Sunday, November 26, 2006

My Question for Full Preterists

I have, on this blog, occasionally discussed issues related to the eschatological position known as preterism. This is the view that the vast majority of Old and New Testament prophecies were actually fulfilled in the first century in connection with the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. With some of these ideas I am sympathetic. I am usually careful in these discussions, however, to distinguish my beliefs from the position called “full preterism”, that is, the view that ALL biblical prophecy (including the final judgment) was fulfilled in the first century.

Recently, a friend from church asked me if I could come up with a question to challenge the “full preterist” view. Being rather occupied with my recent move, I thought I would try to kill two birds with one stone and use her question as the prompt for this week’s SC post. I apologize in advance that it is a somewhat skeletal response.

There are several good biblical points to be made against “full preterism”, but the following observations are what finally led me to reject this position and to fix my mind on the so-called “partial preterist” view. The problem with full preterism is that it is forced to conflate sets of events that are really quite distinct and to make events contemporary which were clearly to be separated by a long period of time.

Revelation 20 prophesies as future events two distinct judgments of Satan and two distinct resurrections, both of which are very different in character from one another and both of which are separated by at least a millennium. The first judgment of Satan is a temporary restraining. He is bound with a chain and cast into the abyss, but only for a thousand years (v. 3). At this first binding of Satan, the first resurrection also occurs (v.5). This first resurrection is limited to the tribulation martyrs (v. 5). They, and only they, come to life and reign with Christ for a thousand years (v. 4). The rest of the dead do not raise until the thousand years are finished (v. 5).

It is not until after this millennium has passed that the final judgment of Satan and the final resurrection take place, and both of these are very different from their prototypes. This second judgment of Satan, which follows his thousand year imprisonment, is not, like the first, a temporary binding in the abyss, but an eternal assignment to the lake of fire (v.10). On the heels of this judgment, comes the second resurrection (v. 5), which, no longer limited to the saints, is now universal, bringing before Christ’s throne all who have ever lived and died (vv. 12-13). Those who are not found in the book of life join Satan for eternal punishment in the lake of fire (v. 15).

Again, full preterists are forced to say that each of these judgments of Satan and each of these resurrections were to take place, at the most, within a decade of one another. Some even say that the second judgment and second resurrection are merely re-descriptions of the first.

My question, then, for full preterists is this: Given the clear differences in character and the thousand year interval between these two judgments of Satan and these two resurrections, how can all these events possibly be said to have taken place in the first century and at roughly the same time?

13 comments:

Charles Shank said...

Brad, I don't claim to be a 'full-preterist', or even a preterist', most of the time; I'm a Bible-believing Christian and when Christ said that He would return in His Parousia 'before this ( that ) generation passes away', I believe Him. I haven't really studied much for myself in that area which you mentioned, but that which I have done, in conjunction with others, has pretty much convinced me of that position.

In answer to your question, therefore; remembering all the while that 'Satan' was bound definitively at the cross ( "It is finished!" ), which I believe, corresponds to Revelation 20:1-3; verses 4-6 correspond to Matthew 27:52 and surroundingand 7-15 correspond ( in highly figurative language ) to the destruction of Jerusalem, or the final removal of the shadow, or type, of His covenant people ( Heb. 9:8-10, 12:27 ), and that the term 'thousand years', itself is highly symbolic; I believe that ALL these events ( Matt. 24:34 ) hapened within the first century, because He said that they would!

Brad said...

Charles,

I agree with your understanding of Matthew 24. I don't, however, see how that passage can adequately accomodate the second half of Revelation 20.

Charles Shank said...

Hey Brad, I used to be where you are, but to me, the language in the first few verses and the last few vew verses ( first few especially ) made it 'simple' for me; Jesus said that these thing were about to take place; not just most of them, so just like Matt. 24 can't be split up, neither can the book of Revelation!

Brad said...

Charles,

I'm not seeing how Jesus saying all the prophecies of the Olivet Discourse would be fulfilled before that generation passed away implies that all the prophecies following the millenium would be fulfilled within the same time. Those two sets of prophecies are very different.

Charles Shank said...

I was speaking, Brad, of the first and last few verses ( verse 1-3 of chapter 1, in particular )of the Revelation; and I think the confusion about the 'milleniums' of chapter 20, verse 4-6 is due to, first of all, the highly significant and symbolic nature of the term 1,000 in Bible prophecy, and second, the fact that the first millenium encompasses the second 'percieved millenium', ie. there is only ONE 'millenium'!

Brad said...

Charles,

I agree also that the bulk of the prophesies in Revelation are primarily referring to events that were shortly to come to pass.

I'm not talking about two millenia; rather I'm talking about two sets of prophecies: one that is fulfilled before the millenium, and one that is fulfilled after the millenium.

By the way, what do you think the thousand years is intended to symbolize?

Brad said...

Also, even Russell admitted that the millenial period was outside the general apocalyptic limits of Revelation. He taught that the events involving Gog and Magog were prophesied as distant future. In my opinion, the mistake he made was to treat the final section of chapter 20 as a recapitulation of the previous prophecies, rather than a separate set of prophecies to be fulfilled after the millenium.

Charles Shank said...

My point, Brad, was that the first few verses (1-3 ) of the 1st chapter of Revelation indicate that 'all' these things, as per Matthew 24, were to shortly come to pass.

We might have to define the 'millenium', or, 'thousand years', before we could even begin to definitively figure out the 'before and after' of said prophesies.

Personally, I would say that the 'thousand years' of the 'millenium' signifies an allotted ( by God ) space of time, which is not necessarily revealed to us ( mere men ) and I could quote you maybe one passage like Psalm 50:10, in reference to OT usage of the term 'thousand', but other than that, that's probably the best I could come up with right now, in the way of explaining it.

As for Russell; I have read him ( The Parousia ), but it's been awhile, and if he claims that not all biblical prophecy is fulfilled ( future Gog & Magog conflict ), then he definitely was not a full-preterist, and not much more than an inconsistent preterist; although I would probably agree with him that the latter events of Rev. 20, are little more than a 'recapitualation' of the earlier events of said chapter!

Unknown said...

With the risk of coming off like spam I wanted to let everyone know that Covenant Radio (http://www.covenantradio.com) will be dealing with the issue of full preterism on December 7, 2006 as we host Don Preston, a leading conference speaker and author who espouses this position. If anyone wants to offer these kinds of questions (or perhaps the one the author here has raised) then please head over to the site and go to the forum page.

Charles Shank said...

Thank you William; you might be hearing from me!

NewCreation said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I believe that the events depicted in Revelation were more of a Spiritual nature than a physical one - acting themselves out in the visible world. All the scriptures point to Jesus' return and the prophecies happening soon in their context. I believe that, as Jesus said, "Tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in 3 days" as He stood before the physical temple has caused the same misunderstandings in other scriptures. Jesus stood before a physical temple but was talking about HIS BODY as being the temple. Why? Because God often conceals spiritual truths in "brick and morter" examples so that only those "who seek" find. Jesus also said His Kingdom wasn't off this world. I don't think that truth is going to change, either. I believe Jesus hid the prophecies of the Book of Revelation from world. That's why the types and shadows aren't explained in full. That's why so many people are as perplexed today by some of the things He said as they were when he preached during His earthly ministry.

John the Baptist was Elijah who came again? We would have never come to that conclusion had Jesus not given that explanation. We would say it was "out of context." Likewise, the Book of Revelation depicts spiritually - the judgements which came upon the world and the devil.

Anonymous said...

[url=http://www.kfarbair.com][img]http://www.kfarbair.com/_images/_photos/photo_big8.jpg[/img][/url]

בית מלון [url=http://www.kfarbair.com]כפר בעיר[/url] - [url=http://www.kfarbair.com/about.html]חדרים[/url] גדולים אנחנו מציעים שירותי אירוח מגוונים גם ישנו במקום שירות חדרים הכולל [url=http://www.kfarbair.com/eng/index.html]אחרוחות רומנטיות[/url] במחירים מפתיעים אשר מוגשות ישירות לחדרכם...

לפרטים נוספים נא גשו לאתר האינטרנט שלנו - [url=http://kfarbair.com]כפר בעיר[/url] [url=http://www.kfarbair.com/contact.html][img]http://www.kfarbair.com/_images/apixel.gif[/img][/url]