The Evangelical Universalist Forum

On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

Featured Writers Dr Richard Beck
#2

Thanks for sharing this, Richard. My own view leans heavily toward preterism, and I have a lot of respect for both varieties of it. In fact, my understanding began to lean toward preterism a few years before I even became a universalist, and I think the two can go together nicely.
The issue of the dating of Revelation is an interesting thing; my current view on this is that it doesn’t really matter if the actual dating turns out to be early or late. The dispute over early or late dating is in large part due to the underlying assumption that Revelation must be predicting future events, but I don’t think we need to read it that way at all. The revelation is of Jesus Christ and his work in the world, in highly symbolic language, not necessarily a picture of (what was then) the future at all. It is the futurist bent to eschatology that, IMO, has produced some of the greatest errors in theological thinking.

All this is to say that I hope that preterism does factor more heavily in this discussion, because I think it deserves to. I think it has a lot to say about where we may have gone wrong down the garden path of futurism, particularly the dispensational variety.

#3

I’m just starting to investigate the links between UR and preterism. From what I understand, Hosea Ballou, who is sometimes called “the father of American Universalism,” was a preterist. Ballou contended, from what I understand, that the wrath and judgment of God was fully and finally exhausted in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Thus, there is no more hell, as traditionally understood.

#4

I find Preterism is hard to reconcile with everything. For example why would Revelation be completely about 70AD when it would be repeating an event clearly stated earlier in the gospels. Revelation would be anything except a revelation, more like a repetition. Plus why describe an event mystically and highly symbolically after it was clearly stated earlier? Why use the entire book of Revelation about one event, it seems like overkill.
To me the Historicist view makes more sense.

#5

Wonderful post, Richard! :smiley:

As a “MacDonald-ian”, Girardian I’ll give my thoughts for what they’re worth.

I think this is largely how I would view it, though as a “Gospelcentric” (just made that up! :laughing: ) Christian, I don’t feel as great a need to “harmonize” all of scripture with the character of Jesus we see in the Gospels—in fact I don’t have to harmonize, say, even all of Matthew parable endings with the character of Jesus I see. Revelation is such a strange, difficult and interesting book that it’s hard to know what to make of it. :confused: I think, given it’s symbolic and obscure nature, you could legitimately “harmonize” it with just about anything. That being said, if harmonizing Revelation with the Olivet Discourse leads Christians to a universalist (and hopefully non-violent) view of God, then I’m all for it!

Of course, the question is, “what does the Final Judgement mean?”

Steve

#6

Hi Richard - and how does’t thee neighbour?

As someone who I think at least is accommodating to the older tradition of Universalism to which I belong and stresses that God is not actively violent but brings judgment by uncovering human wrath though love and Truth and handing us over to our own wrath in order to save us from it…

Can this fit Preterism?

Does Preterism preclude other crises of judgement and perhaps a final one

DO you think Paul in first Thessalonians is predicting the judgment on Jerusalem? And is Pauls’ growing universalism in anyway connected with this event being past?

Would you place The Apocalypse of John in the context of the Jewish Roman wars (as I know Margaret Barker does for example)

In Christ our Hen

Dick

Looking forward to hearing back from you :slight_smile:

P.S Tonight Steve (alecforbes) and I have been discussing the older view of wrath in universalism here -

#7

Well, we have to remember that Revelation is a specific vision of Jesus Christ (irrespective of temporality), and what his work, death and resurrection meant for everyone from then on. I don’t necessarily think it was all about one event per se, although it certainly included a hefty dose of that. How difficult Revelation is to reconcile has a good deal to do with how we view Revelation, and (as Steve pointed out) whether we even care about harmonization. Of course, this is more in keeping with the idealist view, which I think also has some merit.

Revelation is a notoriously difficult book, which is probably a lot of why there have been so many wildly different interpretations of it over the years, and why some traditions still reject it entirely!

#8

Bradley Jerzak in Her Gates Will Never be Shut; Hope, Hell, and the new Jerusalem supports Dr. Beck’s interpretation of AD 70 for Jesus’ references to Gehenna (as capsulated in my paper, What Did Jesus Mean by ‘Hell’?: What did Jesus mean by Hell (though he’s open to Revelation’s final chapters having a still future fulfillment). I also find N.T. Wright’s treatment of Jesus’ apocalyptic discourses in the Gospels supports taking them as a reference to his ‘coming’ in AD 70 (functioning as a prophetic validation that Jesus is to be seen as in Daniel 7 taken up to God’s throne in the clouds where he exercises the authority that this judgment vindicates him as having) . Yet in tension, Wright seems to find the Acts account of Jesus promising that they would see him come on the clouds in the same way they saw him ascend, as understood as a more literal and thus yet future return of Jesus in a more complete fulfillment of the O.T. promises.

#9

This last bit from Wright I find odd, unless this was fulfilled in their lifetimes; which it seems to me could only be considered to have happened if it occurred in a much less literal way than has been traditionally thought of.

#10

Mel, can you amplify on why you think Acts must be referring to an event in their lifetime?

What’s odd for me here is that Wright implies the early church (as in Acts) understood Jesus’ ‘coming’ on the clouds completely differently than Jesus’ consistent notion in his Gospel references to such a ‘coming.’ It makes me wonder if he really thinks the Acts account of the ascension actually happened. For I glean that the reason he bifurcates these references is that he genuinely thinks the discourses recorded in the Gospels fits with the Jesus of history having no concept of a “second coming,” but a ‘parousia’ refers to his vindication in Jerusalem’s destruction described in non-literal apocalyptic language. Yet perhaps he doesn’t want to depart too far from his evangelical audience and deny that there still is some kind of future event that corresponds to our notion of a second coming. He somewhere writes, that despite Easter, the promises of a new earth, etc were still so short of realization, that disciples assumed there most be further fulfilling events, and they couldn’t imagine these happening without Jesus being present in the midst of that (hence some kind of ‘coming’). Plus, I think he sees indications of some less distinct hope like this in the epistles, as well as thinking Jesus’ words in Acts 1 (unlike the Gospel references) are most naturally read as sounding like some kind of literally visible return, just as his departure is portrayed as an actual sight of him beheld with their physical eyes. In any event, he is implying Jesus knew no second coming, but the apostles later understood that there would be one described in terms awfully similar to Jesus’ words that he thinks intended no such vision. What do you make of this?

#11

as well as thinking Jesus’ words in Acts 1 (unlike the Gospel references) are most naturally read as sounding like some kind of literally visible return, just as his departure is portrayed as an actual sight of him beheld with their physical eyes. In any event, he is implying Jesus knew no second coming, but the apostles later understood that there would be one described in terms awfully similar to Jesus’ words that he thinks intended no such vision. What do you make of this?

Bob Wilson

Posts: 920
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:10 am

I think Jesus use of gehenna and/or “coming in the clouds” in the gospels could have referred to 70AD Jerusalem destruction because these are OT expressions used to mean destruction and judgment. However in Acts 1 it sounds like Jesus will return in like manner to his ascension is referring to a physical second coming.

#12

I’ve been aware of partial preterism for some time as, like I said, it’s the default view in my faith tradition. And like I described in the post, partial preterism does put the Second Coming and Final Judgement in the future. Based largely on texts like 1 Thess. and Revelation.

Regarding full preterism–what is called the “AD 70 doctrine” in my tradition–I’m less familiar with and only have just begun to think about. So I don’t have any answers about how every NT text can get shoehorned into the events of AD 70. My post is simply raising the issue that if people, in the debates about hell, point to AD 70 as the reference for what Jesus meant by Gehenna then what about the “second coming” aspects of that same text? I don’t have an answer to that question, just floating it for conversation.

All that said, my interests are in thinking through what a “progressive preterism” might look like, a wedding of progressive ideas (like God’s non-violence) and a preterist eschatology.

For example, regarding God’s non-violence, I have a post scheduled to come out a few months from now. In that post I dwell on this text in Luke that sets up the Olivet Discourse about the Destruction of Jerusalem:

Basically, and this is a point that N.T. Wright makes, Jesus saw Israel on a violent collision course with Rome. One that would end very, very badly. As Jesus says, Jerusalem had failed to learn “the things that make for peace.” And because Jerusalem had failed to respond to Jesus’s kingdom proclamation, failed to learn the things that make for peace, Jerusalem had set herself on a path of destruction.

Importantly for your questions about a non-violent God, we can keep with a preterist reading here–that all the talk in the bible about hell is about AD 70–and we can use a text like Luke 19.41-44 to show how this is a violence that Jerusalem brought upon herself by responding violently to Rome. That is, the cycles of violence just keep repeating, world-historically.

Jesus’s Kingdom proclamation, by contrast, speaks to “the things that make for peace” in this world.

All that to say, there seem to be ways to have a preterist reading of “hell” (AD 70 events that keep repeating in history, violence begetting violence) that keeps to a vision of a non-violent God.

These are the connections that I’m interested in exploring.

#13

Good on you Richard - and pleased to meet you old chap :slight_smile:

May the seed Christ reign (in love over disorderly spirits)

Dick :smiley:

#14

In 2 Cor 3:17 it says the Lord (Jesus) is the Spirit.

The spirit descended on the disciples on Pentecost. This was a second coming IMO.

The one who was and is and is to come.

Was: symbolized in the Passover festival

Is: symbolized in the Pentecost festival (for now we know in part)

Is to come: symbolized in the Tabernacles festival (but then we will be fully known)

When it says he will return the same way they saw him ascend, is it possible that the “same way” is referring to his ascending into the clouds. Here the clouds being symbolic of our heaven.

We are surrounded by a great cloud of witnesses, and the waterless clouds from Jude are 2 examples where clouds=people.

So when it says he will return in the same way you saw him go, it may be referring to his ascending in us, which is the feast of Tabernacles. This would be the unveiling of Christ in you, and the two becoming one flesh. Previously the typified by “and the word became flesh and tabernacled among us”. We automatically assume that he will come down out of heaven but it says he will return the same way you saw him go… Ascending.

Just my 2 cents.

#15

Yeah; I think that if I remember right, it’s the way that it is stated; that it is they who will see the second coming in like manner to the ascension. And then there are the other statements by Jesus on other eschatological events also which more clearly refer to things happening before that generation passed away. As for the rest, I’m not sure what I make of it, really. Perhaps I’d better go back and read that section of scripture again.

Well, and then there are redhot’s points, too; which might have been more what I was thinking about.

#16

G’day Richard,

I am a prêterist of the FULL persuasion, I don’t have all the answers but I do have a few. Just some brief personal history… I was raised an A-millennialist, which in the Baptist circles my dad ministered in was a rarity given they were predominately dispensational futurists. I knew why I wasn’t a dispensationalist but one day it occurred to me I didn’t know why I wasn’t a post-millennialist. In 1986 I picked up a post-mill book by J. Marcellus Kik “An Eschatology of Victory”. As I was reading I found myself pretty much in agreement with what I was reading; I found myself double checking to see it was a “post-mill” book, lol. :astonished:

Long story short… after many years an a-millist I ran with post-millennialism – I found it extremely similar to the a-mill view as I knew it, except it was incredibly optimistic and the historicity started to gel for me. In 1990 I happened across David Chilton’s “Days of Vengeance” – at last I thought I had found the holy grail of eschatology.

It was from Chilton’s partial prêterist volume that I followed through on an innocuous little footnote about a full prêterist by name of Max King, a Church of Christ minister who had written a near 800 page tome “The Cross and the Parousia of Christ”, a heavy but brilliant read. So after about 10 years of being a partial prêterist I took the most logical and consistent step into full prêterism. Almost from the start I could see elements of inclusion inherent within the position but I wasn’t having any part of “universalism” as I understood it. Within 2 years I was raising hell on most of the then full prêt forums and being castigated for my universalism… quite a number of full prêterists are Calvinists.

So… I have come to my inclusive soteriological position via a fulfilled eschatology and NOT the more typical “how could a good and loving God do thus-and-so…” philosophical approach of universalism.

Yes… and it is at this very point that the bulk of full prêterists jettison their consistency for sake of positional orthodoxy and exchange Hell MKI (rightly understanding Jesus’ “Gehenna” to be the conflagrations of AD70) for Hell MKII i.e., the ‘lake of fire’. As I understand it the lake of fire WAS the destruction of Jerusalem and NOT some post mortem event. Typically universalists’ just like exclusionists’ accept and believe in the post mortem lake of fire of Christendom… this pantelist does not.

Unfortunately “many Christians didn’t see” and still don’t see because they are looking with wrong eyes. Jesus’ “cloud-coming” language came straight out of their own Scriptures. When Yahweh came in judgement He is described and depicted in the poetic licence of “cosmic events”… Isa 19:1; 13:9-10; 24:21-23; Ez 32:7; Joel 2:28-32. These all tie in with Jesus’ warnings in the gospel’s mini apocalypses. So important was this transitional age from old to new covenants that John the apostle foregoes the “mini” approach with his gospel choosing instead to dedicate an entire book to it.

I’m not sure which texts you have in mind apparently pushing out the parousia beyond Jesus’ “this generation” but for mine there is no mix n’ match to biblical eschatology but rather the “already not yet” of that transitional age AD30-70 (a 40yr biblical generation) where “that which was growing old was ready to pass away” as per Heb 8:13. This was running concurrent with the burgeoning new and better covenant age as per 2Cor 3:11; 1Jn 2:8.

Yes indeed. It is also to be noted that Jesus’ cloud coming of Acts 1:9-11 was in fulfillment of Dan 7:3-14 where the “coming” was to and not from the Ancient of Days, to receive a kingdom. The “in like manner” then equates to the “judgement” clouds associated with the parousia as per Mt 24:30; 26:64.

Again this is keeping in line with OT symbolic language such as “For the day is near, even the day of the LORD is near; It will be a day of clouds, the time of the Gentiles. Ez 30:3

That really is it in a nutshell and something I am resolved is the case.

Richard, I have shared more thoughts from my perspective that might answer some of your questions in other posts on the EU forum and for brevity’s sake I’ll list some of the threads HERE and HERE and HERE… just scroll along for Alf’s head.

URist Preterist & Pantelist response to anti UR "proof texts"
Im new here,and just wanted to share my beliefs
#17

Hi Davo,
I’ve just stumbled upon the pantelist view in the last few days, so I’m catching up. I think I have most of it clear except the issue of post-mortem existence.

What’s the pantelism stance on life after death? Is pantalism agnostic about that? Or does pantelism contend that there is no life after death? Or do some believe that there is life after death? And if there is life after death what’s that look like (e.g., if hell was exhausted in AD 70 is everyone “going to heaven”)? I expect that pantelists might have different opinions about all this.

#18

Pantelism does indeed fully accept life after death for all; hence the charge of universalism by ECT/annihilationist prêterists. What and how that life will look like is unknowable this side of the grave except to acknowledge that God’s grace in the here and now has it all covered in the there and then for each of as we step through death’s doorway.

#19

Full Preterism may seem to fit well with Christian Universalism but i don’t think that should have much weight when evaluating it. As full Preterists claim the relevant audience probably did think Jesus was returning soon. But the expressions Jesus sometimes used like “coming in the clouds” was used twice in the OT to mean the destruction of a kingdom and probably referred to the destruction of Jerusalem. This was indeed the end of an age, the end of the Jewish age.
Whatever date you give Revelation it was written after the gospels and it claims to be a “revelation” or an unveiling of things not previously known, not a summary or review of things clearly stated earlier like the destruction of Jerusalem. It says Jesus is returning to judge the world and the dead will be raised and judged and those whose names are not in the book of life will go into the lake of fire. Now i believe judgment is a positive thing and not something to be afraid of , but part of a rehabilitation process.
In Full Preterism this process is gone. Plus my understanding of scripture is that evil will be defeated but not so in Preterism, it just goes on and on.

#20

Thanks for all that Davo; helpful stuff.

#21

Davo - it was reading Kik’s book myself, a number of years ago, that got me thinking along these lines. I’ve not studied the ‘full’ preterist position but would like to.