastise you for over-confidence and patronizing (and yes I know you meant no harm, but a gal's just gotta complain).

Today's hypocrisy - brought to you by the only ego that's big enough to rival Jay Bartlett's! :D :p

[Eugene]

Dearest Dee Dee,

I am deeply saddened and personally hurt. You promised me a good thrashing!! :-) :-) and didn’t deliver. I feel encouraged (destined, doomed) to continue my arrogant ways and, I must say, my ways are hard to reconcile with the required humility and lowliness of mind that accompanies salvation. Proverbs 16:19, 29:23, Ecclesiastes 7:8, Hosea 13:1, Matthew 18:4, Luke 18:13-14, James 4:6, 1 Peter 5:5,6. I want you to know that if I lose my salvation, I’m holding you personally responsible for not putting me in my place.

To refute Preterism, you only need the presence of mind to see that three verses are parallel and then be able to exegete these verses correctly.I was not insinuating anything against you personally. If we were having this exchange at my forum, it would be in my High Mountain forum called Mt. Zion. That’s a special forum for persons who respect each other. Typical preterists promoting Preterism would have to post in the Dragon, Beast and False Prophet Convention Center. That wouldn’t be you.
(BTW, I have a peanut gallery at my forum. I call it the Bottomless Pit and send all my peanut posters there.)

Yes, I remember that I have posted strong judgments and then, after hearing you out, conceded that you had good answers. I’m hoping that you will extend to me the same courtesy.

Yes, I know you well enough to know that you are very well-studied, even when you turn out to be wrong. And may I add that it’s a great pleasure having an exchange with you because you have sincerity and charm?

Okay, let’s look at …some (I believe) erroneous presuppositions you bring to the texts. I agree that the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is the most obvious way to interpret text. All ordinary communication uses this principle and I can’t see how to communicate without it. I therefore accept, at face-value, the many Bible texts that indicate Christ’s prophesied /intended return in the first century. I also accept the many texts (http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=176) which anticipate the Second Coming to arrive in the lifetime of the New Testament writers. I do not presuppose it happened just because it was predicted /anticipated.

I believe that you have been reckless in your presuppositions about what I believe.

I don’t believe that you’ve isolated any “erroneous presuppositions” in what I have written. I dare say that not only do I not have any “erroneous presuppositions,” I don’t even have presuppositions. Your presuppositions are that Christ could only have offered one possible scenario for future events and that scenario must have been fulfilled. I don’t assume that.

I agree that, in Daniel 7:13-14, Christ comes with clouds to the Father in heaven. The same event is seen in the throne room of Revelation 4 and 5. But all of Matthew 25 takes place on earth. The wicked will not be transported to heaven for a judgment there.

Speaking of Himself, Jesus said, “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return” (Luke 19:12). Jesus returns to earth after having been to a wedding feast (Luke 12:36). I have no problem with Jesus receiving the kingdom at His ascension.

Surely you are not denying that Scripture can use the same words in different senses are you??It was your wonderful list that I used (in part) to give SteveT a beating on page 2 of A Conditionalist Interpretation of the Apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2600). The issue is what word meanings are available for a pre-assigned context.

1. Then He told them a parable: “Behold the fig tree and all the trees; as soon as they put forth leaves, you see it and know for yourselves that summer is now near. So you also, when you see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near.” Luke 21:29-30.

2. “But when these things begin to take place, straighten up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near.” Luke 21:28.

3. “But keep on the alert at all times, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that are about to take place, and to stand before the Son of Man.” Luke 21:36.When I said these three verses are parallel, I was referring to obvious linguistic parallels:

1. “when you see these things happening”
2. “when these things begin to take place”
3. “these things that are about to take place”

Now take a closer look at the finer details of my eye chart and tell me if you are able to discern any other linguistic connections:

1. When / see these things happening / recognize / what’s coming (the kingdom) / how quickly (soon)
2. When / these things begin to take place / straighten up and lift up your heads / your redemption / is drawing near
3. … / immediacy: be watchful and alert at all times / pray for strength / to stand before the Son of Man / about to take place

I have underlined the portions of these verses which you are relying upon for your case.You obviously haven’t. I expect everyone to see what is transparent to me and am continually disappointed.

To refute Preterism, you only need the presence of mind to see that three verses are parallel and then be able to exegete these verses correctly.

[Evangelion]

What the...???

Okay I am done lashing you with a wet noodle…..

Hey, she stole my line! That's plagiarism! :p Makes you wonder if I'm really on "Ignore" after all, eh...? ;)

[AVmetro]

What the...???



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay I am done lashing you with a wet noodle…..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hey, she stole my line! That's plagiarism! Makes you wonder if I'm really on "Ignore" after all, eh...?

Ha! I have heard you say that before...:)

God bless ye all,
AV

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Eugene:

LOLOL!!!! I will be getting back with you soon......... but I do see that you also (as I have done with your posts at times) skipped over a great deal of what I had to say:D Most be those "erroneous presuppositions" of yours :kiss: !!!!

So I guess I am just going to have to thrash you some more ;) (Did you ever see Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail?? I am referring to the point where the Spaniards are taunting the King from the top of the castle......)

[Evangelion]

IIRC, that was actually the French, not the Spaniards. :p

[Eugene]

I do see that you also skipped over a great deal of what I had to say.I could have said much more but was exhausted, as before, by just having to deal with so many irrelevant obstacles. I’m not a Monty Python aficionado.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Eugene:

That's too bad.. it is one really funny movie. I don't particularly care for Monty Python in general, just that particular movie... you might want to check it out sometimes.

Oh, and by the way, "irrelevant obstacles" are us pesky preterists' specialty, don't you know that???


I want you to know that if I lose my salvation, I’m holding you personally responsible for not putting me in my place.

Hey, I’m working on it…. (grin), but you are just not cooperating.

Yes, I remember that I have posted strong judgments and then, after hearing you out, conceded that you had good answers. I’m hoping that you will extend to me the same courtesy.

Fair enough.

And may I add that it’s a great pleasure having an exchange with you because you have sincerity and charm?

And you too… group hug time… and now that we have made everyone else barf…. Down to brass tacks…..

I agree that the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is the most obvious way to interpret text. All ordinary communication uses this principle and I can’t see how to communicate without it. I therefore accept, at face-value, the many Bible texts that indicate Christ’s prophesied /intended return in the first century.

That is a good start, at least you understand the prima facie case for preterism which many people can’t seem to grasp. It is the time texts. They are clear and numerous.

I do not presuppose it happened just because it was predicted /anticipated.

That is the crux of the issue. I believe that God did exactly what He said He was going to do. I also do understand that there is an “inherent” escape hatch in every judmgnet prophecy, such as the one given to Nineveh, and that is if the doomed peoples repent, the judgment is averted. The self-same judgment is not “delayed,” it is avoided. A later judgment will be to a different peoples and presumably for additional or different offenses. And in the Olivet Discourse, the lack of repentance is predicted and there is no hint of any escape hatch.

I believe that you have been reckless in your presuppositions about what I believe.

I very well may have. I can honestly say that I did not know until now that you accept the clear first century time indicators. Can I tactfully say that it is a little slippery to get a handle on exactly what you do believe?? So if I ever make a wrong assumption about what you believe, it is due to just a simple misunderstanding… I actually am trying to understand… but also, please know, I have A LOT of these sorts of conversations, and I am not getting younger, so sometimes I confuse the people that I am talking to.

I don’t believe that you’ve isolated any “erroneous presuppositions” in what I have written. I dare say that not only do I not have any “erroneous presuppositions,” I don’t even have presuppositions. Your presuppositions are that Christ could only have offered one possible scenario for future events and that scenario must have been fulfilled. I don’t assume that.

Eugene, come on now!! Right after stating that you don’t have any presuppositions, you went ahead and stated one!! We ALL have presuppositions, those are not a bad thing, it is how life operates. And let me clarify for you my position because you seem to have misstated it…. I do not presuppose that Christ could have only offered one possible scenario for future events…. My presuppositions say that Christ could have done anything that He wanted to do. He could have annihilated the offenders right there on the spot with just one Word from His mouth. He did not do that. So my position is NOT based upon what Christ could have done, but what He actually did do, and He did not offer a multiple choice eschaton for the “end of the age.” He offered one scenario.

I agree that, in Daniel 7:13-14, Christ comes with clouds to the Father in heaven. The same event is seen in the throne room of Revelation 4 and 5. But all of Matthew 25 takes place on earth. The wicked will not be transported to heaven for a judgment there.

and

Speaking of Himself, Jesus said, “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return” (Luke 19:12). Jesus returns to earth after having been to a wedding feast (Luke 12:36). I have no problem with Jesus receiving the kingdom at His ascension.

Okay it is good that we agree that Jesus definitively receives the Kingdom at His ascension, but I hope (given the examples that I already gave) we can agree that He is still progressively receiving it now. I also made the case that the period of time between the Ascension and the destruction of Jerusalem (the end of the age) is a unified period of time… and Scripturally is treated as parts of the same event.

The Matthew 25:31ff issue I think is somewhat of a red herring in our discussion. I don’t believe it is a picture of the final judgment but rather of a progressively occurring judgment that is happening even right now which began with the gathering of Israel before Jesus in 70AD. Jesus is right now judging the “nations” which are being gathered before Him. He is separating out the righteous from the wicked until the full number of both is complete. At that point, i.e. the Final Judgment, the eternal decree is meted out and the separation is final.
I think that it is an inappropriate anthroporphism to say that this “judgment” cannot take place in “heaven,” but rather must be on earth. The context of Matthew 25 is Christ’s first century judgment-coming on Israel, which was not a physical coming to earth…. He did not have to sit on a physical throne on earth to judge them, and He won’t have to do so to judge the rest of the nations either. The Final Judgement takes place before God’s throne which in Revelation is placed squarely in “Heaven.”

With the three “parallel” verses you brought up, again, I say they are not “truly” parallel, but are rather all part of one unified discourse. A “parallel” verse is one that is syntopically related, not one at of the same passage by the same human author. I do recognize the repeating of the phrase “all these things,” and do agree that it is significant…. Especially since it is capped off with (sticking to Luke since that is the Olivet version you are quoting)

Luke 21:31 – Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.

There is no “uncertainty” principle here. Jesus is very dogmatic about this assertion. The disciples ask Jesus certain questions, and these were not asked in a vacuum. The questions were prompted as follows [my commentary will be placed in italics and in brackets]

First using Mark as a source:

Then as He went out of the temple (the Temple that existed back then), one of His disciples said to Him, “Teacher, see what manner of stones and what buildings are here!” ( they are asking about the Temple that existed back then)And Jesus answered and said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (referring to the Temple that existed back then!)
Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John, and Andrew asked Him privately, “Tell us, when will these things be?….” [I](it matters not that they asked Him more questions, obviously one of the things that they wanted to know was when the Temple would be destroyed)

Now we know when the city and Temple were destroyed. If that is “one” of “all these things,” then ALL of the rest of that passage, at least up to verse 33 (using Matthew as the source) happened in the first century as well. It is inescapable.
And it is very apparent that the Olivet Discourse is not about the “end of the world” or the consummation. So, let’s start with why I don’t believe its about the end of the world. I am not going to give all of the reasons, just some of the major ones. First of all, the disciples do not ask Jesus when is the end of the world. They asked him “when is the end of the age?” That is very important. And the context of their question must be taken into consideration. In other words, what prompted that question from them in the first place?

It was Jesus’ startling predictions about the destruction of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. Nothing at all in the context gives any whiff of a hint that the end of the whole world, as we understand it, to be in view. The entire context of the passage is limited to Jerusalem. Here are some examples:

Matthew 24:15 – Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains.

If this was worldwide destruction, fleeing to the mountains would not do anyone any good. It is obviously a destruction limited to Judea from which the elect must flee.

Luke 21:23 – But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.

This wrath is limited to the “land,” and idiomatically Jewish way of saying “Israel” and “this people,” i.e. the Jewish apostates. It is not a wrath upon the whole planet or upon all the unsaved peoples of the planet. The whole context leading up to the Discourse is the pronouncement of doom upon the Jewish apostates (see Matthew 23). There is nothing at all in the context speaking of the end of the whole world.

One must also keep in mind the distinctly Jewish cultural context. The Jews regarded their time as divided into two great ages. The Age of Moses and the Law, and the Age of Messiah. The disciples understood that the destruction of the Temple was a momentous event and would inaugurate the Messianic age as the Law would not be possible after that point. They were basically asking when the “next age,” the Messianic age would begin. They did not believe that the age in which they were currently living was the same age that would see the “end of the world.”

[Eugene]

Dee Dee,

You’ve repeated fundamental preterism to me. I am familiar with what you’ve stated. Why not answer the principal objection that I don’t believe you have a reasonable answer to? Please exegete those three verses.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Eugene:

I believe that I have already done so. Perhaps we are somehow speaking past each other. You have claimed that "preterism" is easily refuted. I have, as you say, stated Preterism 101 to you and asked you to "easily refute" it as you say you can. I don't believe you have even come close. Perhaps you want to reword your specific request of me because I believe I did dismantle your objections using the specific verses you cited and building off of them.

[Eugene]

It was your wonderful list that I used (in part) to give SteveT a beating on page 2 of A Conditionalist Interpretation of the Apocalypse (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2600). The issue is what word meanings are available for a pre-assigned context.Exactly what meaning do you assign to 1) the kingdom of God, 2) redemption, and 3) standing before the Son of Man, in the three verses such that the context makes sense?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Eugene:

I will get to answer your questions, but forgive me if I say, I am not the only obligated to provide answers. You have conceded that the New Testament makes very definite claims that a major eschatological event was on the near horizon. You have not proven any Biblical escape clauses that would justify a delay in such events. Jesus was very very dogmatic about the time frame for the Olivet Discourse. If I could not explain the meaning of even one thing in the Discourse and how it could have been fulfilled, that does not change the fact that Jesus said that it would. The sceptics see this very clearly.... in fact it is one of the linchpins in Russel's arguments in his anti-Christian polemical work, "Why I Am Not a Christian." Evangelicals have done a poor job of dealing with the time texts.

So, it seems to me, and I may be misunderstanding you, that you are admitting that Jesus said it would happen within the first century, but it didn't, so Jesus was wrong, and it is delayed for an unspecified reason in the Biblical text. To me, that is not a proper way to deal with the text. If Jesus was wrong, He was a false prophet. There is no way to rescue Him from that charge. I believe that He was not wrong, and that everything happened just as He said it would. That does not require that I be able to explain every jot and tittle of the passage. I am sure that if we went through every word there are some that I just don't understand. But I understand the time passages. And I understand enough of the others to see how they were fulfilled which gives me confidence in the ones that I may not completely understand.

You have failed to deal with the fact that all these things were predicted to happen within the first century. One of all these things was the nonrepeatable event of the destruction of the Temple that then existed. If that happened in the first century, and it is nonrepeatable, then it all happened then or Jesus was wrong. There is no other option.

I categorize some of the things that you are throwing at me as "yeah but" objections. You do not deal with the core issue that drives preterism but rather pick out the peripheral issues, and if one particular preterist (who is not inerrant) cannot explain all of them, you think you have defeated preterism. No, you cannot defeat preterism until you defeat the core premise. (and I am speaking here particularly in the context of the Olivet Discourse since you do not accept that Revelaiton is primarily speaking about the same event, thus, Revelation is an entirely different subject at this point).

[Dee Dee Warren]

You asked, in the context of the Olivet Discourse,

Exactly what meaning do you assign to 1) the kingdom of God, 2) redemption, and 3) standing before the Son of Man, in the three verses such that the context makes sense?

This is a loaded question on your part since you have already determined what the context means, and I have already shown in another post that the context is a first century judgment against apostate Judaism. We disagree on the context from the outset.

The Kingdom of God

I had already pointed out, and to which you agreed, that the Kingdom of God was already present during the earthly ministry of Christ. This is all part and parcel of the definitive, progressive, and consummative aspects of redemptive history. The “Kingdom of God” which was being referred to in the Lukan version of the Olivet Discourse was the Messianic Age which followed the end of the Old Covenant Age. It was at that point that the Christian community was finally and irrevocably severed from her apostate mother Judaism and recognized as a distinct community of faith. It was the vindication that Jesus was right and the terribly visible recongnition of the fact in the punishment of the apostates. It was a continuation of what was already inaugurated when all power and authority and judgment was given unto Him.

Redemption

Again, there is not a hint of the physical resurrection in this passage which is what you are trying to force “redemption” to mean. But as I have shown you in that “salvation” can have several and varying meaning, so can redemption. Very often it simply means deliverance. The Christian community was delivered from this calamity and delivered out of the hands of the Jews. Also, in postmillennial preteristic thought, this is the age of the regeneration, the age of the redemption, which is the Messianic Age. That is what was drawing near about them. God is reconciling creation to Himself during the working of the age as Christ is ruling in the midst of His foes.

Standing Before the Son of Man

We “stand” before God in many ways. In Ephesians 6 we are commanded to stand firm in spiritual warfare, in Colossians 4:12 Paul prays for the believers to stand perfect and complete, in Philipians 4:1 we are to stand fast in the Lord, etc.

Now I know that you are making some sort of distinction saying that “standing before the Son of Man” can only refer to the Final Judgment. Well that would be making the error that I brought up before which is assuming rigidity in terms. The “Kingdom of God” has already referred to different contexts and stages, and there is no Biblical reason for thinking that this phrase does not as well. The living Christians were vindicated at the fall of Jerusalem. They stood before the Lord victorious. You and I are always standing before the Lord. There is nothing in the Lukan context to indicate a final judgment, and in fact, it seems to be aimed only at the believers who survive.

[Dee Dee Warren]

More on the “Now/Not Yet” phenomena

When do we have everlasting life?

At conversion? Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. (John 6:47)

Or in the “age to come” from Jesus’ perspective?

“Assuredly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or father or mother or wife or children or lands, for My sake and the gospel’s, who shall not receive a hundredfold now in this time—houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions—and in the age to come, eternal life.” (Mark 10:29-30).

When are we saved?

Once we believe? For we were saved in this hope, but hope that is seen is not hope; for why does one still hope for what he sees? (Romans 8:24)

Or while we already believe? For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18)

When did/will the Kingdom come?

During the earthly ministry of Christ? “But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you.” (Matthew 12:28)

Or at the event described in the Olivet Discourse? “So you also, when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is near.” (Luke 21:31)

When did we/will we receive the adoption?

At conversion? For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. (Romans 8:15-17)

Or at the resurrection? Not only that, but we also who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, eagerly waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body. (Romans 8:23)

When are we/will we be glorified?

At conversion/or election? Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified. (Romans 8:30)

Or after we have suffered for Christ? The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ, if indeed we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified together. (Romans 8:16)

This must be kept in mind as we examine the relationship of AD70 to the Cross. The Cross was the end of the Old Covenant positionally. The destruction of the Temple and city in AD70 was the end of the Old Covenant practically. It is the same way as our salvation works. At this point, we are declared positionally righteous and without sin before God; however, practically we still sin. At some point in the future, what we are positionally will become practically true. We will no longer sin. We will be glorified, and yet Scripture teaches that we ALREADY have these things and just as clearly teaches we ARE WAITING for these things, without contradiction.

That is why the writer of Hebrews could say: In that He says, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews:13).

Notice in the same breath the writer said that the Old Covenant was ALREADY obsolete (i.e. at the Cross) but it was still BECOMING OBSOLETE!! This is in fact another verse that teaches about the end of the age in conjunction with Matthew 24 and its parallels.

Now another verse that teaches that the end of the age (and to be clear, preterists do not actually believe that the ‘end of the age’ is in fact a precise moment in time such as 12:01am on June 20, 0070, but rather believe again it was a process that began at the Cross and ended with the total destruction of the Temple and city), is 1 Corinthians 10:11 - Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

I can also prove by another avenue that the “end of the age” MUST have already come unless one is going to believe in a future “millennium” which is clearly unbiblical but this is going to take some collation of passages. Ready?

When Christ ascended to the Father He sat at His right hand and is in the process of having all enemies put under His feet. Many passages tell us this, but the most important for this discussion is Ephesians 1:15-22 since it has some very important timing verses which I am asking that you pay very close attention to.

Therefore I also, after I heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love for all the saints, do not cease to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers: 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all principality and power and might and dominion, and every name that is named, NOT ONLY IN THIS AGE BUT ALSO IN THAT WHICH IS TO COME. And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. (Ephesians 1:15-22)

This passage is very important. It tells us that during the age in which Paul was writing, Christ was having all things put under His feet. Hebrews 1:13 equates this idea with sitting at the right hand of the Father. Paul also tells this that this special position will be occupied by Christ in the age in which he was writing but also in the age which is to come.

Now let’s look at 1 Corinthians 15:20:28 – But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted. Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.

This passage tells us that all enemies will finally and completely be put under Christ’s feet at the resurrection with the destruction of the last enemy, death, and at that point, Christ’s special Messianic reign ends. Yet Paul tells us that this special reign lasts through the age in which he was writing and through the end of the age to come. Now unless we are in that age to come, meaning that the age in which Paul was writing has ended, then there is yet a whole age to come before Christ can return to resurrect the saved and the damned.


Ephesians 1:20 tells us that there are two ages in view when Paul was writing that passage. The age in which he was writing and the age to come. Paul knew that there was more than one age to come since in Ephesians 2:7 he mentions the ages to come. Now if the final age for us is the eternal state, and it is, it has to be the last of the ages to come, and thus, cannot be the “age to come” in Ephesians 1:20 since there is one more age after that one. Also remember that Christ is over all rule and authority and power and might in the age in which Paul was writing and the age to come. At the time of the resurrection, in 1 Corinthians 15:24 (and surrounding verses) He will have DESTROYED all rule and authority and power and might. Then obviously, the resurrection has to take place at the end of the age to come described in Ephesians 1:20 which would then put in the last of the AGES to come mentioned in Ephesians 2:7. This ties in perfectly with Revelation 20 as well. We are in the millennium, the age to come from Paul’s perspective, we are spiritually reigning and ruling and sharing in the First Resurrection (Christ’s resurrection). When the thousand years are done (this age is finishing, which is the age to come from Paul’s perspective), Christ will put all rule and authority and power under His feet (described as Gog and Magog in Revelation 20), He will resurrect the just and the damned (the second resurrection), and THEN the eternal state begins. The chronology is tight and inescapable.

If the “end of the age” described in the Olivet Discourse has not come and gone, then there is still an entire age to go before the resurrection can happen.

[Eugene]

I will get to answer your questions, but forgive me if I say, I am not the only [one] obligated to provide answers.Dear Dee Dee,

Please forgive me for being a purist. I believe it makes more sense to the general reader for us to focus on one interpretation at a time. Judges insist on orderly interrogation because it’s easier to ascertain the truth that way. A proper and orderly exchange requires a prosecution thread (this one) where I “accuse” and interrogate you and a defense thread where I propose my alternative view and you interrogate me. I believe two threads are best because as you’re waiting for an answer on one thread you may be working on a reply in the other. I have already started outlining my alternative view and am now open to your tough questions on the thread Multiple Scenarios (http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=128).

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Eugene:

You must forgive me as well, but I cannot participate in yet another Forum, though I am sure that your Forum is very wonderful. I already am on too many and am really trying to just narrow it down to a few. I believe that I answered your questions here, and if you would like to answer mine that would be great. I don't find it confusing at all to go in a back and forth manner as I have done... I answered you and posed challenges of my own. If you wuold like to post your challenge on the other "preterism" thread that has been established here, I would welcome it.

[Eugene]

If I could not explain the meaning of even one thing in the Discourse and how it could have been fulfilled, that does not change the fact that Jesus said that it would. The sceptics see this very clearly.... in fact it is one of the linchpins in Russel's arguments in his anti-Christian polemical work, "Why I Am Not a Christian."I believe Bertrand Russell would have respected my interpretation because I don’t presuppose that prophecy must be fulfilled.

Evangelicals have done a poor job of dealing with the time texts.Preterism existed in Russell’s day and if he was ever confronted with it, I’m very confident he thought that preterism does a poor job of dealing with the entire New Testament, everything except the time texts.

[Eugene]

So, it seems to me, and I may be misunderstanding you, that you are admitting that Jesus said it would happen within the first century, but it didn't, so Jesus was wrong, and it is delayed for an unspecified reason in the Biblical text. To me, that is not a proper way to deal with the text. If Jesus was wrong, He was a false prophet. There is no way to rescue Him from that charge.It’s not wrong to prophesy an end-time scenario for “this generation,” hitting all the major catastrophes, and also prophesying a delay to Christ’s return.

[Eugene]

You do not deal with the core issue that drives preterism but rather pick out the peripheral issues, and if one particular preterist (who is not inerrant) cannot explain all of them, you think you have defeated preterism. No, you cannot defeat preterism until you defeat the core premise. (and I am speaking here particularly in the context of the Olivet Discourse).I don’t have any problem with the time texts or the Olivet Discourse. I will get to your problems with the Olivet Discourse as soon as I dismiss all your small comments.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Eugene:

We are talking past each other again and that is kind of frustrating. I don't deny a future return of Christ, and obviously it still hasn't happened so I don't have a problem with long-range predictions. However, "delay" indicates that it was expected earlier. I have already demonstrated that the Final Advent was not expected "soon" at all, in fact, it was not expected until the end of the age in which we are currently living, which was an age away from the disciples. You are hard to pin down exactly what you think.... so... please answer this definitely, is Matthew 24:1-34 past or future??

You are selectively pulling out things which does not deal with the flow of the argument.

Second, no Russell would not have respected your position about a "delay" and excuses for failing the test of a false prophet. That sort of things was also prevalent in his day and was dealt with in his book. Preterism was not, so your predictions about how he would have responded to preterism are arguments from silence... you have no proof that he was confronted with it. Christians today can go their whole lives and never hear of it. I have a friend who is in counter-atheism/sceptics ministry who has embraced preterism and has completely took the sceptics by surprise who have never heard of this view before. If Russel disparaged it and thought it was nonsense, he certainly would have explicitly mentioned it as he was not shy about those kinds of things.

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Eugene:

I am a very busy girl as you know. And please don't take this personally (the problem may certainly lie with me) but I find talking with you very difficult, organizationally speaking. You tend to jump around and piecemeal things, as I see it, and of course, the problem could certainly be with me.

If we are going to continue, I have to ask a favor of you to make things easier on me otherwise I just don't have the time to try to organize what you say in a way that makes sense to me.

Please take one whole post of mine, quote me, and then respond, in order and in one complete post. Please don't jump around and split it between many posts. And please.... Eugene, if you are viewing what you are doing as "dismissing my small comments," I really don't have time for that. I don't like that tone, and I am really not looking for a fight with you. I like you, and I want to remain on good terms. If it is going to turn ugly, then I would prefer that we just part on good terms.

If you cannot comply with my request, then I just cannot continue as I have done.

[Eugene]

Dee Dee,

I am a great believer in refinement. To start again means that we can eliminate all the clutter and allow everyone to easily see the truth in its pure and undefiled crystalline form. I’ll do it!

Are you sure that you want that?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Dear Eugene:

I would like that very much actually. But... I have a request. Can we start a different thread with a different title. I feel that the title of this thread starts the whole conversation out on an unnecessarily adversarial foot. That is up to you though... it is just a request. But if we continue, which I am certainly willing to do, can we do it in a much more orderly manner.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by Eugene
Dee Dee,

I am a great believer in refinement. To start again means that we can eliminate all the clutter and allow everyone to easily see the truth in its pure and undefiled crystalline form. I’ll do it! Here you go, as promised: http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2722