So, I tend strongly towards partial-preterism, yet I also think that some passages are/could be to do with a future judgement beyond AD70 and future return of Christ (both spiritual and physical which we can hasten/influence) either directly or indirectly in the sense of multiple layers/fulfillments.
But, I also think prophecy is usually conditional and that God doesn’t meticulously know the future or how freewiled beings will choose/act. It may even be that prophecy is written in such a way as to give God multiple ‘outs’ for its fulfillmet (metaphorical, literal, typological, etc) depending upon how freewilled beings choose to respond to the prophecy.
Soooo … is anyone else here a Conditional Preterist? Or have I just gone totally insane?
You will only be considered “insane” pog when you start “seeing” the logical conclusions of a partial preterism lead to a more consistent full preterism, and then start questioning certain sacred evangelical cows. Mind you, most preterists consider me “insane” because I started showing them the logically inclusive conclusions inherent within preterism.
I too am Partial Preterist, but also a Unificationist (aka “Moonie”). We Unificationists see history as a repetitive process unless altered by any significant events through human actions and choices. For example, the “Second Coming” of Christ is dependent on whether the rejection and crucifixion of Jesus Christ by Israel happened or not. We don’t see Christ’s “Second Coming” as literally coming on the clouds in the sky, nor as a one time event, but as necessary events (plural) for the sake of believers and non-believers to gain salvation.
In addition, we believe that “second coming” is not only limited to the Christ, but also to others for the sake of Divine Providence. For example, John the Baptist was and is considered to be the “second coming” of the prophet Elijah (Matthew 17:11-13). However, we can see from the New Testament that Jesus Christ appeared multiple times to his followers after His crucifixion and resurrection, namely to His Apostles, St. Stephen, and St. Paul the Apostle (Acts 1:3-9; 7:55-56; 9:3-9).
We can say that Jesus “came again” in AD 70 to gather his elect from the four winds (Matthew 24:31), enabling them to escape the catastrophe that would befall Jerusalem during that time. But we believe that because of Israel’s rejection of their Messiah, in place of the zealot Barabbas (Mark 15:7-15; John 18:40), Jerusalem was destroyed as a result 40 years later.
We know from history that the Zealots were a violent Jewish sect that sought to overthrow by force the Roman Empire who occupied the province of Palestine at that time. However, Jesus lead a movement that had a very different approach to dealing with tyrannical governments like that of Rome. If we regard Jesus as the ‘Prince of Peace’ (Isaiah 9:6), how do you think he would have led a protest against Roman tyranny had he not been crucified in place of a murderous zealot?
We may be tempted to use Acts 2:23 as proof that God’s original plan was to have His Son “nailed to the cross” for our sins, but was that His true intention for sending His Son and Messiah in the first place? Of course, God foreknew what would happen if His people rejected the Christ, and this is in accordance with what Unificationist theology calls ‘dual prophecy’ (i.e. Deuteronomy 28:1-14 contrasted with Deuteronomy 28:15-68; Isaiah 9, 11, and 60 contrasted with Isaiah 53).
As a result of Israel’s unfaithfulness and disobedience, the curse of the Law was invoked, and Jesus had to take the way of the cross as a condition of indemnity for the spiritual salvation of humankind, “especially those who believe” (1 Timothy 4:10). However, according to Unificationist thought, physical salvation could not be realized and therefore Jerusalem and all Israel had to pay indemnity for their rejection of the Christ and the acceptance of a murderous zealot in His place.
God’s Providence of Restoration for humanity was, in effect, prolonged because of three primary factors: (1) John the Baptist’s doubt about Jesus (Matthew 11:2-3, 6) and his rejection of being Elijah (John 1:21), (2) Jesus’s family’s accusations of Him being insane (Mark 3:21, 31-35), and (3) the unfaithfulness of Judas Iscariot (Mark 14:10-11). These factors would have added to the fire of the Jewish authorities’ rejection of Jesus. They would have accepted Him as the Messiah had John been able to bear witness to Jesus beyond His baptism.
To answer your question of whether you are going “totally insane” or not, I would say that you are trying to be as consistent as possible with Biblical Orthodoxy. The prolongation of God’s Providence as described above would call for a “Conditional Preterist” understanding of redemptive history. However, it would be more accurate to call it a “Conditional Dispensationalist” approach, while still taking a Preterist understanding of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24 and 25) and the Book of Revelation (chapters 1 through 19).
