I think this point is the most important of the entire series – no Bible-saturated contemporary of Jesus thought when the Messiah came he would be as Jesus was.
No one thought of the ethic and method Jesus preached.
No one thought of crucifixion and resurrection.
No one thought of Messiah with incarnation in the mix.
What makes us think we can look at the prophetic passages in the NT and “get it?” It won’t be as any of us think – and it will be better than all of us think.

Thanks again Scott!
This has been a journey of discovery and trepidation for me over the past 2 years as I began to do what my Bible professors taught me to do- look at context and don’t read whatever I want back into the text. In regards to a comment from a couple of days ago, I do think that a partial preterist understanding of the Olivet Discourse, etc. does change everything because I think it’s pretty clear that our eschatology drives our actions today. If I agree with some that Jesus is coming “skiing back on the clouds” (great imagery) to rescue me then I don’t have a lot of incentive for working for justice, relieving poverty, reconciling with my neighbor, etc- all my energy needs to be focused on getting to heaven with as many friends as possible in Jesus’ spaceship (an image I owe to NT Wright). If, however, I view the Olivet Discourse as a judgment on Jerusalem and the temple and as a vindication of Jesus as Lord who is working to restore and renew creation, then I’ve been invited into a partnership where everything I do for the Kingdom today has implications for the Kingdom tomorrow. Wow… and that’s an eschatology that I’ve discovered blue collar non-Christians in my community respond to and want to follow as opposed to the popular “think certain things about Jesus so you don’t go to hell.”
It changes everything…

Thanks much for this series. I’ve learned much and have tons to think about.

Great posting this week, very challenging.
What does this mean: “the Messiah of the Endtime who was destined to come to lead Israel into the ‘fortunes of Israel’”
Specifically, “fortunes of Israel.”

Scott,
Have you read Eddie Adam’s “The Stars Will Fall From Heaven,” which basically seeks to refute this line of interpretation (from what I know)? I’d be interested to hear a response to that work from you or Wright.

Doesn’t the Fourth Gospel add anything to the question of the Second Coming? Revelation?
Derek Leman

Richard #2
I think it owuld be more accurate to say it changes everything for you. The vast, vast majority of Christians I know believe in a standard bodily return of Jesus to earth, and none of them live like the caricature you painted. In fact, I would say that I find the assertion preposterous and narrow-minded.
>>>then I don’t have a lot of incentive for working for justice, relieving poverty, reconciling with my neighbor, etc- all my energy needs to be focused on getting to heaven with as many friends as possible in Jesus’ spaceship (an image I owe to NT Wright).

Great points to ponder. Great presentation. Thank you Scot!
Acts 1: 9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight. 10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11″Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”
I’m still hoping for the personal and bodily return, though. I’m not sure what’s “partial” about your preterism but for me, I still have some of the idealist view that expects some of these images to act as patterns, just as the child to be born of a virgin had a fulfillment for Isaiah’s lifetime and a grander fulfillment in Christ.
Even so, loved your presentation and learned a ton.
Looking to learn even more from you in future blogs! Thanks again!

Dave Leigh, a partial preterist believes some of the NT teachings pertain to 70 AD and other parts to a yet distant future. I’ve clearly said both; so I’m partial. A full preterist, as I understand it, thinks it all happened in 70 AD.
Check the Wikipedia article on preterism.

Derek, I would agree that Revelation pushes this into slightly different emphases, but one has to date the book first.

Scot – hope the Daniels treat you like the lions treated him …
I appreciate your honesty and openness and modelling of serious listening to and engagement with Scripture … and the sense that this is an ongoing exploration.
Let’s leave aside dispensational error; our partial grasp of the future; etc as tangential issues. I for sure don’t know all the questions let alone the answers, but here are some genuine ones;
This sounds like more than partial preterism – practically the full McCoy? I know you say ‘there is more to come’ – but I’m not sure what.
Does this not drive a wedge between Jesus and Paul and others NT authors? If not, does this not lead to a radical re-reading of Paul’s eschatology as essentially fulfilled? Are we heading into Andrew Perriman territory that we are in a ‘post-biblical’ age? I just don’t see that as a constructive direction.
While having echoes of N T Wright (I loved Surprised by Hope so am with you on Jesus in his Jewish context and lots more etc), you seem to be going much further towards a sort of extended second coming of Jesus from AD 70 on as his kingdom is established?
You haven’t yet talked of the resurrection to come – how does this fit in?
What are the implications of Jesus’ limited vision for the future for Christology?
Again, these are genuine questions, not ‘traps’ for lions ..
blessings

Patrick,
I believe in an apocalyptic act of God at the end of the age called the Second Coming; that will involve the resurrection. Paul and James and probably Peter are with Jesus for me; John’s Revelation takes the discussion further. But, 70 AD has to be given its due. I don’t see Mark 13 or Matt 24 teaching what I”m calling here the Second Coming but a “vindication of Christ” through the destruction of Jerusalem. There is no “descent” in Mark 13 or Matt 24.
You know, Luke historicizes this even more and even more clearly connects this stuff to 70 AD.
The christology issue isn’t important here; Jesus says in Mark 13 he doesn’t know the day or hour. That’s all I’ve said.

Very helpful series, Scot. I’ve always struggled with what to make of passages like Matthew 24-25 and over the years I’ve been coming to something in the vicinity of what you’ve written here. I just bought “A New Vision for Israel.” I look forward to learning more.

Thanks Scot, that is very helpful in clarifying things for me. I appreciate you can’t be expected to lay out an entire NT eschatology in a focus on the Olivet discourse! Marana tha!

Scot,
“This Jewish prophet Jesus, however, is also the Messiah of the Endtime who was destined to come to lead Israel into the ‘fortunes of Israel’. Those fortunes have not yet been completely fulfilled.”
What comes of Israel? Is this more of a covenental view where the gentiles are grafted in and the faithful, adopted believers are Israel, or is this a dispensational view of a redeemed future genetic Israel? This is were my thinking and scholarship is very fuzzy.
Thank you
Phil

Scot,
“This Jewish prophet Jesus, however, is also the Messiah of the Endtime who was destined to come to lead Israel into the ‘fortunes of Israel’. Those fortunes have not yet been completely fulfilled. ”
I was wondering what was meant from Israel here, is this a covenantal view, Israel being grafted gentiles or dispensation, literal genetic remnant Israel? I need clarification.
Phil

I think even the post-tribulation theory needs to use the skin of the fox.
?
(I don’t get it)
(the saying that is)

Scot,
excuse me for pushing back. I’ve read a large amount of your work on Jesus, and have truly come to appreciate your work. N.T. Wright has also been foundational in shaping much of the way I have come to read the New Testament, and I must say that both of you have made learning the New Testament so exciting that I want to teach it myself. That being said, I just cannot go with both of you down the road of “Matthew 24 says the same thing as Mark 13,” not yet that is. I have come to agree that Mark 13, Jesus is “clearly” talking about the Temple’s Destruction. However, does the word “Parousia” in Matthew 24, not give us some reason to read Matthew (written post 70AD) as speaking to something more? Something future? Is it possible that the First Evangelist is recasting the last discourse of Jesus (and adding to it) in ways that speak to his readers (i.e. Second Coming)?
Also, you don’t think that Paul in 1 Theselonians 4 is talking about the Second Coming? Wright seems to put forward that it in fact IS talking about that in his Surprised By Hope. What clues in the text point you towards another conclusion?

Ben,
Good push backs and I’m now in an awful corner: the post is about how Jesus conceived of the future, and not about how either Mark or Matthew fashioned or refashioned it. Let alone Paul.
Put simply, I’m not sure “parousia” can be equated with Second Coming. The term is more elastic than that. On Paul’s eschatology … that would take another series of posts.

Scot,
Thanks a bunch. I assumed as much when it came to “Jesus’ view” and not Matthew or Mark’s fashioning of it. In that case, this is extremely well done, I agree (I’d read this a long time ago and it made me give up everything i thought I knew about eschatology), and I asked too much! Haha. I guess this is just a large area of interest for me as i continue my education in New Testament studies and I was unfairly looking for quick snapshots lol.
Derek,
Yes, I do think that Revelation and the Fourth Gospel add something to the second coming conversation, and I think Scot would probably agree. What I have come to appreciate most about this Partial-Preterist interpretation of Scot and Wright is that it doesn’t juggle this passage in a partial-preterist sense (it is a fully preterist interpretation of Jesus’ discourse)… it affirms core teachings (2nd coming) but says “it’s ok if this passage doesn’t talk about it.”

Scot,
Just wanted to add my voice of thanks to the many others who have already spoken up. For me, this is perfect timing: over the last year or so, my thinking on eschatology has been radically changed by books like “Surprised by Hope” etc., and your series helps further shape what is for me a balanced and biblical view. I particularly appreciate your ability to clearly state what you believe and why while not being afraid to say “I don’t know” and preserve the many mysterious aspects of this subject.
I agree wholeheartedly on one thing in particular: however the “end of the age” transpires, it will most likely be very different from however it is imagined by even those closest to the mark.
Peace,
Rob

Scot,
“This Jewish prophet Jesus, however, is also the Messiah of the Endtime who was destined to come to lead Israel into the ‘fortunes of Israel’. Those fortunes have not yet been completely fulfilled. ”
I’m confused as to the role of nation Israel, is it more covenantal, gentile grafted in true believer Israel, or dispensational genetic remnant, Israel.

I’m sorry for all the posts, was having problems with wireless signal, sorry.
Phil

Scot,
You wrote, “They did so because the images used by the prophets were alive and could evoke the hope that God had given to Israel…Because the events cannot contain the images.”
How elastic are the images used in prophetic speech then? They appear to be focused enough that they have some kind of accurate predictive value. Are you saying that they may rightly be interpreted for any context?
Jeff

Phil,
I’ve seen this question of yours and I’m hesitant to address it in this context because it seems always to download the 1948-Israel-became-a-nation issue that then feeds into all sorts of prophetic schemes and the USA’s support for Israel and Reagan and who knows what else.
Let me put it this way: Jesus’ prediction of vindication/judgment, in true prophetic fashion, has nothing to do with calling into question the utter faithfulness of God to his covenant people. How’s that?

Jeff,
There is ambiguity because there is metaphor; that does not add up to taking on new meanings with each generation or century.

Scot (and others),
This series, along with Wright’s “Surprised by Hope” (and to some extent Hanegraaff’s “Code”), have been helpful. Do you have any other recommended reading for a frustrated dispensationalist trying to find his way?

Dean,
I recommend Bruce Metzger’s little commentary on Revelation called Cracking the Code (or something like that).

Scot,
You wrote, “There is ambiguity because there is metaphor; that does not add up to taking on new meanings with each generation or century.” So how does a ‘future’ fulfillment find its place, if indeed there has already been a fulfillment of said prophecy? I think you already indicated that you are not keen on the idea of a ‘partial’ fulfillment. Where would a ‘double’ fulfillment fit?
As a prophet, Jesus relied on the prophetic knowledge of the future given to him by the Spirit. As Paul was converted Paul after Jesus’ death, could it be that he ‘saw’ the words of Jesus as having a different prophetic voice for his generation? Would this still be consistent with the Jewish prophetic stream?
Thanks for the stream of posts…this has tremendous practical implications for the Church!!
Jeff

Jeff,
I’m nervous about double fulfillment. I tend to see the “second” one to be a re-application of the first rather than a conscious double prophecy.
Yes, I think Paul re-used what Jesus said; John did the same. This is how the prophets worked too: use what was before and take up into a new situation.

I think many Christians imagine that Christ’s return will be something like the climax of Close Encounters of a Third Kind, but considering that God, by definition, is so much larger in any imaginable way than we picture in our thoughts, then it makes complete sense that the second coming will be beyond anything we think.

Scot,
I, too, THANK YOU for this excellent and timely series. What does “use the skin of the fox” mean?

For anyone interested in pursuing this line of thought, or learning more about preterism, or curious about the relationship between Jesus’ discourse and the book of Revelation … I would suggest reading ?Before Jerusalem Fell? by Kenneth Gentry (or the shorter paperback version entitled, ?The Beast of Revelation?) which offers a compelling argument that the book of Revelation was written prior to AD 70 and contains many references to the historical events of that period (including the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple). A logical follow-up would be ?Days of Vengeance,? a profound, verse-by-verse exposition of the book of Revelation by David Chilton. These were life-changing books for me. ?Last Days Madness? by Gary DeMar is also very good.

Scot,
I’ve been wrestling with your thought that Jesus’ second coming will not be a physical return. I think I understand your reasons for being hesitant, but I continue to think of what appears to be an expection that Jesus will indeed return in the body.
Luke, in Acts 1:11, wrote of the angels saying that Jesus would return “in the same way” from heaven to earth. If that is not in some sense a physical return, what is “the same way” referring to?
Paul’s insistence, in 1 Corinthians 15, that Jesus’ literal/physical resurrection is the basis and model for our resurrection when he returns seems to me to be quite strange if he returns only in a spiritual sense.
And the Apostle John, in Revelation 21, sees in his vision that God himself will live with humanity in a tangible way. The veil between heaven and earth being penetrated with God’s presence in a way that is not true of the present. We are fully present to God, but our expereince of that is limited in that the One who was God in the flesh has left us. His return, appears to me, in Revelation 21 takes on physical/tangible deminsions.
Thoughts?
Jeff

Scot,
UGH….you were doing so well and I thought you had truly grasped what the Bible and Jesus were all about: “In other words, Jesus’ eschatology was fully immersed in his day and was about his day”… and then your train went off the track.
“I believe in Jesus’ ‘return’ but I think it will be much better and bigger and more grandiose than we can imagine. In other words, I believe in the “Second Coming” but I think it is how we speak of the inaugurating event in the establishment of Christ’s reign (and I believe in an earthly manifestation of that reign and of Christ’s Second Coming — and I’m just not sure what that will look like).”
I challenge you to keep on studying what you’ve started with prophecy in the OT and the way it was described and especially The Book of Revelation in light of the destruction of Jerusalem. You will find that it is right in line with the Olivet Discourse but in a more expounded scenario. You will be jumping on the Full Preterist band wagon before long.

Oh, well, I know this is long past the “expiration date” for blog viability, but I suspect that Scott will get an email notifying him that there has been a response, so here goes.
I previously thought that it was wrong to speak of a “physical return” of Christ because his resurrection body was obviously beyond anything we know as “physical.” In particular, it seemed to me that manifesting bodily behind walls, disappearing, appearing in a form that wasn’t recognizable as the physical form and image he was prior to resurrection all argued for something so far beyond what we know as physical that it was wrong to speak thus of his resurrected body. Then I started thinking more deeply about how we only know about roughly 15% of what actually is the apparent physical universe, the rest being composed of dark matter/energy that has yet to be theoretically or experimentally identified, and I had to admit that Jesus’ resurrection body could quite reasonably be considered to be “physical.” Extra, or additional, dimensional aspects of what is arguably considered “physical” could perhaps encompass that which Jesus became and we will become in the eschaton when we are also resurrected.
Just a thought.
All the best to all in Christ,
Richard; body of Christ, St. Louis, MO, USA