Metasearch=Preterism

A reader writes:

Hey, I have a couple of questions about preterism. I’ve been trying to figure out what preterism is, but I’m having a hard time finding any good resources on the web. Most of the websites are terribly unorganized. But what exactly is preterism, why do preterists beleive what they do, and why do they claim that if Jesus didn’t come back in 70ad that we are indeed still under the law?

I normally have an easy time becoming abreast of issues like this, but none of my books mention it, and I hear you’re a supercomputer that can do an internal metasearch for things like this.

I’ll do the best I can.

First, as to what preterism is, it is the position that the great majority of the prophecies in the Bible have already been fulfilled. Some individuals seeking to call themselves preterists, however, maintain that all the prophecies in the Bible (including the Second Coming) have been fulfilled.

Because this leads to a confusion of terms, it is better to refer to this second group by a second term. The second term that is coming to be used for them is pantelists, meaning "those who believe that all (pan) prophecies are at an end (telos)."

The distinction is important, for the question of whether or not the Second Coming has happened is the difference between orthodoxy and heresy. Pantelists are heretics. Other preterists are not heretics (unless they are heretical for other reasons, e.g., by denying the Real Presence).

As to why preterists believe what they do, a very strong case can be made that many of the prophetic texts of the Bible have already been fulfilled. I write about this in some articles that are available online. For example, HERE, HERE, and HERE.

The problem with pantelists is that they take this and push it too far, claiming that all the prophecies of Scripture have been fulfilled when the Second Coming clearly has not been. The fact that the Second Coming took place in A.D. 70 is infallibly excluded by the Nicene Creed [A.D. 325, 381], which states that Christ "will return [future tense] to judge the living and the dead."

As to preterists saying that Jesus returned in A.D. 70, it is not clear to me which kind you are talking about. Pantelists would claim that the Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, and the inauguration of the ternal order all occurred in this year, which is all contrary to the faith for reasons that we have seen and that requires a radical reinterpretation of each of these concepts.

Many (though not all) ordinary preterists, by contrast, would say that a coming of Christ occurred in A.D. 70, but not the Second Coming, which still remains in the future.

These preterists commonly argue that the book of Revelation deals with the destruction of Jerusalem, which happend in A.D. 70. According to the theory of these (not all) preterists, Revelation depicts Jerusalem as the "Great Whore" or the "city where their Lord was crucified" (Rev. 11:8), whose fall is depicted in chapter 18 of the book. Chapter 19 presents a coming of Christ, and chapter 20 speaks of a very long period (symbolically represented as a "thousand years") in which we are presumably living.

Since the fall of the Whore, the coming of Christ, and the advent of the thousand years seem causally connected and piled on top of each other, it is plausible to suggest–given this interpretation–that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was due to a coming of Christ and that it inaugurated the present age in which Christianity–now separated from Judaism–has spread dramatically.

We know that, in his earthly ministry, Jesus placed significant stress on A.D. 70, when the Temple in Jerusalem would be destroyed. This destruction is mentioned in all four of the gospels, so it seems to have quite a bit of significance in God’s mind.

The question is: If this interpretation of Revelation is correct, what kind of coming of Jesus occurred in A.D. 70? Pantelists claim (contrary to the faith and with massive reinterpretation of the Second Coming) that it was the Second Coming itself. Ordinary preterists, though, are more modest and claim that it was a lesser coming, of the kind that the Old Testament frequently speaks of God having, symbolically "visiting" his people with either blessings or cursings in tow, based on whether they are keeping or violating his Law.

On this hypothesis, Christ (as God) symbolically "visited" Jerusalem in judgment for its sins (notably, his own crucifixion; cf. Rev. 11:8) through the Jewish War of the late A.D. 60s that culminated in the sacking of Jerusalem and the burning of its Temple in A.D. 70, just as Jesus has prophesied. There may have been apparitional or other phenomena associated with this event, though it did not amount to the Second Coming that is still in our future. It was a coming of Jesus, but not the Second Coming that he elsewhere prophesied.

As to why the individuals that you have encoutnered link this coming in A.D. 70 and the end of the Law, I can conjecture. I haven’t encountered this claim myself, but since Jesus said

Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished [Matt 5:17-18].

one might conclude that the Law of Moses (the Law that Jesus is talking about here) would still be binding until "all is accomplished," which these folks would then interpret (pantelistically) as "all biblical prophecies are fulfilled."

There are several problems with this:

1. The Law of Moses was only ever binding on Jewish people to whom it was given. It was not binding on the gentiles. Thus unless "we" are ethnically Jewish, "we" are not bound by the Law of Moses because we were never bound by the Law of Moses.
2. The assumption that "all is accomplished" means "all biblical prophecies are fulfilled" is by no means certain. Jesus came to clarify the Law, and so it may mean "until I have finished clarifying what God truly wants." Jesus also came in obedience to the Law, and so it may mean "until I have completely fulfilled the Law through my life, death, and resurrection." Jesus also may have only the events of his First Coming in view, in which case he may mean "until my First Coming–my life, death, and resurrection–are accomplished."
3. Whichever way one interprets these matters, St. Paul (who died before A.D. 70) seems to clearly regard the Law of Moses as already fulfilled and thus something that has passed away by his day, for he writes:

And you, who were dead in trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, having canceled the bond which stood against us with its legal demands; this he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the principalities and powers and made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him. Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a sabbath. These are only a shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ [Col. 2:13-17].

Hope this helps!