Do Some Preterists Believe Any Of The Kingdom Parables Have Already Been Fulfilled?

[KMK]

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

 

[KMK]

No news is good news in this case.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

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

 

[KMK]

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

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?

 

[unlearnedlearner]

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

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.

 

[KMK]

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

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?

 

[ReformedWretch]

Ken

Have you ever seen this site?

The PreteristSite ~ 100% Certified Heresy-Free

 

[unlearnedlearner]

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

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.

 

[KMK]

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

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.

 

[Pilgrim]

Unlearned learner, please click "Signature Requirements" on this post and update your signature.

 

[unlearnedlearner]

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

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.

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.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

Ken

Have you ever seen this site?

The PreteristSite ~ 100% Certified Heresy-Free

I didn't know Xena was a preterist.

 

[ReformedWretch]

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

 

[KMK]

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.

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.

You are saying that hyper-preterism is like Bizarro!

 

[Stephen]

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.

 

[KMK]

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

If you are wrestling with the issue of hyper-preterism, I understand. A number of years ago I really struggled through the issue. Short of the long, I was reading bad eschatological books, predicting an "imminent return" and then a friend gave me Chilton's "Paradise Restored". I spent the past two years looking at those verses as dealing with the "second coming" and all of a sudden a guy comes along and says, "Nope. They were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem." Not only was he saying that, but his exegesis seemed more than convincing. Anyway, I remember think, then what's left?

Well, after wrestling with the issue for several years, here is a basic outline of why I cannot buy the issue:

1. Adam/Christ typology - by a man came death, so by a man comes the resurrection of the dead. The effects of the fall, which are physical & not just spiritual will be overturned in Christ.

2. Resurrection - resurrection meant empty tomb. Read Lk. 23.26+ and compare w/ 1 Co. 15.3+. It fits the apostolic formula and note the angels question in Lk 24.5: "Why do you seek the living among the dead?" Where were they looking? Sheol? Old Covenant Israel? Hades? No, they were looking at bodies, so look at 1 Co. 15.12, "Now, if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead?" Max King and others try to redefine dead to be "old covenant Israel" and the objectors to be pro-Pauline Gentiles, but, seriously, do you really get that from 1 Co. 15 given the historical context of 'resurrection', 'the dead', & the 'yet, whether it was I or they, so we preached and so you believed'? Max & them make up the history to get their system to fit. On the other hand, Ed Stevens, et. al., seek to be more orthodox and understand this to be an individual resurrection from Hades, but were the Corinthians really believing that there was no resurrection from Hades? Paul's argument doesn't make sense if this is what they believed - "then even those that have fallen asleep in Christ have perished". Also note, sheol/hades or more complex than they make it.

3. The ascensions - Acts 1.8, which is the follow-up to Luke, I believe is the first real teaching on the "second coming" - heaven rec'd him and would until the times of refreshing (Acts 3).

4. Realizing that parousia was not a technical term.

5. The millennium - I take that to be a "time text" as well. Yes, you can shoehorn it into a 40 yr. period, but it doesn't really work, esp. if you follow the chronology of Rev. 19 and 20, the taking of thrones, etc.

6. New Heavens and New Earth - tied into resurrection and the Adam/Christ typology, but, as we sing at Christmas, "far as the curse is found".

7. "Present evil age" - it is still present.

8. More ad hom/subjective - I went to a conference and meeting these people in person gave me the willies. It really was creepy. I think some were influenced by the no longer existing satan. Many of them are just arrogant and they are constantly reinventing the wheel. They are now into "covenantal creation", which suggests Adam wasn't the first man & that Gen. 1-3 isn't about the creation of the world. As you point it, it is bizarro.

In sum, preterists have a point. There are many texts that deal with the destruction of Jerusalem & what many take to be "second coming" texts are pointing to that event, but that doesn't negate properly exegeted Scripture.

 

[MOSES]

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

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".

24 He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, 25 but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds [3] among the wheat and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants [4] of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”

Is this scripture not easily fulfilled with the judgment 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 judgment of Jerusalem be considered unorthodox.

What if Jesus was speaking of the "last" judgment 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.

 

[MOSES]

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 Parable of the Weeds Explained
36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

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 judgment 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 the age lasted 40 years, from the resurrection of Christ and his taking his seat as king until 70ad when he judged the nation with the fires of hell.

The tares are gathered into the fiery furnace, which is Jeruasalem (at judgment). Jesus told his discples to flee Jerusalem, but history shows us that many non-christian apostate Jews were going into Jerusalem at the time just before it was burned with fire. Jerusalem was filled, the doors were shut literally, tons were trapped inside, and then the city was burned and the tares were destroyed....Jerusalem, 70ad, is the furnace of fire.

The wheat was protected, the true people of God were revealed, shining fourth in the kingdom,and the Church, the real bride of Christ was manifest, she went on, and goes on victorious, in all the earth.
But....the apostate jews, the tares....were utterly destroyed and are no more.

Several of Jesus' other parables speak of similar things...again, leading up to thier climactic fulfillment in the olivet discourse, (matt 24)

Jesus’ parable of the wedding feast when those who were invited to the wedding feast did not come and it is said “But when the king heard about it, he was furious. And he sent out his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city” Matt 22:7

Jesus’ parable of the vineyard where those to whom it was given to tend ended up killing the owners son and Jesus asks what the owner will do them and it is said “He will destroy those wicked men miserably, and lease his vineyard to other vinedressers who will render to him the fruits in their seasons." Matt 21:41

Jesus’ pronounces the final judgment against Jerusalem and the Jews when he states

How can you escape the condemnation of hell? Therefore, indeed, I send you prophets, wise men, and scribes: some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city, that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth. . . . Assuredly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem . . .
Matt 23:33-37

Jesus' Parables of the kingdom consistently speak of the 70ad judgment.

 

[KMK]

Welcome to PB, Shawn!

Thanks for the response. You do, of course, agree with the WCF ?

32:2 At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.

I only ask because I have not read many posts by you and that is what I meant by 'orthodox'.

 

[MOSES]

Welcome to PB, Shawn!

Thanks for the response. You do, of course, agree with the WCF ?

32:2 At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.

I only ask because I have not read many posts by you and that is what I meant by 'orthodox'.

Yes, I hold to the WCF. I believe in a future bodily resurrection at the completion, i.e., when Christ has subdued all his enemies under his feet, the last enemy being death itself.

As for "orthodox" I must of misunderstood what you were inferring by your question and comments. I thought you were making a futurist interpretation of the kingdom parables a test for orthodoxy. Not the resurrection, being the kingdom parables deal with Jesus' generation and don't specifically mention a future bodily resurrection. Thus, I am not sure how the future resurrection being a test of orthodoxy is being applied to the kingdom parables.
The kingdom parables that you mention, (e.g. wheat/tares) don't mention the orthodoxy of a future bodily resurrection.

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

I don't know if preterist's do or don't (I'm not to familiar with full preterist writings and I've never read any of thier thoughts on the parables)...BUT...I believe that tares were cast into the fire in 70ad, as my last post shows (Jerusalem being the firey furnace).


I'm curious to know what is your connection between the kingdom parables ad 70 fulfillment, and resurrection orthodoxy?

Thanks

 

[Stephen]

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

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.

No, the hyper-preterist would not agree. They believe that these are past events and there is nothing that is to be fulfilled in the future.

 

[KMK]

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.

No, the hyper-preterist would not agree. They believe that these are past events and there is nothing that is to be fulfilled in the future.

Yes, the hyper-preterist does agree that "the kingdom is consummated w/the resurrection of the body, the delivering of the kingdom to the God the Father, and the new heavens and the new earth." But they do not agree that these have a future fulfillment.

 

[KMK]

Welcome to PB, Shawn!

Thanks for the response. You do, of course, agree with the WCF ?

32:2 At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.

I only ask because I have not read many posts by you and that is what I meant by 'orthodox'.

Yes, I hold to the WCF. I believe in a future bodily resurrection at the completion, i.e., when Christ has subdued all his enemies under his feet, the last enemy being death itself.

As for "orthodox" I must of misunderstood what you were inferring by your question and comments. I thought you were making a futurist interpretation of the kingdom parables a test for orthodoxy. Not the resurrection, being the kingdom parables deal with Jesus' generation and don't specifically mention a future bodily resurrection. Thus, I am not sure how the future resurrection being a test of orthodoxy is being applied to the kingdom parables.
The kingdom parables that you mention, (e.g. wheat/tares) don't mention the orthodoxy of a future bodily resurrection.

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

I don't know if preterist's do or don't (I'm not to familiar with full preterist writings and I've never read any of thier thoughts on the parables)...BUT...I believe that tares were cast into the fire in 70ad, as my last post shows (Jerusalem being the firey furnace).


I'm curious to know what is your connection between the kingdom parables ad 70 fulfillment, and resurrection orthodoxy?

Thanks

The resurrection is the test of orthodoxy because if one argues that the resurrection has already occured, then he is outside the bounds of orthodoxy. This seems to be the line that separates the preterist and the hyper-preterist.

 

[MOSES]

The resurrection is the test of orthodoxy because if one argues that the resurrection has already occured, then he is outside the bounds of orthodoxy. This seems to be the line that separates the preterist and the hyper-preterist.

Yes, I agree.

But I am still very curious to find out where the connection between resurrection orthodoxy (which we both agree on) and the kingdom parable of Jesus in Matt. 13 is.

Your post had a question of orthodoxy based on ones interpretation of the kingdom parables in Matt. 13.
Your test for orthodoxy was, as you state above, the resurrection.
What I am trying to find out is WHY your test for orthodoxy was applied or brought up in a discussion of the kingdom parables???

you said:

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

If your test for orthodoxy is the resurrection, where in the kingdom parables of matt 13 is this test.

Do you see what I'm getting at, and what I'm sincerly wanting to know?

e.g., If we were having a discussion on the clean and unclean meats in the torah, would we need to put a test of orthodoxy on the resurrection in regards to each of our interepretations on the continuing validity or non validity of kosher eating...i.e., what does resurrection orthodoxy have to do with such scriptural interpretation.

 

[KMK]

This thread might shed some light on my question: http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/what-prevents-preterist-becoming-hyper-30893/

 

[MOSES]

Thanks for that thread KMK. I read through it and what I have come up with is this:

Your question was flawed...

I re-looked at this thread and I did see that you rephrased your original question.

If it is the hyper-preterist's view of the resurrection that makes him unorthodox...THEN, he could never be unorthodox in interpreting the kingdom parables of matt. 13 as being fulfilled in 70ad because that scripture does not deal with the resurrection.

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

Now a preterist (non full preterist) is orthodox to begin with...so the answer here is a big YES..
even though the concept of the question was flawed because you were basing ortodoxy on the resurrection and these scriptures, again, don't deal with the resurrection.