It having recently come to my attention that a surprising number of my intimate acquaintances are uninformed of the specifics of my eschatological beliefs, and owing to my conviction that the opposing views most frequently encountered are deficient both in their ability to be supported Scripturally and in their effect on various doctrines, both abstract and practical, which by natural progression contribute to unsatisfactory Christian behavior, and seeing that there is little chance that anyone of you would come aware of this view apart from my divulgence and explication of it, I have decided that an attempt at presenting the essentials of my view, insofar as I have them strictly formulated, in a fashion as clear and concise as possible and hence wholly unlike the current paragraph, is a goal worth pursuing in the form of a blog post.
I like trying to talk like that! Ok, I’ll cut it out now.
My view on eschatology (the Scriptural doctrine of end times) is called “preterism” or “covenant eschatology”. Both are descriptive for different reasons: the first reveals the distinctive belief that the bulk or entirety of New Testament prophecy (including the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation) has already been fulfilled (praeter- being Latin for “past”) and requires no further, futurized fulfillment; the second term partially addresses the “huh?!?!?!” factor common to futurists when they first hear this interpretation. Let me explain.
Preterists, particularly full preterists like myself, believe that all the prophecies about the Second Coming and the Resurrection of the Dead were fulfilled in the first century; the apocalyptic language associated with “the end of the age” (e.g. the elements burning, the stars falling, and the demise of the sun and moon) was unambiguously in the style of the prophecies of the Old Testament, and were indicating not the end of the physical world, but the destruction of the Old Covenant of Judaism that occurred with the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem from 66-70 AD. “Eschatology” means “doctrine of last things”, and since the “last things” being prophesied about were actually the death throes of the Mosaic covenant, the term “covenant eschatology” is quite descriptive.
At the heart of this belief is the recognition that Jesus’ own credibility is at stake:
- Mat 10:23 - “Truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.”
- Mat 16:27,28 - “Truly I say to you, there are some who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
- Mat 24:34 - “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.”
- Mat 26:24 - “You [the high priest] will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.”
The time statements in Scripture are as clear as possible that Jesus’ prophecy of the return of the Son of Man “on the clouds of heaven” (apocalyptic language for a divine action of great gravity and moment) was expected to be fulfilled within the lifetime of its original audience. It was at this time that His believing saints were gathered to Him, making possible our eternal communion with Him. The Day of the Lord was fundamentally the time when apostate Israel was called on the carpet, with the sacking of the supposedly impenetrable City of David and the unthinkable destruction of Herod’s temple, in which, as the first-century Jewish historian Josephus confirms, “not one stone [was] left standing upon another”, just as Jesus predicted:
Jesus left the Temple and was going away, when His disciples came to point out to Him the buildings of the Temple: but He answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.” (Mat 24:1-2 RSV)
The new heavens and new earth, the New Jerusalem, this all refers to our fully-realized redemption brought about in the New Covenant, a covenant that could not be in effect while the beneficiaries and breakers of the old one were still going about their business unscathed and even persecuting the true Sons of Abraham. The more you read the Gospels, and particularly Jesus’ parables, the more you realize that He was a prophet of doom to the religious system of the day; every day that ethnic and political Israel thought itself the ultimate fulfillment of God’s promise to Abraham was a day in which it thumbed its nose at the sacrifice of the Messiah whom it defiantly rejected. In the parable of the wedding feast (Mat 22:2-14), the king was enraged to find that the ones who should have been the most willing and qualified to come to the wedding feast of his son were completely uninterested in accepting his generous invitation, mocking the invitation and exacerbating their impudence by killing the servants proclaiming the message. “When the king heard that, he was angry, and he sent his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.” Is this sounding familiar at all?
Well, if it’s all fulfilled, what does this mean for us now? Let’s continue the parable. The king’s servants went out into the highways and byways and proclaimed the good news that everyone, not just the original set of privileged guests (typifying Israel), was invited. That’s where we are now. In the New Covenant, we are the servants He sends out to gather in all, “bad and good”, anyone who would choose to wear the garment of His own righteousness that He has provided to cover our sins. We play the part of those who say to the blind, “Be of good cheer. Rise, He is calling you!” (Mk 10:49)
Do I have it all figured out? By no means, and I challenge you to show me an intellectually honest Christian to claim such of himself. But what I do know is more than sufficient to thoroughly convince me of the basic framework.
I implore you to research the following links for more detailed explanations.
- Outline to Covenant Eschatology
- Frequently Asked Questions
- A PowerPoint presentation called “An Introduction to Covenant Eschatology“
Why should you do this, reevaluating your own current doctrine and questioning an interpretation admittedly held by the majority of current American Christians?
1) The truth always matters, because Truth is a Person (John 14:6).
2) People convinced that “it’s all gonna burn” or that they’re about to get evacuated (against Jesus’ explicit prayer in John 17:15!) are not of much use for proclaiming the Kingdom of God. “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof.” It is the saints’ inheritance: we cannot and must not continue to allow the Church to surrender what our Savior has bought with His Own blood.
As Bereans, please research this soberly and seriously, not by simply looking for opinions about it from the perspective of its detractors (futurists), but from within the view as an internally and Scripturally consistent interpretation; you’ll find most of futurists’ objections are quite answerable. Then please let me know what you think.
Email this post to a friend
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Loading ...
7 responses so far ↓
1 A critique of Full Preterism « He is sufficient // Sep 24, 2007 at 10:41 am
[...] For another take on Full Preterism, read Steve’s thoughts at Undeception. Explore posts in the same categories: [...]
2 Steve // Sep 24, 2007 at 10:29 pm
Let me make a comment about preterist idealism. Scott, if you’re reading please let me know what you think.
I’ve looked hard and seriously at preterist idealism, based on what Todd Dennis has at the Preterist Archive and what I read at Nate’s site as well. The distinction between pret idealism and full preterism is somewhat nuanced: inasmuch as they recognize certain prophecies as specific and time-bound, they agree that those were fulfilled in AD 70, but would deny that the events of AD 70 are the ultimate fulfillments of biblical prophecy. From what I gather, the chief contention is over the universality of God’s covenant with Israel, and specifically how particular covenants are tied to history.
Full preterists per se believe that the Mosaic covenant was the first major covenant God made with humanity: we believe that Jesus was the focal point of this covenant, but because of Law-breakers and apostate leadership, the curses of Deuteronomy were brought upon them. Moses presented the Jewish people with the choice of life or death based on whether they would follow it through. Yet, to quote the Guardian of the Grail, they “chose poorly.” Jesus stands now as the focal point of the covenant He established.
In contrast, in a view named after Platonic thought but in measure shared by Paul and the author of Hebrews, idealists see the AD 70 fulfillment of prophecy as simply one of many realizations of noumenal reality with no real-world implication for those not historically involved with the Jewish system of the first century. Since the Old Covenant properly observed was only ever with Jesus, the destruction of the Jewish system in AD 70 was only an end for some individuals, and not a beginning for all. The Old Covenant was merely representative of all the other occasions in history, including today, in which God offers conciliation through Jesus. As I understand it, they view the recurrence of the “Day of the Lord” prophecies referring to things such as the judgments on Nineveh, Babylon, and the Old Covenant Law-breakers as evidence that there was never a single day of judgment for all humanity, whereas full preterists believe that the implication of God’s judgment on the signatories of the Old Covenant system manifested in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 had implications for the rest of humanity subsequently.
This is how I understand it. Scott, or any other idealist, please tell me if this is essentially correct.
3 Josh H. // Sep 26, 2007 at 12:20 am
Bravo, Jerry! Very concise and clear.
I too believe this way however I’m not so certain about some things (such as whether or not Christ will come again in bodily or if their will be some consummate “end of the world”. See I Cor. 15:27-28). Also I’m not sure what to do with the Millenium of Revelation 20. These two factors keep me from being a “full preterist”. I guess I’m a pretty-much-preterist. Or perhaps I could be called a Might-be-ammillenialist.
Oh who needs labels anyway!
4 Steve // Sep 26, 2007 at 2:28 am
Thanks for the comment, Josh. Let me say that preterists, like futurists, are by no means in complete agreement on all things, such as the exact timing of the Millennium or the First vs. Second Resurrection. By posting those links at the end of the essay I was not claiming agreement with everything contained therein. I am tossing around a couple views on those issues at any given moment.
However, I can’t find any Scriptural justification for an “end of the world”/bodily return of Christ. As for 1 Cor 15:27-28, look at the larger context, verses 22 through 27:
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet…”
So if you believe that we are alive in Christ and/or that the Resurrection of the Dead has occurred, or if you believe that Death is already defeated, you believe that whatever Paul’s talking about here with the “all in all” comment, it occurred at the same time.
Furthermore, down a few more verses, Paul ties the Christ’s defeat of death via the Resurrection to the passing of the Old Covenant (verses 54-56):
When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true:
“Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
Has the power of sin and death been broken or not? Is the Law still in operation?
Well, anyway, that’s the full preterist take on the issue.
5 Josh H. // Sep 26, 2007 at 9:18 pm
It just occured to me that I have never looked back at the OT context of “Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?”; it may shed light on what Paul is saying since what he’s describing will cause this OT to “come true.”
6 Idetrorce // Dec 15, 2007 at 8:48 pm
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
7 Steve // Dec 16, 2007 at 11:48 pm
Fair enough
Leave a Comment