I'm a bit interested in Eschatology. For those of you who don't know what eschatology is, it's the study of eschat.
Really, no, I'm just kidding. I don't even know what eschat is...
But I heard some fairly convincing stuff from a preterist this last week. Preterists believe that the last days described in the Bible happened in the first century, and that it's all done.
Well, I don't think that's right. So I've been thinking on that. Here's a bit of it:
Preterists take the time words very seriously - the statements that are made in Matthew 24, Revelation 1-3, and elsewhere, where Jesus says that 'this generation' would see the kingdom, or that 'the time is near', or 'these things must soon come to pass'.
I was challenged to take those seriously as well - I had not given them as much thought as other elements of those same passages...but I find the strict preterist interpretation simplistic, as I understand it.
Based on the small amount of study I've done thus far, it appears they hang their hat on the 'plain meaning of scripture' selectively. Some passages get 'plain meaning', others get ignored because they don't fit the starting assumption and satisfy a first century interpretation.
I'm therefore challenged in my own self to try and harmonize those disparate pieces and make sense of the puzzle.
It's legitimate to say that Peter, Paul and John, and the writers of the gospels, all indicated Jesus was returning right away. And their assumption of the soon return of Christ made it into scripture, so you have to wrestle with the fact that He doesn't appear to have returned in any way we can see or hear or touch. The world continues on like it always has.
Another strong argument in favor of preterist thinking is that Revelation offers comfort to oppressed Christians, with words like 'a little while longer' and 'endure for 10 days'. If we apply the 'plain meaning of scripture' principle there, we're looking at the need to interpret at least Revelation 1-3 as being primarily a 1st century document - perhaps like we look at the epistles of Paul.
But I'd like to look at Revelation 1:3 and 1:7.
That sets the context for the rest of the letter to be a near and soon to be fulfilled occurrence.
Other verses corroborate that.
The preterist viewpoint is that the scary stuff spoken of in Revelation and Matthew 24 was satisfied by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. And it's a pretty satisfying conclusion. It fits the facts described in Matthew and Revelation pretty well.
It's also important to note that 'all the nations of the earth will mourn' can also be translated as 'all the tribes of the land'. Nation is not 'ethnos' here, it's 'phule' - clan or tribe. And the earth is 'ge', which also translates as land, rather than 'oikoumene', which would more clearly indicate the gentile nations, the entire populated earth.
All that supports a local, Israel-and-Jerusalem-focused application of the passages listed above.
It's interesting to note another occurrence of these same ideas, this time from the Old Testament. It might even be suggested that Jesus and John were quoting Zechariah 12 when the reference 'all the nations of the earth will mourn', and 'look upon the one whom they have pierced'.
Now we've got the case for a a localized, immediate ( within a generation ) fulfillment of Jesus' words. Common sense seems to back it up, it's simple, clear. Pretty convincing to me thus far.
This is where the Preterists take a left turn. They say that because Jesus is prophesying how bad it will be in Jerusalem at that time, and they equate that with the 1st century destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
The preterist position writes Israel off, calls them 'judged' and says that 'true Israel' came into the Church at that point. The Old Covenant is gone, and the temple destroyed. End of story. I heard it described last weekend as that generation's rightful judgement for the rejection of Jesus.
But here's the problem: When quoting Zechariah 12, Jesus was quoting from a narrative that shows Judah destroying the nations, Jerusalem receiving security from its enemies, and the tribes of Israel restored to their land from exile. It's entirely the opposite of the preterist position. A 'plain meaning of scripture' reading of Zechariah 12 puts it in the context of a repentant, victorious Israel, with a spirit of grace poured out on it.
That hasn't been fulfilled yet, and certainly stands opposed to anything that might indicate Israel is permanently rejected by God. That's one of the many weaknesses of the preterist viewpoint - it rejects the promise of Israel's restoration by lumping Israel in with the church, ignoring massive promises that the Old Testament prophets gave about God restoring Israel.
I find myself struggling to avoid using terms like 'weasel out', 'anti-semitic' or 'doctrine of demons' when I consider the implications of writing off Israel. I appreciate the preterist viewpoint, I'm challenged by it, there's much to learn from it.
However, it appears to be married to an anti-semitic doctrine of demons that weasels out of respecting God's plan for Israel by spiritualizing his promises to Her and making them irrelevant - or else excusing themselves from the table whenever Romans 9-11 comes up for discussion.
I was looking for supporting material for the Greek references I made in this post. and happened across a document supporting the preterist view. I encourage you to read it at http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com/pdf/EveryEyeSawHim.pdf.
By about the third paragraph, it becomes clear the author isn't actually reading Zechariah for what it says, since he seems to think that Zechariah is talking about a judgement on Israel. Read Zech 12:3.
Now, I'll admit to ONE verse in Zech 14 that looks kind of bad for Jerusalem - there's rape and exile mentioned in 14:2 - but then the Lord goes out and fights against the nations of the earth and rots their tongue in their mouths. So that turns out ok for Israel in the end.
You'd have to be seriously preoccupied with a foregone conclusion to read Zechariah 12 that wrongly. I think that a truth may be hidden in the preterist viewpoint, but it's obscured by their assumptions about the nature of God's relationship with Israel - Anti-semitism is a problem that goes back a long way in the history of the church, resulting in Sunday worship, rejection of Passover and introduction of paganism into the church. We're only starting to come out of it, none too soon.
Now, I don't have a solid answer for the problem of Jesus' statements about a first century return - hopefully I can arrive at something that my heart will accept as the truth without resorting to some writhing shenaniganery - and hopefully I won't have to write off huge portions of scripture to do it.
Really, no, I'm just kidding. I don't even know what eschat is...
But I heard some fairly convincing stuff from a preterist this last week. Preterists believe that the last days described in the Bible happened in the first century, and that it's all done.
Well, I don't think that's right. So I've been thinking on that. Here's a bit of it:
Preterists take the time words very seriously - the statements that are made in Matthew 24, Revelation 1-3, and elsewhere, where Jesus says that 'this generation' would see the kingdom, or that 'the time is near', or 'these things must soon come to pass'.
I was challenged to take those seriously as well - I had not given them as much thought as other elements of those same passages...but I find the strict preterist interpretation simplistic, as I understand it.
Based on the small amount of study I've done thus far, it appears they hang their hat on the 'plain meaning of scripture' selectively. Some passages get 'plain meaning', others get ignored because they don't fit the starting assumption and satisfy a first century interpretation.
I'm therefore challenged in my own self to try and harmonize those disparate pieces and make sense of the puzzle.
It's legitimate to say that Peter, Paul and John, and the writers of the gospels, all indicated Jesus was returning right away. And their assumption of the soon return of Christ made it into scripture, so you have to wrestle with the fact that He doesn't appear to have returned in any way we can see or hear or touch. The world continues on like it always has.
Another strong argument in favor of preterist thinking is that Revelation offers comfort to oppressed Christians, with words like 'a little while longer' and 'endure for 10 days'. If we apply the 'plain meaning of scripture' principle there, we're looking at the need to interpret at least Revelation 1-3 as being primarily a 1st century document - perhaps like we look at the epistles of Paul.
But I'd like to look at Revelation 1:3 and 1:7.
Revelation 1:3
Blessed be the one who reads the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear it and take to heart what is written in it, because the time is near.
That sets the context for the rest of the letter to be a near and soon to be fulfilled occurrence.
Revelation 1:7So contextually, the time is near for Him to return on the clouds.
Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the peoples of the earth will mourn because of him.
Other verses corroborate that.
Matthew 24:30,34That's a pretty strong time indicator, and pairs well with Revelation chapter 1. Plain meaning of the verses: Jesus is coming back right away - within a generation, however long that is.
At that time the sign of the Son of man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will the Son of man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory [...] I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
The preterist viewpoint is that the scary stuff spoken of in Revelation and Matthew 24 was satisfied by the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. And it's a pretty satisfying conclusion. It fits the facts described in Matthew and Revelation pretty well.
It's also important to note that 'all the nations of the earth will mourn' can also be translated as 'all the tribes of the land'. Nation is not 'ethnos' here, it's 'phule' - clan or tribe. And the earth is 'ge', which also translates as land, rather than 'oikoumene', which would more clearly indicate the gentile nations, the entire populated earth.
All that supports a local, Israel-and-Jerusalem-focused application of the passages listed above.
It's interesting to note another occurrence of these same ideas, this time from the Old Testament. It might even be suggested that Jesus and John were quoting Zechariah 12 when the reference 'all the nations of the earth will mourn', and 'look upon the one whom they have pierced'.
So Jesus and John were paraphrasing Zech 12 - and quoting Daniel 9 in reference to his coming on the clouds of heaven. Two huge eschatalogical passages are tied together in Matthew 24 and Revelation 1. It's clearly written or spoken to Israel and Jerusalem, both in Zechariah and Matthew.
Zechariah 12:10-12
And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day, the weeping in Jerusalem will be great [...] The land will mourn, each clan by itself [...]
Now we've got the case for a a localized, immediate ( within a generation ) fulfillment of Jesus' words. Common sense seems to back it up, it's simple, clear. Pretty convincing to me thus far.
This is where the Preterists take a left turn. They say that because Jesus is prophesying how bad it will be in Jerusalem at that time, and they equate that with the 1st century destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans.
The preterist position writes Israel off, calls them 'judged' and says that 'true Israel' came into the Church at that point. The Old Covenant is gone, and the temple destroyed. End of story. I heard it described last weekend as that generation's rightful judgement for the rejection of Jesus.
But here's the problem: When quoting Zechariah 12, Jesus was quoting from a narrative that shows Judah destroying the nations, Jerusalem receiving security from its enemies, and the tribes of Israel restored to their land from exile. It's entirely the opposite of the preterist position. A 'plain meaning of scripture' reading of Zechariah 12 puts it in the context of a repentant, victorious Israel, with a spirit of grace poured out on it.
That hasn't been fulfilled yet, and certainly stands opposed to anything that might indicate Israel is permanently rejected by God. That's one of the many weaknesses of the preterist viewpoint - it rejects the promise of Israel's restoration by lumping Israel in with the church, ignoring massive promises that the Old Testament prophets gave about God restoring Israel.
I find myself struggling to avoid using terms like 'weasel out', 'anti-semitic' or 'doctrine of demons' when I consider the implications of writing off Israel. I appreciate the preterist viewpoint, I'm challenged by it, there's much to learn from it.
However, it appears to be married to an anti-semitic doctrine of demons that weasels out of respecting God's plan for Israel by spiritualizing his promises to Her and making them irrelevant - or else excusing themselves from the table whenever Romans 9-11 comes up for discussion.
I was looking for supporting material for the Greek references I made in this post. and happened across a document supporting the preterist view. I encourage you to read it at http://www.allthingsfulfilled.com/pdf/EveryEyeSawHim.pdf.
By about the third paragraph, it becomes clear the author isn't actually reading Zechariah for what it says, since he seems to think that Zechariah is talking about a judgement on Israel. Read Zech 12:3.
Now, I'll admit to ONE verse in Zech 14 that looks kind of bad for Jerusalem - there's rape and exile mentioned in 14:2 - but then the Lord goes out and fights against the nations of the earth and rots their tongue in their mouths. So that turns out ok for Israel in the end.
You'd have to be seriously preoccupied with a foregone conclusion to read Zechariah 12 that wrongly. I think that a truth may be hidden in the preterist viewpoint, but it's obscured by their assumptions about the nature of God's relationship with Israel - Anti-semitism is a problem that goes back a long way in the history of the church, resulting in Sunday worship, rejection of Passover and introduction of paganism into the church. We're only starting to come out of it, none too soon.
Now, I don't have a solid answer for the problem of Jesus' statements about a first century return - hopefully I can arrive at something that my heart will accept as the truth without resorting to some writhing shenaniganery - and hopefully I won't have to write off huge portions of scripture to do it.
Comments
I've always been pretty lackadaisical about needing to know for sure how everything is going to happen in the end. But we've had this talk before. The Lord has been talking to us about living in the NOW, and that NOW is where the kingdom happens. I grew up being taught the dispensational view, which I think has big problems, and the more I learn the less I come down on anything. All I know is that if I obey the Lord, I'll be doing the right thing at the right time.