You are hereThe Strange Witness of C.S. Lewis

The Strange Witness of C.S. Lewis

  • strict warning: Non-static method view::load() should not be called statically in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/views.module on line 842.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_argument::init() should be compatible with views_handler::init(&$view, $options) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_argument.inc on line 745.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_validate() should be compatible with views_handler::options_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter::options_submit() should be compatible with views_handler::options_submit($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter.inc on line 589.
  • strict warning: Declaration of views_handler_filter_boolean_operator::value_validate() should be compatible with views_handler_filter::value_validate($form, &$form_state) in /home/vaduva/planetpreterist.com/sites/all/modules/views/handlers/views_handler_filter_boolean_operator.inc on line 149.

By Virgil - Posted on 29 June 2004

In a seldom read essay titled “The World’s Last Night” the prolific Christian writer C.S. Lewis turned his learned mind to the subject of The Second Coming of Christ. As many Preterists know, he bears witness in that essay to the reality of the words of Jesus regarding the timing of His return.
His witness or testimony is a strange one, however, and is all too symptomatic of the refusal of many other learned men to deal with reality.

In the opening paragraph of his essay Lewis quotes our Lord’s words from Matthew 26:24 where He said to the leaders of the Jews: Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

And then Lewis makes this very perceptive comment, “If that is not an integral part of the faith once delivered to the saints, I do not know what is.” (Note, this and subsequent quotations are taken from The Essential C.S. Lewis, pages 383-92, Touchstone/Simon and Schuster, 1996 edition.)

Surely no one can reasonably disagree with Lewis’ assessment of the gravity of Christ’s words. Of course, the larger issue is, “What did Jesus mean when He said that?”

That C.S. Lewis seemed strangely not to know at all what Jesus meant is evidenced by his statement a few pages later wherein he imagines how the non-believer might respond to the “mistakes” of Jesus:

Lewis writes, “‘Say what you like,’ we are told, ‘the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so…He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong…’” (Page 385)

Lewis immediately adds his own, very telling comment regarding Matthew 24:34, “It is certainly the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.

Why would C.S. Lewis write such a thing?

Because he believed that if the words are taken to mean what they clearly do mean, then, in his estimation, Christ was wrong. He made a mistake.

Lewis goes on to suggest that Matthew 24:36 provides an explanation of what appears to him as an embarrassing mistake: no man knoweth the day or the hour, not even the Son, but the Father only.

In the final pages of the essay Lewis once more demonstrates the myopia that affects more than a few who have read the words of Christ and have not understood them.

He writes, “[Christ’s] teaching on the subject [of His final advent] quite clearly consisted of three propositions. (1) That he will certainly return. (2) That we cannot possibly find out when. (3) And that therefore we must always be ready for him.” (Page 389)

One hardly knows whether to laugh or cry over such statements as these.

Here is one of the most lauded and respected Christian writers of recent history, a man of immense talent and erudition, and one who himself quoted the very words from the mouth of our Lord that prove that we can “find out when” He returned!

The thing that our Lord said no one knew was the specific day and hour of His Parousia, but that statement, taken with the other time texts, in no way means that “we cannot possible find out when.”

If a friend of mine is coming to visit me from another state and the travel plans have not been fully confirmed, I may not know the day and hour of his arrival, but I can surely know the year, the month, and even the week he will arrive.

One wonders if C.S. Lewis would have born such a strange witness to the timing of the Parousia had he been made to ponder the meaning of the following verses: Matthew 10:23; 23: 36; 24: 34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32; Hebrews 9:26.

It the Lord’s wise Providence, His infallible revelation to us had been given in words, words that have meaning, words that are clear, coherent, and marvelously logical.

Pictures, photos, images, and other means of communication may be open to a thousand interpretations, but words, in spite of the illogical claims of postmodernists, do not depend upon the reader for their meaning.

The meaning of “this generation shall not pass,” and the several other passages listed above, are inseparably linked to the Man who spoke or inspired them, and what He intended them to mean.

Those words were not spoken to C.S. Lewis or anyone else in the 20th or 21st centuries.

They were spoken to men of a specific time and place (a specific generation) who did not, in fact, pass away, until ALL the things our Lord foreordained came to pass, including His Parousia.

Seeker's picture

The third option is that Matt. 24 was fulfilled in its entirety. The first resurrection did occurr. The judgement occurred and is occurring. The saints are reigning with Christ. We are in the Messianic period (which incidentally many Jews thought would last 2000 years). Who knows how long it will last.

The thousand years is definitely symbolic so the arguments about 1070 are a little silly. But it is symbolic of a long period of time. It is not symbolic of God's sovereignty because if you read the passage it tells you what will happen at the end of the 1000 years. Do you mean to tell me this will happen at the end of God's sovereignty?

Seeker

Seeker

chrisliv's picture

Yeah,

Bertrand Russell, a brilliant humanitarian, also noticed how scripture called for a complete first-century fulfillment.

Sadly, like C.S. Lewis, Russell concluded that the Bible was mistaken, and wrote his book, Why I Am Not a Christian.

Peace,
Christian

NHPreterist's picture

Zorro,

Read the passage:
MT 24:4 Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you. 5 For many will come in my name, claiming, `I am the Christ, ' and will deceive many. 6 You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. 7 Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8 All these are the beginning of birth pains.

MT 24:9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. 10 At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, 11 and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, 13 but he who stands firm to the end will be saved. 14 And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.

MT 24:15 "So when you see standing in the holy place `the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand-- 16 then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let no one on the roof of his house go down to take anything out of the house. 18 Let no one in the field go back to get his cloak. 19 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! 20 Pray that your flight will not take place in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again. 22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened. 23 At that time if anyone says to you, `Look, here is the Christ!' or, `There he is!' do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.

MT 24:26 "So if anyone tells you, `There he is, out in the desert,' do not go out; or, `Here he is, in the inner rooms,' do not believe it. 27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. 28 Wherever there is a carcass, there the vultures will gather.

MT 24:29 "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.'

MT 24:30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

MT 24:32 "Now learn this lesson from the fig tree: As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. 33 Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. 34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. 35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.

Sounds to me that Jesus "sorta knew" the general time frame when he would return and that the return would be in the lifetime of His Apostles.
You can either believe Him, think He was mistaken, or that the Word of God is uninspired and in error. Those are your choices. To think otherwise is to be mistaken or dishonest with the text.

In His Kingdom,
Randy

Virgil's picture

'You can either believe Him, think He was mistaken, or that the Word of God is uninspired and in error.'

That's the whole point. So when Christ says that the truth is established by the testimony of two or three witnesses, we should believe Him.

You are asking me to believe in an un-witnessed return of Christ. I can't do that, especially when what I CAN witness (the continued trampling of the temple mount) speaks of an end of that trampling at which time Christ returns. I'll take scripture over opinion - that's my choice.

NHPreterist's picture

The trampling of which you speak was seen by the first century audience. They saw the signs, lifted their heads and saw their redemption draw near.

LK 21:20 "When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. 21 Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. 22 For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. 23 How dreadful it will be in those days for pregnant women and nursing mothers! There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. 24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

LK 21:25 "There will be signs in the sun, moon and stars. On the earth, nations will be in anguish and perplexity at the roaring and tossing of the sea. 26 Men will faint from terror, apprehensive of what is coming on the world, for the heavenly bodies will be shaken. 27 At that time they will see the Son of Man coming in a cloud with power and great glory. 28 When these things begin to take place, stand up and lift up your heads, because your redemption is drawing near."

I think you fail to understand the principle of audience relevance. Instead you choose to look to the testimony of your experience rather than the host of inspired authors who expected the first century fulfillment of the events. To be sure the second coming happened within the lives of the Apostles. To assert otherwise is to deny the inerrancy of Scripture and make Jesus Christ a liar.

In His Kingdom,
Randy

leslie's picture

Christ said the temple mount would continue to be trampled until the end. It's still being trampled. Does that mean scripture errored to you? I don't think scripture errored in that.

Brother Les

NHPreterist's picture

What verse of Scripture are you referring to where Jesus says the temple mount would be trampled? Chapter and verse please! I can't seem to find the term "temple mount" in my Bible.

Or are you trying to rip Luke 21:24 out of it's grammitical/historical context?

leslie's picture

'If a friend of mine is coming to visit me from another state and the travel plans have not been fully confirmed, I may not know the day and hour of his arrival, but I can surely know the year, the month, and even the week he will arrive.'

That is a very weak analogy. Christ said he didn't know when he would return, not that he 'sorta knew' when he will return. Just as Gabriel didn't know when he would return - though that Angel knew everything about timing of 70AD. (Something he shouldn't have known if it was indeed about the final return of Christ)

Of course, the biggest problem with your analogy is that it assumes your friend showed up at all; when not a single neighbor, relative, or family member or YOU! reported him showing up.

What Josephus reported in 70AD was Christ's army in the sky saying, "Get out of there." i.e. Exactly the sort of 'gathering' up of the church by angels Christ prophesied. This was well before the actual fall of Jerusalem.

So however desperately you may need Christ's words to have passed away, they refuse to evaporate by your hand for lack of witness.

Matt 24:34 was certainly fulfilled in 70AD, we have witnesses to that, including ourselves (there is no temple and the grounds continue to be trampled upon) but Matt 25 was not fulfilled in any way, shape or form.

Christ's words have not passed away. "Be ready!" is only replaced by the most arrogant and foolhearty: "Relax, He already came!" Another gospel to be sure, preached by those who claim they know what Christ didn't and doesn't know.

That your entire theory is dependent on the nullification of Christ's words should send up a big red flag.

Brother Les

Virgil's picture

Zorro - your comments are going over the line, in both arrogance and personal attacks...please adjust your attitude and be curteous, especially to our columnists.

pretgirlinca's picture

Matt 24:34 was certainly fulfilled in 70AD, we have witnesses to that, including ourselves (there is no temple and the grounds continue to be trampled upon) but Matt 25 was not fulfilled in any way, shape or form.

Christ's words have not passed away. "Be ready!" is only replaced by the most arrogant and foolhearty: "Relax, He already came!" Another gospel to be sure, preached by those who claim they know what Christ didn't and doesn't know.

That your entire theory is dependent on the nullification of Christ's words should send up a big red flag.

Hi Zorro,
For me, the entire theory is dependent upon the early dating of Revelation. If that is correct then the words, the intention of the message and the expectation of the firstfruits church is rock solid.
So far, the late dating of Revelation is NOT rock solid, so what do to, what to do....I'll go with Jesus and the Apostles. That seems to be the safest, albeit unpopular hand to play. :)

Anyway, you agree that part of scripture was fulfilled in 70AD my question to you is what scriptures to you use to account for the division (almost 2000 years now) between the wrath, judgment of God and the Second Coming?
If I could find even a clue, that there was going to be a huge delay between the two events without having to "force" it into place, then I would have no choice but to re-examine what I believe.

Unitl then, I'm afraid it is the dispensational camp that is preaching "another gospel", although I think we would all do better to dispense with that term.

Don't fret though brother, His grace is sufficiant for us all. :)

Peace,
Julie

Virgil's picture

'If I could find even a clue, that there was going to be a huge delay between the two events without having to "force" it into place, then I would have no choice but to re-examine what I believe.'

You'll find the clue in Revelation 20. A thousand years is a long, long time in scripture, a generation is 40 years. It just depends on what number you want to fool with that will determine whether you are a dispy or full-preterist, but both play the same game. Now that you have a clue, what will you do with it?

BTW, I don't have to fool either number.

pretgirlinca's picture

You'll find the clue in Revelation 20. A thousand years is a long, long time in scripture, a generation is 40 years. It just depends on what number you want to fool with that will determine whether you are a dispy or full-preterist, but both play the same game. Now that you have a clue, what will you do with it?

I hear ya Zorro. Just to be clear, I have not come to terms with Rev 20, that 1000 years is a bit pesky for me for sure… so with that, I have a choice.

Because I don’t fully understand the terminology of that 1000 years (from any eschatological perspective) what should I do? Disregard all the scripture that I do understand, for a chapter I don’t? If I took that route, then unfortunately the whole story unravels.

The words of Christ and the apostles are unbelievable, the expectation of the first century saints borders on ridiculous, what about Daniels prophecy, what do I do with that? What about my relationship with the Lord? What covenant am I in?

It gets kind of confusing. What I need is more scripture to clear up that 20th chapter of Revelation. I don’t have that, so by default I have to go back to what is clear (which by the way is not really all that hard). Chapter 20 might be considered a “clue” by some, but where does it lead me?

Between the two views (futurist/preterist), the latter makes a whole lot more sense of the scriptures than the former. Unless of course you can more fully explain to me chapter 20?

Peace,
Julie

Virgil's picture

'Between the two views (futurist/preterist)...'

There is a third option, Julie. Orthodox preterism says that Christ can return at any moment (the way Christ depicts his return in Matt 25) only because Matt 24:34 is already fulfilled. Look at the Last Judgment in Matt 25, there's no sign of wrath in it (judgment, yes) because that wrath was entirely poured out in 70AD.

If you go with that view, you won't have to fudge the numbers as the dispies and full-preterists do. (Same mind-set, same toying with scripture). In other words, a generation is 40 years, and the reign of Christ's Church (to whom he gave authority) is a long, looooong time before he returns. Reversing those numbers will put you in either camp. I don't call that making more sense. Do you?

Roderick's picture

If 1000 years isn't really 1000 years -- nor can it be understood as symbolic then how in the world can you say 40 years is a generation with such certainty? Perhaps a "generation" means "race" or some other time indicator? You are hinging your entire understanding of Scripture on a few verses? (Rev 20) -- Isn't that called proof-texting? -- Not a very good interpretative method if you ask me.

Roderick's picture

"...for every animal of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills...'

Means:

1. The cattle on hill 1001 belongs to someone else.

2. Represents a small number.

3. Represents a very large number.

Which is your pick?

Roderick's picture

4. represents the Sovereignty of God.

Because if option 2 or 3 were followed then you would still miss the intent of the Scripture -- since both those options have limits. The intent of the passage is that everything is owned by God -- that He is a God of unbounding wealth.

If you have missed this simple understanding perhaps you should reconsider the more difficult questions of Rev 20?

Parker's picture

4. represents the Sovereignty of God.

Does that mean God can do whatever he wants? Can He nullify scripture by changing meanings?

Is a thousand years really a relatively short span of 40 years because you say it is?

Christ said it is impossible to nullify scripture. Are there ways around that impossibility?

Roderick's picture

God doesn't nullify, but rather we grasshoppers may misunderstand due to our presuppositions. Lets look at some of those instances where people were led by their presuppositions:

John 7:27
But we know where this man is from; when the Christ comes, no one will know where he is from."
-----
John 8:57
"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"
-----
John 2:20
The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"
-----
Mt 17:10
The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"
-----
John 8:52
At this the Jews exclaimed, "Now we know that you are demon­possessed! Abraham died and so did the prophets, yet you say that if anyone keeps your word, he will never taste death.
-----------
With all due respect zorro -- I think you need to check your interpretative methods.

leslie's picture

'...we grasshoppers may misunderstand due to our presuppositions.'

Righto. Now whose presupposition is it that says a 1000 years is really just 40 years? It's not my presupposition. Show me anywhere in the bible where a 1000 of anything means just a few. I think your laying smoke down to cover up for a lack of an answer...

Brother Les

chrisliv's picture

Sure,

If you guys don't mind, I'll interject a little about the repeated mention of 1000 years.

Since you are a partial-Preterist, Zorro, you seem to believe that the fulfillment of "The Judgement" occurred in 70 AD, yet when some have suggested that if you are consistent with your assumption that Revelation's 1000 years refers to a literal span of time, then you should demand that "The Coming" of Christ occurred around 1070 AD.

Of course, that's pretty silly.

So, in answer to your question, one place in the Bible where it says that the 1000 years mentioned in the Book of Revelation refers to something other than a literal span of time, is in the Book of Revelation itself. In the very first verse of the Book, its author tells his readers that:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:"

Signified means symbolic language. Like when John "hears" the number 144,000, but then he "sees" that it is actually a company of innumerable saints, i.e., The Church and The Promise, not a literal 144,000 genetic Jews who get converted 2000 or more years later.

So, there, in the Bible's Book of Revelation itself, in the very first verse, it warns the reader about signs and symbols.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

Seeker's picture

The 144,000 and the innumerable saints are two different groups of people. Go back and re-read it. The 144,000 are from the 12 tribes the other group are from every tongue and nation.

Seeker

Seeker

chrisliv's picture

Well,

As I pointed out. John "hear" the number 144,000, but when he "saw" the group he said it was actually innumerable, not a different group.

You also may do well to take another look at how John records this part of the Revelation. But, if you chose to believe the 144,000 are genetic Jews from 12 historic tribes who get converted 2000 years later, well, you too may be a partial-Preterist or a Dispensationalist. Although, that doesn't make you a bad person.

Peace to you all,
Christian

Seeker's picture

Instead of just reading my post try and re-read the scripture. It is clear John is speaking of two different groups.

Who said anything about Jews being converted 2000 years later?! The people on this board who want to cram the millennium into 40 years always want to put everything at the end of the millennium. You mistakenly think I'm putting these events at the end of the millennium; this is not true. I am putting them at the beginning of the millennium which began in 70 ad.

Do a search and find out when the saints would sit on thrones and reign with Christ - it was to be at the regeneration. Now do a search and find out when the regeneration was to take place - it was to take place at his coming - that occurred in 70 ad. So the saints weren't reigning with Christ during the 40 years you call the millennium. Biblically they couldn't have been.

Seeker

Seeker

chrisliv's picture

Well,

You have mistakenly assumed that I view the figure (1000 years) mentioned in Revelation as a span of time, I don't. Nor do I try to squeeze it into a 40 year period during the first century.

Actually the saints were reigning/in-training before the crucifixion, when Jesus sent out the 70 disciples. As they came back with the stories of victory, Jesus said, at that time, "...I beheld Satan, as lightning, frall from heaven."

And, you should know very well that most every Dispensationalist views the 144,000 figure as Jews who are to be converted, maybe soon, which would be around 2000 after their mention in Revelation.

If you cannot, at this time, accept the fact that John "heard" the number 144,000, and then he actually "sees" that they are a company of innumerable saints, i.e., The Church and the The Blessing fulfilled, that's fine. Maybe someday you'll finally see that John "heard" the number at first, but then he "saw" that the same group in his vision was actually innumerable.

I just jumped into this thread to point out that Rev. 1:1 warns readers that figures, like the 1000 years, might "signify" something other than a literal span of time. I certainly don't have all the answers to the symbols in Revelation, and my view, as a Preterist, in this area is pretty much an A-millenial view, which may be different than the Preterists who suggest the the 1000 year figure refers to the 40 year span between 30-70 AD.

Peace to you,
C. Livingstone

chrisliv's picture

'Of course, that's pretty silly.'

That's not silly, that's a strawman. Wail away at it! I attack your arguments head-on, try and show me the same respect.

chrisliv's picture

Well,

I'm new to this thread, Zorro.

I really didn't have an argument, just an observation and an answer to your question.

Did you really want the answer?

Peace to you,
Christian

pretgirlinca's picture

I could go with that option except for the lack of stability in other supporting scriptures. Again the expectation of the first century saints, negates a far off coming. They had the Holy spirit to guide them into all truth. To postphone the second coming arbitrarily for thousands of years, makes the intent of the scriptures disinguine to me. If their expectation was off, what does that say of Holy Spirit?

If the First century saints didn't hold their "soon" expectation, I could go with this third option. However, that is not the case.

Virgil, is this something we need to take out back?? If so, show me the way. :)

Blessings,
Julie

Aussie_Andrew's picture

'I could go with that option except for the lack of stability in other supporting scriptures. Again the expectation of the first century saints, negates a far off coming.'

No, it affirms the confusion over the Mt. Olivet discourse. They knew He was coming to destroy the temple in wrath on Israel within their generation. It was the talk of the town. But he also told them of day when he would finally return in Judgment on the world. He told them plainly that he did not know when that would occurr.

JL's picture

Zorro,

I've read the Olivet discourse hundreds of times, all the way through, from Matt. 23 to the end of Matt. 25. Nowhere does Jesus say he will judge the world. To claim he does is to deny your so-called orthodoxy or proclaim your ignorance. Orthodoxy uses the Bible to intrepret the Bible.

Jesus is condemning Jerusalem only. He says so directly. And he repeats Jeremiah's condemnation of of Jerusalem using the same language as Jeremiah.

Jeremiah proclaimed "Woe to the pastors." Jesus had seven "Woes." Jeremiah accused them of all sorts of evil. Jesus accused them of all sorts of evil. Jeremiah used "heaven and earth" to refer to the temple and Jerusalem. Jesus did too.

The difference is, Jeremiah promised that the Jews will return. Jesus makes it clear that this time judgement was permanent.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

pretgirlinca's picture

No, it affirms the confusion over the Mt. Olivet discourse. They knew He was coming to destroy the temple in wrath on Israel within their generation. It was the talk of the town. But he also told them of day when he would finally return in Judgment on the world. He told them plainly that he did not know when that would occurr.

Zorro,
You mention two things that I have to question. The confusion over the Olivet discourse. Whose confusion? What confusion? (I'm confused) :)

Secondly, you assert that they, the disciples knew He was coming to destroy the temple and that THAT generation was going to see it. But then without cause, you deviate when you apply the word "finally" as if a long period of time has been established in Matt 24 and clearly that is not the case.

In addition you say that He plainly told them He did not know when it (final judgment) would occurr, with the implication that He Jesus, just didn't know, but that's not what the scriptures say.
He, Jesus goes into great detail describing the events those people, His disciples, the ones listening to His word, would be a part of.
Then he goes into the parable of the Fig tree. (to me this is a clue that takes me somewhere) THEN, he says, "no one knows about the day or the hour....He already established a general time frame, now He gets down to specifics (which, if someone was telling me this story, I might have to ask....."exactly when can I expect you to return?" At the very least I would be thinking it in my head. Wouldn't you?).
On the specifics, He can't say for sure, but He did manage to give them a pretty good "ball park."

In order to take that passage and assert that it could, in fact would, by your perspective, be a very long time off, changes the entire passage and I don't believe the supporting text will allow for that.
You would have to totally ignore and or alter the plain sense meaning of the preceding scriptures to get there and ya know....that just aint right. :)

Peace,
Julie

Virgil's picture

Cut the hypo-preterist propaganda Zorro... If you want to talk about hypo-preterism, please use the Forums where we created a special area to debate these issues. You are hijacking the comments for articles to attack preterism and I don't appreciate it. The articles comments should used for something related to the article in question, not for debating.

Aussie_Andrew's picture

Then enlighten me - what's the difference between a hypo-preterist and full-preterist?

JL's picture

Zorro,

You're a hypo-preterist. Virgil is a full-preterist. This notion of "orthodox preterism," something that the church has never known before, is incomplete.

The historic postion of the church is that what we call Matt. 23-25 all refers to the same event and was fulfilled in AD 70. Any doctrine that splits this text up into part past and part future is necessarily hypo-preterist.

JL

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Seeker's picture

Who says it's split? It all occurred. Does Matt. 23-25 mention a millennium? Does it mention the reign of the saints with Christ? No, so that part occurred beginning at 70ad.

Seeker

Seeker

JL's picture

Zorro said it was split. Tha't why he's a hypo-preterist.

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Roderick's picture

Umm -- no disrespect but did Jesus return in 1033???

Seeker's picture

Although I certainly don't agree with Zorro I so think the thousand years is REPRESENTATIVE of a long period of time, so your comment about 1033 is moot. It is not an exact period of time, but it does represent a long period of time - as Russell states.

Seeker

Seeker

Virgil's picture

"I so think the thousand years is REPRESENTATIVE of a long period of time"

Why? Obviously you are admitting that it is a symbolic period of time? Why does it have to be long?

Jer's picture

Yeah, it could be as little as a day according to Peter ;)

Israelite98's picture

If it is "representative", then the time of it's actual length is irrelevant. What the unknown time period was to accomplish becomes the key. In this case, the power and authority in the "1000 year reign" started with Christ and ended in AD 70.

JL's picture

And in 1988. I've got 88 reasons why!

Blessings,

JL Vaughn
Beyond Creation Science

Recent comments

Poll

Should we allow Anonymous users to comment on Planet Preterist articles?
Yes absolutely
24%
No only registered users should comment
76%
What are you talking about?
0%
Total votes: 42