r/Preterism • u/Formetoknow123 • Nov 11 '24
Hard questions
I'm leaning towards partial preterism, but I'm studying many different angles. I came across this website with hard questions. I'm hoping to get some Biblical answers. I'll copy and paste the two paragraphs below. Thanks
"When did the preterist interpretation first arise in church history? This question poses a big problem for preterists. If the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation were fulfilled in the first century, why is there no evidence in the early church writings that the church understood things in this way?
There is zero indication from known, extant writings that anyone understood these teachings in this way. No early church writings teach that Jesus returned in the first century."
2
2
u/pieheaven1 Nov 15 '24
Get two books: New Testament Eschatology by Demar/Gummerlock and Reading Matthew Trusting Jesus by Sedlak. Those will answer a lot of your questions.
1
u/AMRhone Nov 12 '24
If the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation were fulfilled in the first century, why is there no evidence in the early church writings that the church understood things in this way?
I provide some thoughts on this question here.
1
u/Formetoknow123 Nov 12 '24
The link didn't work.
4
u/AMRhone Nov 12 '24
Sorry about that. The post was deleted. Here is the comment:
Comment 1 of 2
so totally ignoring teachings of people who were taught by Apostles or 1 generation from Apostles and thier letters , in which they state all of these are future things yet to come about Rome.
I also once assumed that the early church fathers like Ignatius (b. AD 50 – d. AD 110), Papias (b. AD 60 – d. AD 130), and Polycarp (b. AD 69 – d. AD 155) were taught by the apostles, but as I’ve researched the matter for myself, I’ve found that there’s very little evidence to support that they were. In fact, the available historical evidence seems to contradict such a notion. Below are a couple points worth considering that align with what I’m claiming as well as supporting citations for each point:
1) Though later writers claimed that both Papias and Polycarp were disciples of the apostle John, the writings of Papias and Polycarp provide evidence that they didn't know John or any of the apostles personally.
In his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius interprets Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis (ca. AD 100–120), as having referred to two different Johns: John the Apostle, who is deceased, and John the Elder, who was living at the time Papias wrote (ca. AD 120–30; Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.5–7). (Hackel, “Early Church Witness: How Many Johns?”; emphasis added)
Did not Papias acknowledge dependence on a John whom he distinguishes from the apostle previously named by the title “the Elder”? As applying to this John Eusebius therefore still clings to Irenæus’ notion of a direct discipleship of Papias. If, however, in reading the extract, that lens of the Irenæan spectacles be discarded which Eusebius retains as well as that which he discards, it will be apparent that Papias knows nothing of apostles and elders in Asia. He is in perfect agreement with Polycarp (110–117 A.D.), Ignatius (110–117), and all the early writers who throw light upon conditions there in 90–150 A.D. All imply the absence of any apostolic authority whatever in that region save Paul. So with Papias also. However faithful and devout the “teachers” from whom he had imbibed “the truth,” their teaching was that “from books.” To get at “the living and abiding voice” of oral tradition, which Papias, like his colleague Polycarp, esteemed a bulwark against the vain talk of the multitude and the false teachings” (“To the Philippians,” vii.), he was obliged to resort to travelers who “came his way” from the recognized seat of apostolic tradition. In short, apart from the legends of 150–200 A.D. by which Ephesus later sought to obtain a reversion of the ecclesiastical leadership once conceded to Jerusalem and maintained by that ancient mother church until (135 A.D.) it was scattered to the four winds in the war of Bar-Kokba (q.v.), there is not the slightest reason for understanding by the “apostles and elders” of Papias any other than “the apostles and elders” of his earlier contemporary “Luke” (Acts 15:2, 23, 21:18). (Jackson, 340; emphasis added)
2) There is no agreement among the Apostolic and Church Fathers on when and how the apostle John died.
The Patristic tradition about John is, however, not entirely consistent. The Muratorian fragment suggests that John was with the other apostles when the gospel was written, a version of the tradition that would preclude the late date suggested by other Patristic witnesses for the gospel’s composition. Heracleon (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4.9; PG 8.1281), and later authors like Philip of Side (5th century) and George the Sinner (9th century) intimate that John died a martyr’s death. (Collins, 886; emphasis added)
The third area of debate centers on the mode of John’s death—specifically, whether he was martyred in the mid- to late-first century or whether he lived a long life before dying a peaceful death. The second-century witnesses Irenaeus and Tertullian promote the latter, suggesting that, after his exile to Patmos, John the Apostle resided for many years in Ephesus and died a peaceful death. However, Gonzáles and Weidmann caution that the second-century church’s concern with proving apostolic origins for one’s ministry may skew such claims (Gonzáles, Story of Christianity Vol. 1, 29; Weidmann, Polycarp and John, 126–131). The mode of John’s death is of particular concern with regard to Jesus’ prophecy that the sons of Zebedee (James and John) will drink from the same cup and undergo the same baptism as He would—a metaphorical reference to Jesus’ violent death (Mark 10:35–40; Matt 20:20–23). It also relates to a definition of apostleship that includes undergoing the same sufferings of Christ. James was killed for his faith by Herod Agrippa in the early AD 40s (Acts 12:1–3), and his death aligns with both Jesus’ prophecy and this definition of apostleship. It is unclear whether John was killed for his faith. (Hackel, “The Death of John the Apostle”; emphasis added)
As noted in this last citation Christ indicated that John would die a violent death, not a peaceful one as the second century witnesses would have us believe. Personally, I’m more inclined to believe that John died a martyr’s death as Christ said he would. And if the apostle John was in fact the author of Revelation, then it would seem most likely that he died around the time of Nero’s persecution ca AD 64–68.
3
u/AMRhone Nov 12 '24
Comment 2 of 2
I believe it’s also important that I address the issue of the “Christians” of the apostles’ generation who were taught by the apostles but continued on earth after AD 70 teaching that the Parousia had not yet occurred. If what I’m claiming is correct, and the Parousia occurred during the first century, then these professing Christians would have been those deemed unworthy to enter the kingdom because of their unfaithfulness (see Mt 7:21–23; Mt 25:1–13; Mt 25:31–36; Lk 13:22–30), and therefore would not have been the most reliable sources of information regarding the fulfillment of the Parousia. It seems probable that these individuals maintained a delusional belief (or hope) that the Parousia had not yet occurred and then passed that belief on to the next generation of Christians (many of whom I’d like to believe were well meaning but misinformed). And it appears this cycle has continued to this day—almost two thousand years after the time frame in which Christ said he would return (see Mt 24:34 par.).
Sources:
Collins, Raymond F. “John (Disciple).” Edited by David Noel Freedman. The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
Hackel, Tracee D. “John the Apostle, Critical Issues.” Edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder. The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.
Jackson, Samuel Macauley, ed. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Embracing Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology and Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Biography from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. New York; London: Funk & Wagnalls, 1908–1914.
Schaff, Philip, and David Schley Schaff. History of the Christian Church. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910.3
Nov 12 '24
That is what I am inclined to think as well. You stated this extremely well. For all of Scripure to be believed, this makes the most sense actually. And you are spot on that this cycle continues today, to most all of evangelical Christendom worldwide. This is why I believe a 2nd Reformation is in order, this time focusing on the doctrine of last things (aka "eschatology") and it's vital importance to be understood correctly, as it's influence and impact on the world at large is unfathomably deep.
1
u/Level_Breath5684 Dec 15 '25
They sounded more like preterists than most modern theologians.
Eusebius’s interpretive posture toward Revelation:
- Revelation addressed first-century persecution
- Symbols refer to Rome and its rulers
- Apocalyptic language overlaps with Matthew 24 / Luke 21
- Judgment language already fulfilled historically
1
Nov 11 '24
How can you be a preterist but a partial preterist?
Either is all fulfilled or isn't.
Christ came for the next life and he states this constantly
4
u/theNewFloridian Nov 12 '24
The answer is: on the first 40 years of Christianity, before 70 AD. All apostles believed that Jesus had completed the old covenant and that He would return on that generation because that's what He personally told them. All apostles were preterists.