On Preterism, the Second Coming and Hell

davo · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Nothing comes ‘immediately’ to mind but I’m sure Don K. Preston on youtube probably covers it somewhere.

maintenanceman · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Hey qaz,

Time to jump into the water yourself… There is mucho info about all this all over the internet, but to be honest, a dozen really good folks can tell you truth but if you do not want to look at it, to be honest, there is nothing to be gained. A paradigm shift has to happen. It is as simple as that.

Hope the best for you

Chad

maintenanceman · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Hi qaz,

That is my point, that the preterist perspective is a process of study. It does not come easy but don’t let that shake your belief.

I would say that we should not question our beliefs, but question the things that would challenge our beliefs. If in fact, when you take a view, (in this case the preterist view), then you either believe it (it is your belief) consider it (you question it but it does not shake your belief until you are convinced through the HS that you will adopt it as a belief) or you consider it not to be regarded as to your belief system.

As to the text which you talked about, I found five different papers on the subject within about two minutes.

Here is Preston’s take on it.

Written by Don K. Preston

MATTHEW 16:28
FULFILLED AT THE TRANSFIGURATION?

Don K. Preston

“Very I say unto you, there are some standing here that shall not taste of death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Matthew 16:27-28 continues to be a source of great consternation to Bible students. Jesus’ emphatic statement about the time of his coming, the judgment and the kingdom challenges all futurist eschatologies. The number of “explanations” that have been offered to mitigate the power of Jesus’ words is amazing. Most of these explanations are so patently ridiculous that one has to wonder at the desperation of traditionalists who make them. See my book Can You Believe Jesus Said This? for a discussion and refutation of the leading objections to Jesus’ prediction. That book is available from this website.

The most common objection to Jesus’ straightforward words is that his prediction was fulfilled just eight days later in the Transfiguration vision. We are told that the Transfiguration fulfilled Jesus’ prediction, but, that in fact, his parousia– that which was predicted in Matthew 16:28 will occur at the end of the current Christian age.

So, what this means is that Matthew 16:28 was not actually fulfilled in the Transfiguration at all. It was a visionary forecast of the true fulfillment. It is even widely admitted that the Transfiguration was not the event itself that Jesus predicted but was somehow a typological, or symbolic vision of the fulfillment of what Jesus predicted.

Think about that for a moment. This means that Jesus was saying, “There are some standing here that shall not taste death until they see a vision of the yet future coming of the son of Man.” This will not work, especially in light of Mark 9:1. When one examines the Greek of the text, notice the literal translation: “Verily I say to you, That there are certain of those standing here, who may not taste of death till they see the reign of God having come in power” (Young’s Literal. Notice also the RSV and other translations).

In other words, some standing there that day would not die until they saw that the coming of the Son of Man in the kingdom had come in power! They would live until that event. They would live through that event. They would look back on the fulfillment of Jesus’ words.

Jesus was not saying, “Some standing here will not taste of death until they see a vision of the future coming.” He said, “There are some standing here that shall not taste of death until they see that the kingdom of God after it has come with power” (NASB). The literal Greek of Mark totally dispels and destroys the idea of the Transfiguration being the fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction.

Jesus’ words “Some standing here” demands that the majority of those standing there would die before the parousia. The event he was predicting was to be sufficiently far off temporally that most of that audience would die, but some would survive to see his coming. Did only a handful of that multitude survive the next eight days until the Transfiguration? This “explanation” of Jesus’ prediction is patently false on this fact alone, but, this is not nearly all.

Notice that only three men– three men!!– witnessed the Transfiguration. So, what we are being told is that Jesus, standing in the midst of a huge multitude, said “Some standing here will not die until the see the Son of Man coming” and what he meant by that was that “three of you standing here will not die until they see me coming.” By the very nature of the case, this argument falls because it is so ludicrous.

It is argued that Peter’s referent to the Transfiguration in 2 Peter 1:16 proves that Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled on the Mount. But this simply is not true. (See my in-depth study of the Transfiguration in my The Elements Shall Melt With Fervent Heat, available on this website. The Transfiguration proves that the parousia was truly imminent in the first century, and was to be fulfilled in the fall of Jerusalem).

Peter did appeal to the Transfiguration as a vision of the parousia. Of this there can be no doubt. And, he even said that that Transfiguration made the prophetic word more sure. But, he did not say that the Transfiguration fulfilled Jesus prediction in Matthew 16:28! To claim that Peter did say this is a gross mis-use of 2 Peter 1:16f.

Finally, it is argued that the Transfiguration proves that the Lord is to come at the end of the current (Christian) age. Nothing could be more false!

Now, it is true that the Transfiguration was a vision of the end of an age, of this there can be no doubt. But, of what age was the Transfiguration a vision of the impending or future end? It patently was not the Christian age. The Christian age has no end, so this fact alone destroys the argument, but, the Transfiguration vision itself defines the end that was to end.

What really happened on the Mount? Did the disciples witness a visionary end to planet earth? Did the see a vision of the end of time? Nothing in the vision even remotely suggests such a thing. Did they witness the end of the Gospel? Well, since Jesus said that his word– and thus the gospel age– will never pass away (Matthew 25:35) it is patently wrong to suggest that they saw such a thing. So, what did the disciples see? What age ended in the Transfiguration vision?

We have only to remember that in the vision, Moses and Elijah– who do not by any stretch of the imagination represent the current Christian age– appeared to Jesus. In his enthusiasm, Peter wanted to establish three tabernacles in honor of Moses, Elijah and Jesus. But what happened? Moses and Elijah vanished away, and the voice from heaven, the Bath Qol, said “This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him!”

What happened on the Mount was that the disciples saw a vision of the passing of the Old Covenant age of Moses and Elijah! If the claim that Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled in the Transfiguration is true, then the vision itself does not match. The disciples should have seen Jesus fade away. Instead, they saw a vision of the establishment of the age and word of Jesus! The glory of Christ was established– not terminated– in the vision. The New Covenant age was depicted as transcendent over Moses and Elijah. The Transfiguration was not, in any way whatsoever, a vision of the passing of the current Christian age. Those who claim that the Transfiguration was a vision of the end of the Christian age must be able to show how and why the vanishing of Moses and Elijah represented and communicated the idea of the end of the Christian age. This cannot be done.

What all of this means, and I present much, much more in my book Can You Believe Jesus Said This?, proves beyond any doubt that Jesus’ prediction in Matthew 16:28 was not fulfilled, typologically or in vision form, on the Mount of Transfiguration. That mountain top vision did confirm Jesus prophetic word as more sure, but, it did not fulfill his prophecy. The fulfillment of his words took place at the end of the age of Moses and Elijah, and that was at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The futurist “explanation” of Matthew 16:28 is false.

There are a couple of different books of his he mentions in this article. Hope this helps.

Chad

pilgrim · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Preston says:

I don’t get that. The NASB says: “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” - which is entirely consistent with the idea that this ‘seeing’ was literally and completely fulfilled in the very next chapter with the transfiguration.
I have to ask myself why Preston is so unbalanced in his determination not to see this as a perfectly reasonable POSSIBILITY. All I can deduce is that perhaps preterism will fail if Matt 16:28 can have an alternative interpretation and so he cannot allow himself to even consider that interpretation?

Me thinks he protesteth too much - and that in itself speaks volumes.

maintenanceman · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Hi pilgrim,

I guess the simple answer is that all the things it says will happen in Mat 16:27-28 did not happen at the account of the transfiguration. But there is a historical case that (concerning the Matthew 27-28 verse imagery) can be made in regards to the siege of Jerusalem and the destroying of the temple around 70AD. And the simplest of all answers is that Christ was going (in regard to the transfiguration), not coming back. A voice came down from heaven, but the Christ did not.

Once again, matter of perspective. I tend to view it this way.

Thanks,

Chad

pilgrim · April 9, 2018, 4:37pm

A very gracious reply Chad. Thank you and God bless you in 2016.

As for my view on preterism in general, I think Eaglesway summed it up well in post 447 here:

-and I think it is a really pessimistic view, what with the world being in such a terrible state but I love your Spirit and work for the Lord.

P.S. I’ve been curious for a while, who/what is your avatar?

maintenanceman · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Thanks pilgrim!

Hope you have a very, very good year! God Bless you and yours. I’m sure we will talk soon!

Chad

pilgrim · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Sorry Chad - just edited the above whilst you were replying (oops).

maintenanceman · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

pilgrim, my avatar is ‘Red Will Danaher’ from the movie ‘The Quiet Man’.

My favorite movie of all time! I think it was 1952. John Wayne and John Ford at their best in my humble opinion. Thanks for asking!! I wondered how long it would take for someone to ask

Best wishes,

Chad

maintenanceman · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

pilgrim,

We are all in a sense preterists, in that preter means past, We all know of Christ whom was born of a virgin, lived, was crucified on a cross, died and was buried, and rose again, and ascended into heaven. All has happened.

I personally believe in a full preterist view, (and thus) an understanding that Christ did all that He set out to do is actually good news!!

I totally understand the hesitance of going down that road, but I have no problem with other views. To be honest, I’m not a very good debater, I’m a musician and a fixer of things, not a theologian. I have opinions, but know others do to!

I hope that helps.

Chad

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

For me, it is the Maltese Falcon.

I can recall all the main characters now

maintenanceman · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Thanx Randy!!

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Sure there was. It was the time folks would embrace **both ** John Calvin theologically and Arthur Schopenhauer philosophically.

maintenanceman · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

steve7150 · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

I don’t get that. The NASB says: “Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.” - which is entirely consistent with the idea that this ‘seeing’ was literally and completely fulfilled in the very next chapter with the transfiguration.
I have to ask myself why Preston is so unbalanced in his determination not to see this as a perfectly reasonable POSSIBILITY. All I can deduce is that perhaps preterism will fail if Matt 16:28 can have an alternative interpretation and so he cannot allow himself to even consider that interpretation?

IMHO another plausible explanation is that it refers to Jesus ascension which Daniel 7.13 calls the Son of Man coming into His kingdom.

davo · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

I’m not quite sure I know what you mean exactly by “severing nations”?

Yeah but hang on… you were questioning that there was any “scriptural evidence” as to a broad-scope “confessing that Jesus is Lord” – I simply showed you how the phrasing of Phil 2:10-11 attests that such can happen postmortem, IF THAT’S the requirement you deem necessary; you don’t have to accept what I’m saying, but as a pantelist that would be my way of dealing with your objection… by appealing to the text. And until you can demonstrate from scripture HOW “and those under the earth” somehow does NOT reference “the dead” i.e., postmortem, as would the most seem logical, and thus meet your required “confessing”, then I’d be inclined to stick with my rationale on this.

I refer you again to my comments up the page… “I’m an ‘inclusionist’ as opposed to a ‘universalist’ as in I reject the typical universalist rationales around “hell” and “the lake of fire” which for the most part are no different in essence than that held by infernalists; the only real difference between the two is the amount of torturous time said to be spent therein.”

davo · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

But if you look at the context wouldn’t that “POSSIBILITY” be ruled out according to the evidence supplied in the text? How is it you guys will play for an ‘argument from silence’ scenario BUT then where there is no silence, i.e., there IS ample scriptural proof to help in determining what’s happening you then conveniently and summarily dismiss it??

Example… IF Mt 16:28 WERE referring to the transfiguration, a whole 6 days following, WHERE were the attendant ANGELS and the subsequent REWARDS so naturally associated with the PAROUSIA? They simply WEREN’T there!

To be honest Pilgrim… ignoring the plain (con)text (v27) which clarifies what immediately follows (v28) to me at least seems at worst disingenuous or dishonest, or at best in itself “unbalanced”. I would really appreciate your answer to this for me, thanks.

pilgrim · April 9, 2018, 4:37pm

Hi qaz
I’m not a futurist. If you think that view is even more pessimistic then I respect your opinion.

No, I made no such implication.

maintenanceman · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

Hi pilgrim!

2016 IS HERE!

You said,

I was wondering, with your answer to qaz,

…saying you are not a futurist, is my preterist view pessimistic, or eaglesway’s view of preterism the pessimistic view?

This fascinates me. Thanks!!

pilgrim · March 9, 2018, 3:17am

I’ll get back to these questions shortly with a statement of my current viewpoint- (hopefully later today) bit rushed at the mo.