Think Wink.

This is the final and concluding post on the arguments of preterism as concerned with the Olivet Discourse in R. C. Sproul’s book The Last Days According to Jesus. In this post, I seek to distinguish between full/radical/consistent preterism and partial/moderate/inconsistent preterism. The primary difference between the two is this: full preterism sees all of the eschatological and prophetic passages in the New Testament as already fulfilled. They believe that the resurrection has already occurred as well as the New Heavens and New Earth of Revelation 21-22. Partial preterism believes that certain events have already been fulfilled but other events (i.e. resurrection, final judgment, eternal state) are yet future. To distinguish the two positions more definitively, I expound upon the opposing views of the resurrection.

Sproul likens this debate to that of Calvin on the sacraments and the use of the term substance. On one front, Calvin did not use the term substance because it denoted to some the actual physical presence of Christ in the sacraments (i.e. the bread is literally Christ’s body; the wine is literally Christ’s blood). On the other front, Calvin insisted on using the term substance because it denoted Christ’s presence (i.e. one communed with Christ himself through the communion supper). Partial preterists battle dispensational futurism by saying some prophecies, i.e. the Olivet Discourse, were fulfilled in AD 70. On the other hand, partial preterists battle full preterists by saying some event are yet future. The point of this is that the same language is used, just in different ways.

Sproul deals with two modern combatants. From the Partial preterist camp is Kenneth Gentry, one whose famous work (Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation: An Exegetical and Historical Argument for a Pre-AD 70 Composition) argues that the Apocalypse was written before AD 70 and the fall of Jerusalem to Titus and the Roman army. He wrote an essay entitled “A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism” which critiques full preterism. From the full preterist cam is Edward E. Stevens wrote a response entitled Steven’s Response to Gentry. Sproul’s chapter on the resurrection deals in large part with these two debate.

Gentry’s first objection to full preterism is that it is not found in any of the creeds. All of the creeds of Christianity affirm a future return, a future resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked, the judgment of both righteous and wicked. Steven’s response is that of sola scriptura. The creeds are not always correct and that Scripture is the final authority on what is orthodox and is heterodox. But the burden of proof to show that the fathers were wrong falls on the full preterist. While this is true, Sproul points out that, even though the fathers could be wrong, it would be difficult to go against the historic faith that has affirmed these future events for centuries.

Full preterists are very strict, or consistent, in how they interpret “day of the Lord” or “end of the world” or parousia. Partial preterists would say that AD 70 was a return of Christ, not the return of Christ. There are different nuances to the term and thus one must encompass all of those nuances when studying the parousia. But the full preterist says that this is inconsistent and arbitrary and results in multiple comings.

Gentry charges that full preterists believe that all predictive eschatological passages have been fulfilled in the AD 70 destruction of the second temple. Stevens says that is not true, he holds to an ongoing fulfillment. However, Sproul points out that this “ongoing” fulfillment does not include specific events. Gentry is saying that all the specific events of the eschaton are fulfilled by full preterism in AD 70.

Full preterists acknowledge that this, charged as heresy by partial preterists, departs from creedal orthodoxy but not biblical orthodoxy. One such difference is the Apostles Creed that affirms resurrectionis carnis, the bodily resurrection of the saints on the last day. This is categorically rejected by full preterists.

The primary text concerning the resurrection is 1 Corinthians 15. The text concerned in this chapter of Sproul’s book is 1 Corinthians 15:50-58 where Paul writes,

50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
55 “O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

In v.51, Paul says “we shall not all sleep.” Full preterists take this to mean that this was to happen to Paul and his contemporaries, or his contemporaries at least. To do this, the full preterist must spiritualize the resurrection of the dead. Since the body is a “spiritual body,” observation can be difficult to come by. They hold to an invisible body that exists in the spiritual realm only. The nature of the resurrection is mysterious, but it must happen in the life-time of the Corinthians. This is consistent with what has been seen in the Olivet Discourse. Take the time-frame literally and the events figuratively.

This spiritualization is illogical. In Sproul’s words, “The logical difficulty is that it involves propositions and assertions that can be neither verified nor falsified empirically.” While pure deduction does not rest on verifiable empircal evidence, assertions that deal with physical matter in real history makes the need for empirical evidence extremely relevant and necessary.

Full preterists argue intensely that the body that is spoken of is spiritual, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:44-46. However, Christ’s resurrected body is the first fruits of those who are to be his in the resurrection. Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15:20-26 that our bodies will be like Christ’s body. The New Testament, namely Matthew-Acts, describes Christ’s body as a real and physical body that the disciples were able to touch and it could digest food! This spiritualization is also theologically wrong.

In order to maintain their “spiritual body” argument, full preterists define the dilemma as this: 1.) either Paul spoke of a resurrection within his lifetime; 2.) Paul was wrong. This is a false dilemma or an “either/or” fallacy. They limit the options to only two when there might other alternatives to the interpretation of this passage.

Full preterists sometimes give three stages of the resurrection: 1.) Christ’s resurrection and the beginning of his reign; 2.) Pre-parousia resurrection in which we die to the age/aeon and rise to the new aeon; 3.) universal resurrection conjoined with the ultimate establishment of God’s kingdom. This only works when the resurrection becomes metaphorical, as opposed to the traditional understanding. It is a drift into a form of gnosticism. Some full preterists deny this but it is easy to see the trend in the sequence above. We die to the age of the Old Testament and are resurrected to the age of the New Testament.

To further illustrate the full preterist position, consider Paul’s passage in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 concerning the rapture. There the apostle writes,

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep. 15 For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

Again, since Paul speaks in terms of “we,” the full preterist would say that this means that this has to have happened in the Thessalonians’ lift-time. But since there is no record of this happening, the full preterist would say that this occurred in the spiritual/non-sensory realm. Staying consistent with their hermeneutic, the time-frame is literal, the event is spiritual. But what happens is an almost dispensational, pre-trib rapture because the rapture is secret and ultra-quiet to the physical realm. To this the partial preterist would ask, “Why use language that speaks of ‘a cry of command…the voice of an archangel…the sound of the trumpet of God?’” This is not some secret rapture. It is a rapture that will be heard and seen by all. But it is also absurd to say there is an invisible raising of the dead to life, being caught up in the air, meeting the invisible Lord in the invisible Lord in view of this text.

This brings Sproul, and myself, back to a question of hermeneutics. The Olivet Discourse is a text that uses metaphor and imagery that is similar (actually quoted from in some places) to the Old Testament. Thus to not take Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 in a straight-forward, woodenly literal fashion would do more justice to the text than otherwise. However, Paul is not writing in the genre of the apocalypse, using the vibrant metaphor, Old Testament prophetic, and poetic language. He is writing a didactic epistle which is not to be taken in a “spiritual” sense. It should be taken in the sense Paul intended it, as a letter written to people explaining a physical event. In the case of the rapture, this event is like the return of the Roman legion from a conquest. The commander and his army wait outside the city while the city prepared the triumph for the victorious army. When all was ready, the trumpet would sound and the gates opened. A welcoming party would welcome the legion and escort it into the city. The rapture may be similar to this event, as Paul uses the same verb “to meet” in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. The rapture is symbolic in what it represents, but not in that it is invisible.

Let me end this post with illustrating what the Partial Preterist believes was AD 70 and what is still future and what the Full Preterist believes is AD 70 and still future.

Full Preterist
AD 70
THE parousia of Christ; The Day of the Lord; the resurrection; the rapture of the living; end of the Jewish age; the final judgment.

Still future
All eschatological events are fulfilled in AD 70 destruction of Jerusalem and Herod’s temple.

Partial Preterist
AD 70
A parousia of Christ; A day of the Lord; A judgment; The end of the Jewish Age.

Still Future
The parousia of Christ; The Day of the Lord; the resurrection; the rapture of the living; the final judgment; the end of history.

The Christian Carnival CLXXV (175): Trekkie

The Resurrection and the Law

The Second Coming Debate