Does it make any difference whether I am a dispensational premillennialist or an amillennialists or a postmillennialist or a full preterist? What difference does it make when Jesus comes, as long as he comes? When I was a premillennialist, I didn’t think it mattered at all. I knew what I believed, and, if you believed differently, that was okay with me—you were wrong, but I didn’t mind, because I didn’t think eschatology was that important. I don’t mean to imply it wasn’t a lot of fun to study about the end times. It was great fun, but I figured, if God didn’t think it was important enough to reveal the day and the hour, well, how important could it be what I believed, just as long as Jesus did come eventually?
At that time I wasn’t very informed about the other points of view, but I didn’t mind that either. I had a general knowledge of what all the titles meant, except for full preterism. That one was a mystery to me, but I wasn’t very curious about a belief that didn’t look forward to a future coming of Christ. I didn’t know that they believed Jesus came cir. 70 AD, but I’m not certain how much of a difference that would have made 15 to 20 years ago.
I guess, since I’ve come around to believing full preterism is the truth, I have come to believe that eschatology is really important. The reason is not simply that it is correct. Being correct has always been important to me, but the big reason eschatology has come to be so important is this: a big reason why Jews, Moslems and atheists reject the New Testament is that all the writers of the New Testament claimed that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. The Synoptic Gospels have Jesus saying all things would be fulfilled in that first century AD generation that rejected Jesus as Messiah. Therefore, these folks have a good argument against divine inspiration, if Jesus and those who wrote the New Testament were wrong. As little as a year ago I would have tried to argue for a future coming of the Lord, but I know that argument couldn’t have been very convincing to a knowledgeable Jew, Moslem or atheist.
Jesus once told his scoffers (Jews of the first century AD), “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not” (John 10:37). In other words, Jesus challenged his scoffers and scoffers of all ages (Jews, Moslems, Atheists etc.), saying don’t believe what he says, unless he is able to perform what his Father gave him to do! That’s a powerful all-or-nothing challenge! Jesus simply laid it all on the line at that point. ‘If I can’t do what I say I’ll do, don’t believe me” (my paraphrase of Jesus at John 10:37. Would it be important, then, if Jesus promised to return to that generation of the folks living in the 1st century AD? I have to believe it makes a whole world of difference, given his statement in John 10:37. He told his disciples: “A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father” (John 16:16). In other words Jesus said in a little while he would go to be with the Father, but in a little while he would return. In his own words, if he didn’t return “in a little while” then don’t believe him (John 10:37; 16:16). Did Jesus do what he said he would do? My answer to that question really does determine my colors.
I have to say, that I understand the unbelief of the scoffers (Jews, Moslems and atheists) on this point, because I’ve lived to be 70 years of age and have never heard of even the possibility of Jesus’ Second Coming to be an accomplished event. I understand that the unbelief of Jews, Moslems and atheists is more complicated than whether or not Jesus returned cir. 70 AD, but I also understand it is a ‘big’ point with them. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, my eschatology is extremely important at this point in my life, and, if God grants me the privilege of speaking with anyone who scoffs at Jesus’ promise to return in the 1st century AD, or anyone who mocks the writers of the New Testament who foretold that he would, I’ll set them straight on that point. No one will be able to use ‘failure to perform’ as a legitimate argument against Christianity with me ever again.
Smoodock's Blog 
14 responses to “What Difference Does It Make?”
Eddie, thank you for laying this out. As I mentioned before, I am reading Gary Demar’s Wars and Rumors of Wars. It is a treatise on preterism and His coming in the first century. I am coming around to this way of thinking as well. Other points of view seem to rely on our poor understanding of history! …mine included! The premillennialist relies on previous interpretations of scripture by other premillennialists, it seems to me.
Further, what a shame that evangelicals spend so much time focused upon the second coming when more important matters are in front of us.
Having said that, can you provide some insight into the famously used versus in ! Thes 4 that relate to the dead rising first, etc. I have always heard it preached at funerals! I appreciate it.
Best
Dave in the desert!
Hi Dave, and thanks for reading.
Concerning 1Thessalonians 4, I assume you mean verses 13-18. My understanding is as follows.
1Thessalonians 4:13-18
verse-13 — the brethren were upset because a number of loved ones had passed on, but the Lord hadn’t come yet. They had a false notion of their loved ones that had passed on wouldn’t have a share in the blessings of the Second Coming, so Paul wrote that they wouldn’t sorrow as though there were no hope.
verse-14 — believers in the resurrection of Jesus would come with him when he returned, so if they died in faith they would live in faith
verse-15 — Many tell us that when Paul says he is speaking the “word of the Lord” he is recalling the Olivet Discourse. So we have many similarities in Matthew 24 that Paul uses here (trumpet, angels, clouds, dead rising etc.), and Paul tells the Thessalonians that what happens to them will by no means take presidence over or precede what occurs to their loved ones.
verse-16 — the Lord descends and the resurrection takes place, and as I just said things occur as in Matthew 24 (trumpet, angels, clouds, dead rising etc.),
verse-17 — We who are alive and remain are caught (up) to meet the Lord in the air.
This is the famous **rapture** verse, but it fails. When the ‘parousia’ of a dignitary took place in the 1st century AD the towns people watched for him and when they saw him they ran out to meet him and escort him back to their town. What this verse is saying is we (first century believers) welcome Jesus (cf. Revelation 21:1-3).
None of this is visible, by the way, as even the dispensationalists admit for their doctrine. They say people will be “caught up” to meet the Lord, and cars, airplanse, and what have you, will crash, because the drivers have been taken away — and no one saw it.
Basically, that’s how I understand this. You can find more on preterism, if you would want to watch some you tube videos by Don Preston. Type his name in and you’ll be able to get to his channel.
Thanks for taking the time to explain. I will follow up with the videos you suggested.
Funny, I remember 2 years ago when I studying Revelation and trying to figure out the different eschatologies, I read about the preterists and figured that’s what you believed, even then. You have always maintained the Oliver Prophecy was about 70AD and the destruction of Jerusalem, and that numerous things in Revelation were either fulfilled with Christ’s first coming or in 70AD.
Is it just that you have found a more accurate name for your beliefs, or have you changed your mind about something about Christ’s return? I remember you saying something like Jesus being in the act of returning since His coming in 70 AD and is still returning to this day. (You phrased it better. ) But that is essentially how Jesus kept his promise that these things would happen in the lifetime of those who heard him, and yet today we don’t see the things described in Rev. Ch. 20-21 fulfilled yet. Is that essentially what the full preterists believe, or have you modified your beliefs?
As little as a year ago, I still held the belief that Jesus would return in the future. I also believed he would reign on the earth in Jerusalem, and that this would be a physical reign, i.e. he would have a visible, physical body. I also believe he would recreate the earth and possibly the heavens. I no longer hold to these doctrines. They are held by partial preterists of the camp of the postmillennialists. I wasn’t putting a lot of twos and twos together, but about three months ago things began to become clearer to me. Lord bless you, Shari.