Here is an explanation of the preterist interpretation of Biblical prophecy, just to thow it out there:
The Seven Churches
by Pahpa 33 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
lovelylil
m.j.
Thanks for the link it was very interesting. The writer made a good point which is we have to look at the time period covered by bible texts. Sometimes the writers overlapped texts that speak of two seperate times but do not make a clear distinction of it. I think Matthew 24 is one time. The disciples asked Jesus really two things that they linked to being in the same time period but were wrong and that is 1. the destruction of the temple in Jerusaelem 2. the end of the age and the establishment of the kingdom on earth.
Jesus gives signs for both but does not clearly distinguish them. But it seems like some parts cannot apply to the destruction of Jerusalem because they did not happen. Many believe that is because it will happen but at a later date. These may also interpret Revelation in the same way. Thanks again, Lilly
-
Leolaia
Partition of the Olivet discourse into two separate prophecies referring to different eras is another hermeneutic that is not justified by the text itself, but which is aimed at maintaining the contemporary relevance of the prophecy. Only through the benefit of the hindsight of history would the reader recognize that the "end of the world" and the eschatological judgment did follow on the heels of the destruction of the Temple (unless one adopts a preterist position, which better respects the text but which unfortunately historicizes the eschatological judgment).
Consider the earlier version of the discourse in Mark 13. The question posed by the disciples did not even inquire about the end of the world: "When will this [i.e. the destruction of the Temple] be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?" (v. 4). It is only in his response, that Jesus mentions all the things that in a contemporary reading would have to be ascribed to a still future end of the world, since they did not happen in the first century. But going by the text itself, it is clear that the author is presenting an eschatological scenario that assumes that the destruction of the Temple occurs in a tribulation (v. 14-19) that will end with the parousia (v. 24-27); notice that in v. 24 the "coming of the Son of Man" in judgment occurs "after that tribulation" but still "in those days" (en ekeinais tais hémerais). In no sense is a span of two thousand years thought to intervene between the two events; in fact, this notion is explicitly ruled out by v. 30 which claims that "all these things" (i.e. including the coming of the Son of Man and the gathering of the elect into the heavens) occurs before the generation that saw Jesus dies. This idea is reinforced by Mark 8:38-9:1, which is a doublet of 24:30:
"Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God coming with power".
While the author of Mark did not anticipate a delay in the realization of the parousia (imho because it was written before AD 70), this is a major theme in Matthew -- which is literarily dependent on Mark, reproducing almost 90% of the text of Mark -- which modifies the Olivet discourse in several key ways. Now the question posed by the disciples explicitly distinguishes the parousia from the destruction of the Temple: "When will this [i.e. the destruction of the Temple] be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" (Matthew 24:3). Here the parousia is implicitly a separate event from the destruction of the Temple, whereas in Mark it actually serves as the climax of the overall event. Apparent delay of the parousia is also the theme of the three parables that Matthew adds to the Olivet discourse in 24:45-51 ("My master is delayed"), 25:1-13 ("...as the bridegroom was delayed"), and 25:14-30 ("after a long time the master of those servants came"), and in 24:42, 44, 50, 25:13 there is the refrain that the Lord will come at an hour unexepcted by those waiting for him. And yet the seeming delay will not be a long one for the Son of Man will still come in the lifetime of those who saw Jesus. The author reproduces the two Markan statements to this effect in Matthew 16:27-28, 24:34, and he intensifies this limit in several ways. He adds the following promise in Matthew 10:23: "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes". Moreover, Jesus tells those condemning him to death: "The time will come when you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (26:64). The implication is that those who put Jesus to death will see his parousia. Compare the thought in Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes of the earth will wail on account of him". Matthew's version of the Olivet discourse thus indicates that there will be a significant delay in the parousia after the events of AD 66-70 but that it should still come before those who saw Jesus Christ perish in death (cf. AD 80 as the date of Matthew preferred by scholars). When we look at other Christian writings from the period between AD 50 to 90, we find similar anticipations concerning the nearness of the parousia (cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:19, 3:13, 4:15-17, 5:23, 1 Corinthians 7:25-31, 15:51-52, Romans 13:11-12, 16:20, James 5:7-9, Hebrews 10:25, 36-37, 1 Peter 4:5-7, 12-13, 5:1-4; cf. Acts 2:16-20, 40, 17:30-31).
As a point of contrast, the appendix to the John (possibly dating to the early second century AD) claims that the expectation that certain people who saw Jesus "will not die" (= "will remain until I come") is simply a misunderstanding of what Jesus really said (21:20-23; compare Matthew 16:27-28).
There have been many ways the "parousia problem" has been handled by Christians. The partition solution favored by the Society and other pre-millenialists, as argued above, conflicts with the literary structure of the Olivet discourse and the differences between Matthew and Mark. The preterist solution respects the original temporal scope of the Olivet discourse, and yet must limit the universal scope of the judgment or historicize eschatological events of which there is no empirical evidence of occurring (similar to the Society's claim that the parousia occurred invisibly in 1914). The historio-critical approach that attributes the prophecy to the writers of the gospels rather than Jesus himself also solves the problem by exempting Jesus from unrealized/failed prophecy; this is a motivation behind the attempt to construe the "historical Jesus" as a non-eschatological social reformer by some Jesus Questers, who want a Jesus who is innocent of prophetic failings. However, other Questers understand the strong apocalyptic character of the kind of Judaism that underlies Christianity, and the whole focus on the "kingdom" that runs through the parables, the miracle stories, and discourses can hardly have lacked an eschatological dimension. Dale Allison believes that the "historical Jesus" had a mistaken eschatological view but solves the problem posed by this theologically: "A Jesus who proclaimed the nearness of the end in the first century must have been a real human being. This is no small point. Docetism may have been condemned long ago as a heresy, but it has never gone away. Much of the popular Christianity I have known seems to think that Jesus was at least three-fourths divinity, no more than a quarter human being. If we go back to the ancient church, it wasn't much better. The theologians who confessed Jesus' true humanity balked at the implications" (Resurrecting, pp. 146-147).
-
lovelylil
I don't agree with the preterist view for too many reasons to go into here. I do still believe that some of the things that were supposed to take place in Matthew 24 did not with the destruction of Jerusalem and thus they are for a later period in time. I don't believe in the end of it all that there will be any prophecies just left unfulfilled. But thank you Narkissos, Pahpa, and Leolaia for the lively discussion. Lilly