As I stated in the previous post, it would behoove us to consult antiquity for an answer as the truthfulness of the Second Coming of Christ, and whether or not a transition is warranted in the Olivet Discourse.
What did the earliest Christians believe about it? If we can find some similar structural patterns, we can determine whether or not these ideas are justified. This is not an argument as to whether Historicism or Preterism are superior, but how do they compare? Looking at both views together will give us a fuller picture as to what the Early Church believed about Jesus' words, just as looking at the Gospel accounts together accomplishes the same purpose.
The Historicist view of Matthew 24 is summarized as follows:
Vs. 3 - "As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”
The key to how Matthew 24 is interpreted boils down to how one structures this question posed by the disciples. Did the disciples ask one, two or three questions? How one answers this determines the path one will follow throughout the rest of the passage.
Historicism sees the disciples asking two fundamental questions: 1) about the destruction of the temple, and 2) about the Second Coming (which is accompanied by the end of the age.)
Historical Preterism sees this as one question that is broken up into three aspects, but all refers to both the destruction of the temple, and the Second Advent at the same time.
Vs. 21 - "For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again."
Both Historicism and Preterism properly place the first section of Christ's discourse as relating to the destruction of the temple, and place the "great tribulation" account in the past, as also dealing with this same event.
Generally, both views are virtually synonymous to this point.
Vs. 26-27 - “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man."
Historicists see Jesus here contrasting the temple account with His Second Coming. In effect, they see this as an admonition from Christ Himself not to get the two confused. In other words, there are signs which will point to the temple event, but there are no signs necessary for the Second Coming. It will be plainly visible for all to see "as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west."
Preterists diverge on this point. Most believe that Jesus is speaking figuratively of the temple event still. Jesus is saying that He will not be found on earth, but they will plainly see His coming in judgment through the destruction of Jerusalem.
Vs. 29 - "Immediately after the distress of those days “‘the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken."
Historicists diverge on this point. However, this verse is generally seen as a transition from which Jesus is speaking of the temple event, to His Second Coming. In this verse, the entire Gospel age transpires.
The traditional interpretation here is that "after" means "at the end of..." Historicists recognize that the Great Tribulation against Israel is the beginning of "birth pains," or tribulation in general for both Jews and the Church. This tribulation endures as a characteristic throughout the Gospel age. Thus, at the end of the tribulation which was started at the temple event, the entire Gospel age has transpired and the Second Coming occurs.
Others view this as being symbolic of the "darkening" of the Church that would begin immediately after the Great Tribulation.
Preterists generally see this in a similar light, but that the "darkening" that occurs is to Israel, and not the Church.
Vs. 34 - "Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
Historicists generally see this the same as Preterists. However, some are in agreement with Futurists in that "genea" (generation), means "race."
Vs. 35 - "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
This is the point, generally, where Historic Preterists see the transition occuring. Jesus has answered the disciples question, and is now voluntarily giving them insight into the fullness of what His "coming" really means.
In summary, both views hold these things in agreement:
1. Jesus' discourse ultimately deals with two scenarios: a) the end of the Jewish age, and b) the end of the world as we know it. Jesus intermingles the two ideas, and one is to some degree or other, a picture of the other.
2. Jesus' discourse transitions at some point from discussing the first scenario to the discussing the second.
The views are almost identical in many places. Even where the views diverge, structurally they are the same, for they both generally follow the same path. The only difference is in where the milestones in the path should be laid. Though they lead in two different directions, they ultimately arrive at the same location and that is the Second Coming of Christ.
What are we to do with this? The Early Church didn't have an argument over a transition. They simply had an argument on the general characteristics of the Gospel age, and the timing of it all. However, the transition in Jesus' discourse, and especially His referring to His Final coming were without question.
I believe Modern Preterists err by leaving the transition out. Though a sensible argument can be presented from the text, as stated before, does it reflect what has traditionally been accepted as being without question by the Church?
It is not enough to say, "I believe in the Second Coming." When every verse pointed to mysteriously becomes about the temple event, then what we have is an empty confession with no Scriptural backing. At least Hyperpreterists are honest enough to admit the obvious. If we're going to follow this path, we must follow it to its consistent and obvious destination: no second coming.
However, with Historical Preterism, such a conclusion is both unnecessary and unwarranted. Furthermore, I believe the Historicist's position could actually be adopted to some degree by the Preterist Postmillennialist. Is it not true GENERALLY, that the Gospel age is characterized by tribulation, even though this will not always be the case???
0 comments:
Post a Comment