Why I Am Partially Preterist
January 19, 2008 Posted by Roger Overton
Preterism is the belief that many or most of biblical
prophecy has already been fulfilled. Prophecies that haven’t been fulfilled include
Christ’s second coming, the resurrection of all peoples and the final judgment
at the end of the age. Like many theological doctrines, there is a wide
spectrum of beliefs in the preterist camp. Historical (orthodox) preterists are
sometimes referred to as partial-preterists. At the far heretical end are the
full-preterists, those who contend that all prophecy has been fulfilled.
The opposing view to preterism is futurism (which has its
own spectrum). Futurists believe that there are still prophecies to be
fulfilled specific to national
distinct from the church. They are premillennialists, holding that Christ will
come before a millennial reign that is yet to come. In contrast, preterism is
often rooted in postmillennialism.
I’m an amillennialist. I believe that the current age is the
millennium, that we live in the “already and not yet.” Since the amillennial
position holds that some things refer to this age and some to the age yet to
come, it seems to me that preterism (to some degree) fits well within the
amillenial model. Some people may want to bring up a number of possible conflicts
(such as the dating of Revelation), but since the preterism I’m advocating is
partial, I need only to defend the fulfillment of one prophecy.
I am a preterist because I interpret Matthew 24 literally in
that the prophecies were fulfilled before “this generation” passed away,
specifically by A.D. 70 in the destruction of the temple. I don’t believe the
events of the first century exhaust the meaning of the text, but I also don’t
see any good reason to avoid the common sense reading of the text. Adam Parker
at Bring the Books… summed up the passage quite nicely:
These predictions include:
a) False messiahs (v. 4-5)
b) Wars and rumors of war (v. 6-7)
c) Famines and Earthquakes (v. 7)
d) Times of unmatched persecution (v. 9-14)
e) Lawlessness (v. 12)
f) Gospel preached to the whole world (v. 14)
g) The Abomination of Desolation (Predicted in Daniel 9:24-27; Reiterated in v.
15)
h) The Great Tribulation (v. 21-22)
i) Jesus comes with judgement, on the clouds (v. 29-30)
Now, the short version of it is that in verse 34, Jesus says something very
important regarding the timetable for the things he is predicting. “I tell
you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these
things have happened.” This really is the clenching idea; did Jesus'
predictions come true within the lifetime of those listening to His words, or
not? (The Geneva Institute for Reformed Studies has done a nice little
study demonstrating how each of these predictions of Jesus have,
historically speaking, been fulfilled.)
If the predictions of Jesus did not occur within the
lifetime of His audience, then he was incorrect when He said they would occur
before that generation passed away.
Related posts:
- Interview with Kim Riddlebarger, Part 3
- Quenching God's Oracles, Part 4
- Quenching God's Oracles, Part 2
- Interview with Devin Brown, Part II
- Quenching God's Oracles, Part 3
- Book Review: All Old Testament Laws Cancelled by Greg Gibson
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology
content rss
January 19th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
WooHoo! Yeah Roger! Glad to hear you are an amil partial preterist. You hit the nail on the head here. If, as is commonly supposed, “this generation” meant “this race” or something else, it would be a completely unique usage of grammar . . . i.e. the vocab and grammar don't permit a change of meaning to “race” nor a far fulfillment. In my more snarky moods I like to point out that it is curious that literalists take verse 34 very figuratively, though it has much more of a “literal” didactic character, and they take all of the apocalyptic stuff very literally, though it is obviously figurative.
January 19th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Kenneth Gentry's BEFORE JERUSALEM FELL* (www.KennethGentry.com) will greatly enhance your progress (you're on the right track)! He's working on a 1000 page commentary to Revelation [THE DIVORCE OF ISRAEL (origninally: TALE OF TWO CITIES); assuming BJF is indicative of Dr. Gentry's excellent scholarship and writing, it should become "required reading" of every Christian!].
* At your left margin is a link to FIDE-O; Pastor Jason Robertson's March 13, 2007 post is related and quite edifying [also, click links along that page's right margin for Preterist Amillenarian and for 3-4-4 (first/top link in red)].
January 19th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
Roger,
I'm currently undecided on this issue, though I've been drawn to the explanatory power of partial preterism and the consistency of amil with my increasingly Reformed theology. In fact, this was the one issue that came up for me in deciding to go to Biola (I'm in the MA Apologetics Program), particularly while going over the doctrinal statement of the school and during advising. I resolved it for myself basically because I'm undecided, and if I'm going to reject premil and futurism, I might as well know what I'm rejecting, whereas if I end up adopting premil (and the only variety I could possibly see myself adopting would be progressive) I'll have a good handle on that, too.
I guess my question is, how do you resolve this doctrinal difference with the position of our school?
January 22nd, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Being a preterist myself…of the fuller sense, still confirm that the Bible when read naturally, teaches a futurist view of eschatology. That is from the perspective of those that were writing and reading what was being said in the New Testament.
Future yes…But in the sense that the events spoken of were near on the horizon. Upon that generation like Jesus said. He did say that those that he was speaking to in Matthew 24 would see all those things take place…including His coming on the clouds with power and great glory and with His angels.
Matthew 24:33-34 So you also, when you see all these things, know that He/it is near
January 22nd, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Being a preterist myself…of the fuller sense, still confirm that the Bible when read naturally, teaches a futurist view of eschatology. That is from the perspective of those that were writing and reading what was being said in the New Testament.
Future yes…But in the sense that the events spoken of were near on the horizon. Upon that generation like Jesus said. He did say that those that he was speaking to in Matthew 24 would see all those things take place…including His coming on the clouds with power and great glory and with His angels. Which to me ties in with Matthew 16:27 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.
I just can't see any way to divorce the rewards according to works from the coming on clouds with angels. And not being a dispensationalist, I can't justify infinite gaps in the text.
And then there is the “All these things.” Which no one yet has been able to convince me that all here needs to mean some or most.
Matthew 24:33-34 So you also, when you see all these things, know that He/it is near
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:12 am
“I like to point out that it is curious that literalists take verse 34 very figuratively, though it has much more of a “literal” didactic character, and they take all of the apocalyptic stuff very literally, though it is obviously figurative.”
I almost made a comment about that, but I figured I'd already rustled enough feathers
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:14 am
I'm familiar with Gentry's position and, at least at this point, I can't agree with everything he puts forward, but I do need to study his position more before saying much about that.
January 23rd, 2008 at 1:17 am
I went to Talbot for the great philosophy program knowing I disagreed with their theology (beyond dispensationalism, all of the philosophy profs are Molinist/Arminian). When I signed the doctrinal statement, I made it clear that I disagree with dispensationalism. At the time I hadn't come to a position about eschatology, but I knew I didn't like premil and I made that clear as well. They accepted the application without questioning any of the comments I made.