As I described in that earlier post full preterism contends that all the language in the New Testament concerning final judgment and the second coming refer to the destruction of Jerusalem (which occurred in 70 AD). The main exegetical and hermeneutic move informing this position is to read all the eschatological material in the NT through Jesus' Olivet Discourse (Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21), which clearly speak to the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem.
For example, from Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse:
Luke 21.20-22The destruction of Jerusalem is described as being "the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written." Which is a big, sweeping statement. Full preterism takes that offer, reading all descriptions of judgment and hell in the NT as being about the destruction of Jerusalem. Simply put, hell just is the destruction of Jerusalem. Full stop.
“When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written."
In a similar way, full preterism believes that the second coming of Jesus also refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. From the Olivet Discourse in Matthew:
Matthew 24.1-3, 30-31Notice how the second coming (Matthew 24.30-31) is described as occurring at the time of the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24.1-3). According to full preterism, then, the second coming has already occurred when the Son of Man came back in judgment upon Jerusalem in AD 70.
Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. “Do you see all these things?” he asked. “Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
“Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other."
In summary, full preterism sees both final judgment and the second coming has having already occurred, per Jesus' prophecy, with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. All biblical prophecy has been fulfilled. It's all in the past, with no prophecy left outstanding awaiting some future fulfillment.
Now, one objection to full preterism has to do with the resurrection of the dead. The impulse in full preterism is to see all OT and NT prophecy as already fulfilled. No prophecy remains to be fulfilled in the future. Everything, so to speak, has been prophetically "wrapped up" by AD 70.
To be sure, you can, as we've seen, use the Olivet Discourse to make a case that the "second coming" occurred in the past (AD 70). But what about the resurrection of the dead? Clearly that hasn't occurred yet. The general resurrection of the dead is something we are still waiting for. So it seems that some things are still to come in the future. Issues like this are why many in my tradition subscribe to partial preterism, the belief that while most things were fulfilled in AD 70 there remain a few things still left for the future, like the second coming (as traditionally understood) and the general resurrection of the dead.
Pondering all this, I've been wondering about if you can you have a full preterist understanding of the resurrection of the dead.
That would be hard to do, especially in light of various Pauline texts (e.g., 1 Cor. 15, 1 Thess. 4). But if you were going to try here's how I'd go about it.
As we know, the resurrection of the dead isn't a big theme in the Old Testament. And when resurrection themes do occur they often have to do with restoration. Consider, for example, the theme of being rescued from "the pit" in the book of Psalms. In this imagery we are "brought back" from the realm of the dead.
Related to this idea of restoration is how resurrection imagery is used to speak about the end of exile and the restoration of Israel. In this sense, the forgiveness of sins--the end of exile and the proclamation of God's Jubilee--is the resurrection of the dead.
The classic example of this is the dry bones vision in Ezekiel:
Ezekiel 37.1-6You shall live. This is resurrection imagery used to speak about the reconstitution and restoration of the people of God, the end of their judgment and exile.
The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out in the Spirit of the Lord and set me down in the middle of the valley; it was full of bones.
And he led me around among them, and behold, there were very many on the surface of the valley, and behold, they were very dry.
And he said to me, “Son of man, can these bones live?” And I answered, “O Lord God, you know.” Then he said to me, “Prophesy over these bones, and say to them, O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause breath to enter you, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and you shall live, and you shall know that I am the Lord.”
Again, while certain Pauline texts remain a sticking point, I do believe a preterist case could be made concerning the resurrection of the dead. Specifically, if we take a cue from the OT the resurrection refers to the end of exile in the declaration of God's Kingdom Come, in the proclamation of God's Jubilee and the forgiveness of sins in the restoration of Israel.
The resurrection of the dead is God breathing life back into the dead body of God's People.
Pentecost is the resurrection of the dead.
Pentecost is the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, when the Spirit of God breathed life back into the deadness of Creation. Just as God did at the very beginning. New Creation. Re-creation and resurrection.
Dry bones made to live again.
Actually, you could go the whole hog by going with the John rather than Luke, as for John Easter itself is Pentecost, the Risen One not only breathing the Holy Spirit on/into the (10) disciples but also sharing God's Shalom and imparting the forgiveness of sins (John 20:19-23).
Matthew 27:52-53 also seems to indicate Easter is when the dead were resurrected. Although not directly tied to Pentecost, the tearing of the curtain could indicate Pentecost as God is on the move, out of her own Temple tomb and among the people!
I am commenting as a guest. My Disqus isn't loading.
In my own journey, the general resurrection has come to mean the newness that takes place in every mind and heart that looks beyond self; in Jesus' teaching, the death to self. The more I pondered the subject, the more I came to see the blessing and the ability to break free from ourselves as THE miracle of life and awareness. After all, when we think about it, what can be more miraculous, more marvelous than the total transformation of the soul simply by turning our gaze outward?
But, someone may ask, "What about the scripture's reference to those resurrected to damnation?" Well, I think we have witnessed, as well as experienced, what happens when we stay wrapped up in ourselves.
I think that perspective is a useful, allegorical way of talking about "resurrection". However, I wouldn't attempt to build on it as a full explanation in that it doesn't go far enough in helping to understand certain Pauline texts, such as I Cor. 15.
I can go with you that resurrection is sometimes symbolic, but you seem to be saying it's only ever symbolic. Does it throw out the resurrection of Jesus? Does it throw out my hope that someday I will get to sit down and meet the grandfather I never knew and talk with the grandfather I once did?
Just like we were crucified and buried with Christ, we were resurrected with Christ.
Yup. "Dry" is the operative word for these denominational corners of your blog, Rich.
Why does Preterism want this, what is its end goal?
According to Kenneth Newport in his “Apocalypse and Millennium: Studies in Biblical Eisegesis.” He states that -
“Preterism has been described in modern eschatological commentary as a Catholic defense against the Protestant Historicist view which identified the Roman Catholic Church as a persecuting apostasy.”
In other words – “Look we aren’t the Beast, the Whore, Gog & Magog, the Armageddon instigators;
that all happened way, way before us – We’re just trying to build the Kingdom and hold it together!”
Eusebius of Caesarea (AD 263–339) is considered the God Father of this teaching, which he then fleshed out from the writings of Pamphilus his teacher who had gathered steam from some of Origen’s work. The fact that Eusebius was Emperor Constantine’s golden boy doesn’t help either. This kind of interpretation serves early Christendom’s agenda perfectly in that promotes an “out with the old in with the new” kind of socio-political rhetoric – "We’re The New Kingdom, we’re The New Jerusalem; it will be a New Heavens and a New Earth with God’s Vicar reigning from Rome!"
This is all shallow slap-dash on my part but the overwhelmingly disappointed feeling I get from full-blown Preterism, leaves me eschatologically depressed.
& Kim -
Do you potentially see Preterism as inherently Supersessionist?
I like this.
The understanding that our scriptures (66 books) are for the most part about God dealing with Israel has been lost to a Christianity that is continuously being fragmented by selfish pride and clinging to age old traditions. Traditions that leave many questions unanswerable.
The whole reason I read your blog Richard, is to get new perspectives and Ideas. Billy thinks it's dry but I would counter that It is one of the more exciting thoughts I've heard. You are attempting to answer questions.
Experimental Theology
Keep on truckin!
Might it be a case of partial preterism?
The Isaiahs prophecies undoubtedly referred to the Babylonian exile and an eventual return to the Promised Land. Later they were reinterpreted as heralding the Messiah. Could something similar apply to the Olivet Discourse?
Let´s consider Daniel 12 about the End Times:
"Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." = Resurrection
"How long will it be before these astonishing things are fulfilled?"
Answer: "When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed." (12,7)
When was the power of old Israel (= Gods chosen, holy people) and his holy priesthood, holy law, his templesystem (sacrifices) completely shattered??
History says at AD 70! So according to Daniel at this time was the resurrection?!