Enarchay,

I thank you for your tone of reconciliation. My bristling was over the fact that preterism and dogma kept being equated. I hear what you are saying about structures, but in the same breath you are strongly advocating a structure (and even questioning whether one is a Christian if they do not agree with that structure). Again we all have our structures we need to acknowlege them to ourselves and others (even arguing that there should be no structures is a structure of sorts!)

Andrew has said he wants to deconstruct Scripture. I think what he means by that is to strip away tradition and look as much as possible at the original message of a book or passage (please forgive me in advance Andrew if I am misunderstanding you). One way preterism can help with this is to advocate that one should follow the timeline that Scripture gives for a certain issue without presupposing what the fulfillment of that issue is. That is, to put aside one’s preconception of the fulfillment and let the timing given in Scripture help one to formulate what the fulfillment is.

For example the usual approach to the Second Coming has been to see it as a physical event. If that is the case then all the many verses of the nearness of the parousia have to be explained away. The concept of imminence (the idea that the parousia could happen soon, not that it would) is used by many to do this. The concept of two parousias is used by partial preterists. Other Preterists say (correctly I think), wait; look at the timing given and let that help one in formulating what the Second Coming entails rather than starting with a preconceived notion of what the Second Advent entails and trying to make the timing fit that notion.

When it comes to the resurrection I do not know what the fulfillment entails. Our body is sown a natural body it is raised a spiritual body (1 Cor. 15:35-50). What exactly that means I do not know and do not particularly want to debate. I do however see a timing given in Scripture that I think gets swept under the rug because of preconceived notions of what the resurrection entails:

For example I see the tribulation happening and then the resurrection at the AD 70 shattering of the Jewish nations. Daniel 12:1-7.

I see James saying the Judge (and thus the resurrection and judgment) was at the door. James 5:9.

I see the dead being judged at the destruction of those who were destroying the Land (of Israel) in Rev. 11:15-18 (again equating the beginning of the resurrection with the AD 70 destruction of Israel).

I see those killed by the beast being resurrected at the beginning of the millennium (which I see as starting at AD 70). This is not just a spiritual resurrection, it is the resurrection of dead believers killed by the beast (Rev. 20:4; cf. Rev. 6:9-11); it is called “the first resurrection.”

I see Jesus saying “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done” Rev. 22:12; cf. Matthew 16:27-28

Personally I see the resurreciton and judgment as beginning at AD 70 and being ongoing from that time. I see belivers today as being those spoken of in Rev. 14.

And I heard a voice from heaven saying write, ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!’ ‘Yes’ says the Spirit, ‘so that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them.’ Rev. 14:13

OK I have spent way too much time on this (I am trying to finish my book, The Antichrist and the Second Coming). My hermeneutic point in all this is to say that one way to get a fresh understanding of Scripture is to put one’s preconceived idea of the fulfillment of a given issue to the side and simply follow the timeline given in Scripture and see where that leads. Then come back and see if you can integrate the tension that is often created between the two.

So one way Preterism is helpful is that it holds one’s feet to the fire when it comes to the timeline found in Scripture.