Can a preterist apply the Kingdom Parables of Matt 13 to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and still be considered orthodox?

__________________

No news is good news in this case.

Partial Preterists believe that the Kingdom of God is still growing and expanding.

__________________
~Keon Garraway~ Brooklyn, NY

Love for God demonstrated by the love for our children in giving them a God centered education is the only hope for our country. by David Morrow
Pslam 71:20 [Thou], which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth.

I guess, in a way, everyone who is not a 'consistent' millenialist would agree. Perhaps we could say that particular parable is 'being' fulfilled.

But preterists do not believe that the tares for example were cast into the fire in 70 AD do they?

KMK,

When do full preterists say the kingdom came? Most I have ever read claim that it is AD 70, so would these parables not be about the Kingdom, "The Kingdom of Heaven is like..."

The partial preterist, taking a more "idealist" approach to the text can see it as applying to AD 70, although having current relevance to our situation and at the end, when he delivers over to God the Father after having destroyed every rule, authority, & power.

Given the hyper-preterists literalism at points, I am hard-pressed to see the complete/total fulfillment of "The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." After all, if hyper-preterism is true, wouldn't the lie of futurism have caused sin and law-breakers? Why wasn't it plucked out for well more than 2000 yrs, b/c despite their claims they are a very small group.

There was definitely a sense in which the Kingdom came in AD 70 (Mt 21.33+), the Jews were thrown out and there was a weeping and gnashing of their teeth, and the Church shined like the stars in the heaven. There is a sense in which this occurs every Sunday, the Day of the Lord, and there will be the final cosmic, eschatological fulfillment of this as well. "Eschatological"/apocalyptic language is used consistently throughout Scripture to point to similar events, which, I believe, is a participation in the final day.

Perhaps I should reword the question: Do preterists believe the kingdom was 'consummated' in 70 AD?

Ken

Have you ever seen this site?

The PreteristSite ~ 100% Certified Heresy-Free

__________________


http://www.myspace.com/aleavelle
"Speak wisdom to a fool and he'll think you have no sense at all"

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Aside from hyper-preterists, I know no preterist that believes the kingdom was consummated in AD 70. The Kingdom is consummated with the resurrection of the body, the delivering of the Kingdom to God the Father, and the new heavens and new earth.

However, the hyper-preterist would agree.

__________________
Chris Poe--Attending Grace Community Baptist Church, Mandeville, LA

"There never was a man in the world without a creed. What is a creed? A creed is what you believe. What is a confession? It is a declaration of what you believe. That declaration may be oral or it may be committed to writing, but the creed is there either expressed or implied."—B.H. Carroll

Hence my qualification, "aside from hyper-preterist", so:

1. When you say "preterist" I am taking it as an orthodox preterist, so the response was in that direction for preterist.

2. The hyper-preterist cannot have any historical understanding of those words, including the time that the Bible was written, especially resurrection. Grab the Bible and read the end of Luke and then read through Acts and see how resurrection is used for Jesus - he is touched, seen, and felt. The whole use of resurrection is the physical body of Jesus coming out from "the dead", which, again, was touched, seen, and then ascended, and it is not simply a "resurrection from hades/sheol", although it included that, and it is not a "covenantal resurrection" or "resurrection of old covenant Israel".

3. As you point out here, the "difficulty" with hyper-preterism is that it is a mirror of Christianity & a Christian heresy, they "believe" those things. It is a little bit like when I was a kid and championship wrestling had Doink the clown. In order to keep the schtick interesting they brought out Dink the Clown, who was a mirror of Doink, although he was a midget. They even went through a routine once where they met in the center of the ring and mirrored each other's moves. So it is with hyper-preterism. Hyper-preterism is not real Christianity, but merely mirrors it and mimics every move, although distorted and redefined. Is there a millennium? A resurrection? A "second coming"? New Heavens and New Earth? A Consummation? Yes to all of those, but where do they get their understanding and definitions? Is Dink like Doink? O.k., maybe that is an awful analogy, but...

This is where the "difficulty" comes in. They do not get their definition and understanding from the context that the Scriptures were written or even the Scriptures for that matter. Despite claims to taking the Bible in its historical context, their rejection of how words are used in the 1st century and in Scripture demonstrates that they do not. IF they can define "resurrection" any way they want, completely devoid of historical context, and just impute that definition into the text, then they can kind of make their system work, at least at points. Overall, however, like any false system, the errors begin to arise as sound exegesis is performed.

Remember, as they oft claim, "It is not creeds, but properly exegeted Scripture that we must follow." This would include the creed that "Jesus returned in AD 70". It is only because I think properly exegeted Scripture, especially as it pertains to the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles on the resurrection and the Apostles on the "second coming", that I am a "futurist" and agree with the history of the Church.

__________________
B.M.D.
Faith Bible Church
NY

I didn't know Xena was a preterist.

__________________
~James Helbert~, Wytheville, VA
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCUS
TheBibleAlone.com / The Edinburgh Inn
"Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” - Zechariah 3:2

Never mind, I hadn't got the joke, I do now! (lol)

You are saying that hyper-preterism is like Bizarro!

As a preterist, certainly the kingdom came with the ministry of Jesus. Those Parables are fulfilled in Christ and have reference to the growth of the kingdom. They speak about the blindness and the unbelief of the people in Jesus day. His Parables call people to discipleship. There is nothing unorthodox about saying that the Parables are fulfilled or that anything else is fulfilled. What becomes unorthodox is the teaching of some preterists who deny the resurrection and the future Parousia of the Lord, where He will judge the living and the dead. R.C Sproul, Sr. Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, Gary North, R.J. Rushdooney, and others are and were (in the case of Rush) preterists but solidly orthodox.

__________________
Stephen Welch
PCA Teaching Elder
Nova Scotia

BTW, a friend who shall remain nameless emailed me this:

The kingdom parables, specifically that of "the wheat and tares", is fulfilled in 70 ad because that is the exegetical conclusion of the passage.
Perhaps a "preterist" can apply it to 70 ad, but the real question is "what saith the scriptures".

Is this scripture not easily fulfilled with the judgement in 70ad?
It is not preterist dogma...but simple exegesis.

And how on earth would someone who comes to a sober analysis of this passage as refering to the judgement of Jerusalem be considered unorthodox.

What if Jesus was speaking of the "last" judgement to be poured out upon that generation in this parable, would Jesus be unorthodox?

Luckily for us, Jesus explains this parable a few verses later.

The 70 ad fulfillement is the most consistent interpretation in regards to the rest of the kingdom parables, especially as they build up to the Olivet discourse.

__________________
Shawn Atkins
Member, Parkhill Presbyterian Church (OPC)
Denver, Colorado

Open my eyes Lord, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law. Psalm 119:18

Of course making the statement I do above without any support or at least a couple exegetical comments on the text is probably quite rude.

The good seeds are the sons of the Kingdom, the elect in Israel, e.g., the 11 disciples and all who come to faith in the king of the kingdom, Jesus Christ, before judgement day (70ad).
The tares are the sons of the devil....the non-elect in Israel....Remember, Jesus told some pharisee's that they were "the children of the devil" those who committed blasaphemy against the Holy Spirit. The tares are such as these.

The harvest is the end of the age (of THAT age).The times of the end of