Rapture in Full Preterism?

Post by **_Ely** » Tue Jan 16, 2007 2:41 pm

What is the Full Preterist take on the rapture?

And is there a pre trib/mid-trib/post trib discussion among those who hold to this doctrine?

Post by **_Jim from covina** » Fri Jan 19, 2007 11:12 am

I think any pret. (part or full), would say "what rapture"??

There is a "catching/snacthing up" which paul speaks of, and paul is speaking of the resurrection. Presumably when one dies. Caught up to be with the Lord.

Thats it.

jd

Post by **_psychohmike** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:32 am

I think the only people that have an easy time answering that question are those that accept a very plain/literal reading of the rapture passages. Except when it comes to the timing. On the other hand Preterist's have an easy time answering the timing of the passages but not the nature.

1 Corinthians 15

I think in this passage we have to observe what Paul says about the timing of it. He said, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet."

Some of his readers would not taste death before this event. Whatever the defenition, it would happen within their lifetime.

1 Thessalonians 4

Here Paul reaffirms what he said in 1 Cor 15, "we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord..." Again this would happen within the lifetime of those he was writing to.

Now mind you, I don't pretend to understand the nature of this event, but the timing is quite clear. And no I don't think the apostles or Jesus were mistaken like some others on this board have suggested.

The scriptures say different...

Luke 24:45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

And please don't tell me he opened their understanding...but only part of it.

Anycow...The apostles made it very clear that it would happen soon...and within their lifetime. And they could NOT have been wrong. If they interpreted the OT prophetic passages as taking place in their day then thats when they happened.

mike

Post by **_Sean** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:48 am

psychohmike wrote:
And please don't tell me he opened their understanding...but only part of it.

I'm not sure I understand. Did Peter not have problems going to the Gentiles? Did not Peter need a revelation from God to go into not just any Gentile home but one who was God-fearing and respected by the Jews (Acts 10)? God said to Peter "Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." To which Peter was "greatly perplexed in mind as to what the vision which he had seen might be". Why be perplexed? The OT commonly uses the animal motif for Gentiles in the prophets.

Also, there was a council in Jerusalem about the requirement for Gentiles to be circumcised and keep the law. Why did they need to hear Paul and Peter speak, and why Did James make a decision? Interestingly, James' decision seems to have been based on an OT scripture. So if Peter (and the other apostles) already fully understood the OT, he should not have needed the vision nor should it have been necessary for James to say "Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles" (Acts 15:19). It shouldn't have been a big deal. They should have just taken the Christians who were concerned and showed them the OT passages that speak of the Gentiles coming into the kingdom.

psychohmike wrote:
Anycow...The apostles made it very clear that it would happen soon...and within their lifetime. And they could NOT have been wrong. If they interpreted the OT prophetic passages as taking place in their day then thats when they happened.

mike

What about Haggai 2:4-7;
4'But now take courage, Zerubbabel,' declares the LORD, 'take courage also, Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and all you people of the land take courage,' declares the LORD, 'and work; for I am with you,' declares the LORD of hosts.

5'As for the promise which I made you when you came out of Egypt, My Spirit is abiding in your midst; do not fear!'

6"For thus says the LORD of hosts, 'Once more in a little while, I am going to shake the heavens and the earth, the sea also and the dry land.

7'I will shake all the nations; and they will come with the wealth of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory,' says the LORD of hosts.

The book of Hebrews quotes it again and applies it to a yet future time. Even if it happened in 70AD, it's over 500 years later!

Haggai is directed at those mentioned in verse 4. Were they suppose to expect this "in a little while"?

Just something to think about.

Post by **_Ely** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:05 am

psychohmike wrote: I think the only people that have an easy time answering that question are those that accept a very plain/literal reading of the rapture passages. Except when it comes to the timing. On the other hand Preterist's have an easy time answering the timing of the passages but not the nature.

So Mike, do you think that the early Christians (like Paul) knew about the "nature" of the catching away?

Sean wrote:Haggai is directed at those mentioned in verse 4. Were they suppose to expect this "in a little while"?

Which is exactly the point I make in the following thread: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=1393

Post by **_Jim from covina** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 10:28 am

Sean,

Is going back 500 some years supposed to make a case for how the n.t. writers used the idea "near"/"at hand"??

By the way, "a little while" is not in the Sept. in Haggai 2:4-7.
U sure its suppose to be there in the Bible?
U know the apostles used the Sept. right? quoted from it, etc.

jd

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:39 pm

Jim wrote (back on September 4th):

"I think any pret. (part or full), would say "what rapture"?? "

The full preterist might say "what rapture?" but there is no reason for partial preterists to explain it away, since, by definition, those who are "partial" preterists are also "partial" futurists. This would be the proper label for my position, and my position on the rapture is the same as it was before I was any part preterist in my eschatology. The rapture occurs, as Paul says, immediately after the dead are raised, at Christ's coming.

There is no clear prediction in either 1 Corinthians 15 nor 1 Thessalonians 4 that this event would happen in the lifetimes of his readers. That he speaks of "we who are alive and remain..." and "we shall be changed," may sound at first that he is claiming himself ("we") as part of the group that will live to see the event described. He could not have meant it this way without being mistaken. The wording cannot be pressed to be a prediction that some of his contemporaries will live to see it without also being a prediction that Paul himself (part of the "we") will be one of them--which he was not, whether we view it as a future event or as AD70.

When Paul distinguishes between "those" who are dead and "we" who are alive, I believe he is simply saying that, at any given point in time (whether his own or any future time), some portion of the church is alive on earth, and some portion has already died and gone to heaven. In speaking of the category of those living living at the coming of Christ, he uses "we" because he was speaking as one currently belonging to that category (i.e., those still alive, not those departed).

The rapture cannot have occurred in the past without the resurrection having occurred at the same time. I know that full preterists believe that both occurred in the past, but this can hardly agree with the things that are actually said about the resurrection by Jesus and Paul, including the following:

1. The resurrection is to include all those who have ever died, whether righteous or unrighteous (John 5:28-29). If this happened in 70 AD, then no skeletons would ever be found of humans who lived and died prior to that date.

2. Paul and the Jews (excluding the Sadducees) shared the same concept of the resurrection (Acts 24:15). I believe that the Pharisees held to a physical resurrection, as Paul puts it, "of the just and the unjust." Paul claimed that he believed the same thing that they taught.

3. Jesus and the Jews taught that the resurrection would occur on "the last day" (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 11:24). This, I believe, was understood by all to mean the day after which there are no other days. There have been many days since AD 70.

4. The resurrection of the dead must involve the physical bodies rising, and not a spiritual or metaphorical event, because Paul said that our resurrection would resemble Christ's--and even referred to Christ's resurrection as the "firstfruits" (the first example) of our own (1 Cor.15:12-13, 20, 22-23, 44-45/ Phil.3:21/ 1 Thess.4:14, 16)

A physical resurrection of all the dead bodies who have ever lived and died prior to the end of the world is what is predicted by Jesus and Paul. I am confident in saying that no such event occurred in the past, since the bones of bodies more ancient that AD70 are still in the ground, and are often discovered.

The only reason for anyone to suggest a contrary view would be if the authority of scripture declared it. There is no scripture that says this event has occurred, and there is no verse that predicted unambiguously that it was to occur in any particular time period--the "we" statements of Paul notwithstanding.

I believe that the only argument for full preterism is the assumption that the "coming" of Christ must always refer to the same thing. Therefore, it is assumed, when we learn that some references to His coming are speaking of AD 70, we now know that all references to His coming must have been fulfilled at that time.

Full preterists often refer to themselves as "consistent" preterists. They say, "Why apply only some of the references to Christ's coming to AD 70? Why not apply them all and be consistent?" Rationalty does not call for such a position of consistency. To say, "Some prophecies have been fulfilled in the past," does not demand the claim that "All prophecies have been fulfilled in the past."

In Jesus' day, He would have said (as did the apostles after Him), that some Bible prophecies have been fulfilled in the past (e.g., prophecies about His birth), but He was not inconsistent in seeing some prophecies (e.g., those concerning His death) as yet future, from His perspective. Since prophecies are fulfilled over a wide range of time, it is not surprising to find people living at times between the fulfillment of some prophecies and the fulfillment of others, yet future to them.

Jesus did indicate that, with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, "all things that are written" (that is, Old Testament prophecies) would be fulfilled (Luke 21:20-22), but this statement does not address prophecies that were given later by Christ or His apostles and prophets.

There are times when consistency is wooden and artificial--a lazy man's way to throw everything into one bag so as not to have to labor over the details of individual cases. This approach may ease the easily-satisfied and non-critical mind, but it is not a rule that is very conducive to discovering the truth of a matter.

Emerson famously referred to that "foolish consistency that is the hobgoblin of little minds." I have often thought that the dispensationalists, in their inflexible insistence on consistent literal interpretations often provide a good example of what Emerson was referring to. It seems to me that full preterists succumb to a similar "foolish consistency" in not recognizing the many ways in which the term "coming" is applied to different events in scripture:

1) some to AD 70 (e.g., Matt.10:23; 16:28; 21:40/ Heb.10:37, etc.),

2) some to other events which are now past (John 1:11; 14:18, 23/ Rev.2:5, 16; 3:20)--to which could be added numerous Old Testament passages that speak in similar terms of thing now long past, but not referring to AD 70 (e.g., Isaiah 19:1/ Dan.7:13/ Mic.1:3/Zech.1:16; 8:3, etc.).

3) some to an event not yet realized (Acts 1:11/ 1 Thess.4:16/ 2 Thess.1:7-10/ Phil.3:20-21/ 2 Tim.4:1/ 1 Pet.1:7/ 1 John 3:2).

I know that full preterists have alternative explanations of verses in category 3 (above), but to take them as future is the simplest way and the way that they would most likely have been understood by their original readers. Category 2 cannot by any means be applied to AD 70, so why artificially force those verses in category 3 into that straight-jacket?

This is why I remain a partial preterist, and am not impressed with the case for full preterism.

Post by **_psychohmike** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:11 pm

Sean wrote:
What about Haggai 2:4-7;
4'But now take courage, Zerubbabel,' declares the LORD, 'take courage also, Joshua son of Jehozadak, the high priest, and all you people of the land take courage,' declares the LORD, 'and work; for I am with you,' declares the LORD of hosts.

5'As for the promise which I made you when you came out of Egypt, My Spirit is abiding in your midst; do not fear!'

6"For thus says the LORD of hosts, 'Once more in a little while, I am going to shake the heavens and the earth, the sea also and the dry land.

7'I will shake all the nations; and they will come with the wealth of all nations, and I will fill this house with glory,' says the LORD of hosts.

The book of Hebrews quotes it again and applies it to a yet future time. Even if it happened in 70AD, it's over 500 years later!

Haggai is directed at those mentioned in verse 4. Were they suppose to expect this "in a little while"?

Just something to think about.

Well...I guess the early bird(Jim) got the worm. I do think it is funny that people appeal to this text in the english without considering the greek. The "It is a little while," doesn't even exist in the greek. Maybe that is why the author of the book of Hebrews doesn't use it either. Theres not even any justification for it being there. Maybe it started with the KJV and translators not wanting to say that the king was naked just carried it over. Sorry guys bad argument.

For thus says the lord almighty, Still once I shall shake the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land.

Got any others like that Sean?

mike

Post by **_Steve** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:08 pm

Much as Sean's example complicates things for preterists (like myself) when discussing the time references in Revelation, and much as I wish it could be legitimately explained away, I have to point out that, whatever may be the case with the Septuagint (used by the author of Hebrews), the Hebrew text of Haggai includes the phrase "it is a little while."

Whether our present Hebrew text better preserves the original wording, or whether that wording is better preserved in the Septuagint, we are not able to say, given the limited manuscript evidence currently available to us. However, the presence of the phrase in the Hebrew Bible does make Sean's appeal to it legitimate.

I addressed this particular point (i.e., the use of an apparent time reference in Haggai, compared to those in Revelation) when I responded to Norm Geisler a year and a half ago (see at http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=449 ). Here is what I wrote at that time:

To say that a thing is "near" is certainly a relative term. When Haggai predicted that Jesus would come to the temple (2:6-7), that coming was actually about 500 years off. Compared to the whole history of the Old Covenant (1500 years) an event occurring in the last third of that period might be considered "relatively near." Hebrews 10:37, in my opinion, is about AD 70, not the second coming. That event was truly near at the time of the writing of Hebrews. But let us suppose the events predicted in Revelation were actually 2000 years removed from the original readers' time. Would this seem "relatively near?" Relative to what?

Post by **_psychohmike** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 5:19 pm

Thanks Steve. Good thoughts.