Online Bible and Study Tools
Translate || Vine / Schaff || Alts/Vars/Criticism/Aramaic

 
 


End Times Chart


Introduction and Key

BOOKS:  BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)

 

STUDY ARCHIVE

Main Page

Click For Site Updates Page

Free Online Books Page

Historical Preterism Main

Modern Preterism Main

Hyper Preterism Main

Preterist Idealism Main

Critical Article Archive Main

Church History's Preteristic Presupposition

Study Archive Main

Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main

Josephus' Wars of the Jews Main

Online Study Bible Main

EARLY CHURCH

Ambrose
Ambrose, Pseudo
Andreas
Arethas
Aphrahat
Athanasius
Augustine
Barnabus
BarSerapion
Baruch, Pseudo
Bede
Chrysostom
Chrysostom, Pseudo
Clement, Alexandria
Clement, Rome
Clement, Pseudo
Cyprian
Ephraem
Epiphanes
Eusebius
Gregory
Hegesippus
Hippolytus
Ignatius
Irenaeus
Isidore
James
Jerome
King Jesus
Apostle John
Lactantius
Luke
Mark
Justin Martyr
Mathetes
Matthew
Melito
Oecumenius
Origen
Apostle Paul
Apostle Peter
Maurus Rabanus
Remigius
"Solomon"
Severus
St. Symeon
Tertullian
Theophylact
Victorinus

HISTORICAL PRETERISM
(Minor Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Joseph Addison
Oswald T. Allis
Thomas Aquinas
Karl Auberlen
Augustine
Albert Barnes
Karl Barth
G.K. Beale
Beasley-Murray
John Bengel
Wilhelm Bousset
John A. Broadus

David Brown
"Haddington Brown"
F.F. Bruce

Augustin Calmut
John Calvin
B.H. Carroll
Johannes Cocceius
Vern Crisler
Thomas Dekker
Wilhelm De Wette
Philip Doddridge
Isaak Dorner
Dutch Annotators
Alfred Edersheim
Jonathan Edwards

E.B. Elliott
Heinrich Ewald
Patrick Fairbairn
Js. Farquharson
A.R. Fausset
Robert Fleming
Hermann Gebhardt
Geneva Bible
Charles Homer Giblin
John Gill
William Gilpin
W.B. Godbey
Ezra Gould
Hank Hanegraaff
Hengstenberg
Matthew Henry
G.A. Henty
George Holford
Johann von Hug
William Hurte
J, F, and Brown
B.W. Johnson
John Jortin
Benjamin Keach
K.F. Keil
Henry Kett
Richard Knatchbull
Johann Lange

Cornelius Lapide
Nathaniel Lardner
Jean Le Clerc
Peter Leithart
Jack P. Lewis
Abiel Livermore
John Locke
Martin Luther

James MacDonald
James MacKnight
Dave MacPherson
Keith Mathison
Philip Mauro
Thomas Manton
Heinrich Meyer
J.D. Michaelis
Johann Neander
Sir Isaac Newton
Thomas Newton
Stafford North
Dr. John Owen
 Blaise Pascal
William W. Patton
Arthur Pink

Thomas Pyle
Maurus Rabanus
St. Remigius

Anne Rice
Kim Riddlebarger
J.C. Robertson
Edward Robinson
Andrew Sandlin
Johann Schabalie
Philip Schaff
Thomas Scott
C.J. Seraiah
Daniel Smith
Dr. John Smith
C.H. Spurgeon

Rudolph E. Stier
A.H. Strong
St. Symeon
Theophylact
Friedrich Tholuck
George Townsend
James Ussher
Wm. Warburton
Benjamin Warfield

Noah Webster
John Wesley
B.F. Westcott
William Whiston
Herman Witsius
N.T. Wright

John Wycliffe
Richard Wynne
C.F.J. Zullig

MODERN PRETERISTS
(Major Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 or Revelation in Past)

Firmin Abauzit
Jay Adams
Luis Alcazar
Greg Bahnsen
Beausobre, L'Enfant
Jacques Bousset
John L. Bray
David Brewster
Dr. John Brown
Thomas Brown
Newcombe Cappe
David Chilton
Adam Clarke

Henry Cowles
Ephraim Currier
R.W. Dale
Gary DeMar
P.S. Desprez
Johann Eichhorn
Heneage Elsley
F.W. Farrar
Samuel Frost
Kenneth Gentry
Steve Gregg
Hugo Grotius
Francis X. Gumerlock
Henry Hammond
Hampden-Cook
Friedrich Hartwig
Adolph Hausrath
Thomas Hayne
J.G. Herder
Timothy Kenrick
J. Marcellus Kik
Samuel Lee
Peter Leithart
John Lightfoot
Benjamin Marshall
F.D. Maurice
Marion Morris
Ovid Need, Jr
Wm. Newcombe
N.A. Nisbett
Gary North
Randall Otto
Zachary Pearce
Andrew Perriman
Beilby Porteus
Ernst Renan
Gregory Sharpe
Fr. Spadafora
R.C. Sproul
Moses Stuart
Milton S. Terry
Herbert Thorndike
C. Vanderwaal
Foy Wallace
Israel P. Warren
Chas Wellbeloved
J.J. Wetstein
Richard Weymouth
Daniel Whitby
George Wilkins
E.P. Woodward
 

FUTURISTS
(Virtually No Fulfillment of Matt. 24/25 & Revelation in 1st C. - Types Only ; Also Included are "Higher Critics" Not Associated With Any Particular Eschatology)

Henry Alford
G.C. Berkower
Alan Patrick Boyd
John Bradford
Wm. Burkitt
George Caird
Conybeare/ Howson
John Crossan
John N. Darby
C.H. Dodd
E.B. Elliott
G.S. Faber
Jerry Falwell
Charles G. Finney
J.P. Green Sr.
Murray Harris
Thomas Ice

Benjamin Jowett
John N.D. Kelly

Hal Lindsey
John MacArthur
William Miller
Robert Mounce

Eduard Reuss

J.A.T. Robinson
George Rosenmuller
D.S. Russell
George Sandison
C.I. Scofield
Dr. John Smith

Norman Snaith
"Televangelists"
Thomas Torrance
Jack/Rex VanImpe
John Walvoord

Quakers : George Fox | Margaret Fell (Fox) | Isaac Penington


PRETERIST UNIVERSALISM | MODERN PRETERISM | PRETERIST IDEALISM

Andrew Perriman
Emergent Church

"The polemical origins, continuing controversialism, and sectarian rhetoric of Preterism make it a difficult movement to evaluate - and I have to admit, my instinct is still to hold it somewhat at arm’s length."

  • Narrative-realism, Preterism, and the relevance of scripture / Discussion "Can anyone help me out with a bit of theological jargon and terminology that I’m trying to get my head around? I’ve been reading a fair bit of the articles on Open Source Theology and I keep coming up against, what many of their authors call the ‘narrative-historical argument’ or the ‘narrative-realist’ approach. Andrew Perriman, one of the authors, even describes himself as doing ‘biblical theology after Christendom in a narrative-realist mode’. In reading the various articles however this narrative-realism seems to sound a whole lot like classic preterism. My question for all the budding theologians out there is what is the difference between the two (preterism and the narrative-realist approach)? Or are they pretty much the same thing – in which case this narrative-realist approach is not really all that new. Help me please…"

 

Preterist Commentaries By Modern Preterists
 


WHAT OTHERS HAVE SAID

One of the hallmarks of the Emerging Church is its desire, it commitment, to move beyond traditionalism, to examine various aspects of Christian faith with an openness to new answers- and new questions. While critics often (unfairly) accuse the movement of "rejecting the Bible", the reality is that those immersed within the EC conversation are often willing to embrace the complexities of the Bible in ways that are unfamiliar to others. And embracing the Bible means entering into the story, understanding the journey as it was for the earliest believers, as part of the process in receiving it as our own.

Andrew Perriman is actively engaged on that quest. His book the Coming of the Son of Man: New Testament Eschatology for the Emerging Church offers penetrating insight into the apocalyptic tradition and the circumstances in which it was written. Grounded in history and textual tradition, Perriman's book takes our understanding of New Testament escahtology in some - what may be to many - very surprising directions. I recently had the chance to speak with Andrew about his book.

Darren King
: What’s your particular Christian background? Did you grow up a Christian? And, if so, what tradition were you a part of?

Andrew Perriman: No particular tradition. I grew up vaguely Anglican, was influenced by standard student evangelicalism at university; but we’ve lived in various parts of the world and have been in and out of various types of church. I’m beginning to get quite interested in the potential that churches like the one we attend (Crossroads International Church of the Hague) have for speaking prophetically in an increasingly global postmodern culture. I am also impressed by the inventiveness and purpose that Christian Associates is bringing to the task of re-imagining church and mission in post-modern Europe.

Darren King: Do you remember when you first began to notice that traditional 20th century understandings of the Bible – especially as it applies to the apocalyptic tradition – were misguided? What was that rabbit trail like for you as you pursued it further?

Andrew Perriman: The simple answer is, No, not really. I suspect it goes back to the fact that I did a degree in English Literature. You just tend to read things differently. You don’t get so hung up on dogma. Tom Wright obviously had a lot to do with it too.

Darren King: Both the subtitle and the tags of your new site, andrewperriman.com, read: “biblical theology – after Christendom – in a narrative-realist mode”. How would you describe the perspective you’re coming from – summed up in that subtitle – to someone completely unfamiliar with such concepts?

Andrew Perriman: Maybe it’s easiest to take the three parts of that subtitle and unpack them a bit.

First, I think that a new way of understanding ourselves as church is emerging from the collapse of the Christendom mindset. Whether or not we refer to that as the ‘emerging church’ or imagine that it amounts to a well-defined movement, it needs a congruent theology; and I believe that that theology needs to be confidently and consistently biblical. What we mean by ‘biblical’, of course, is another matter – that’s the third part.

Secondly, I think that the basic ‘theological’ challenge we face is, on the one hand, to disentangle our minds from the dilapidated mental infrastructure of Christendom, and on the other, to design for ourselves a new post-Christendom infrastructure. It’s as though the house in which we have lived for the last 1600 years has collapsed – it was too badly built to withstand the storms of rationalism and floods of postmodernism. So we are currently homeless and somewhat bewildered and frightened. Most of us are living in makeshift shelters constructed from stuff we have salvaged from the wreckage. We need to build a new worldview, a new plausibility structure, a new theological paradigm, within which to be a meaningful and sustainable missional community. That will be a long and difficult task.

Thirdly, I think we need to grasp again how scripture engages realistically with the experience in time of a historical community. Scripture is the work of a people making sense of its past, present and future at different stages in a narrative; and if we fail to take into account either the historical experience of the community or the narrative structure of its self-understanding, we are bound to misinterpret.

Imagine that you are driving along a country road at night in a heavy downpour. The headlights of the car pick out a road sign indicating a ford ahead. You naturally slow down as you approach the river; you make a careful judgment about whether it is safe to cross; you proceed cautiously.

The meaning of this little parable is this: first, you encountered the river at a particular moment on the journey; and secondly, the road sign only made sense at that moment. If a few miles further down the road you came across another sign indicating a ford but found that there was none, you would curse the highways agency for its incompetence. The sign would have been at best meaningless and at worse a dangerous distraction.

Much of scripture works in the way that these road signs work. It has to be contextualized; and I think that this is especially true for prophetic or apocalyptic texts. Our problem is that in much of our interpretation of the New Testament we have lost sight of the connection between sign and event, between text and history.

Darren King: Okay, approaching the “coming of the son of man” idea, what you suggest this represents in your book - when you ground it in history and textual tradition - is a far cry from typical evangelical constructions. Can you give us a quick recap on how you understand the “coming of the son of man” idea?

Andrew Perriman: Sure – well, it depends what you mean by a ‘quick recap’!

First of all, you are right to highlight the point that in order to understand the phrase ‘coming of the son of man’ and the whole set of ideas related to it we must get a sense of how it is grounded both in history and textual tradition. I’ve touched on that already, but just to clarify: the New Testament uses apocalyptic ‘templates’ (bits and pieces of language, images, stories, symbolic dramas, etc.) drawn from the Old Testament to interpret the historical condition and foreseeable future of the early communities of disciples.

My argument is that the central organizing template for the New Testament’s understanding of the foreseeable future is a story about a Son of man who will come on the clouds of heaven, which in the first place Jesus tells in order to prepare his followers for what they will have to face after his death.

The story has been borrowed or adapted from the highly symbolic vision that is recounted in Daniel 7. What Daniel foresees is a situation in which a blasphemous pagan king (the little horn on the head of the fourth beast) makes war against the saints of the Most High. In the frame of reference of Daniel’s prophecy this king is Antiochus Epiphanes, who attempted to impose by force Hellenistic culture and religion on the Jews in the early second century BC. In the vision a tribunal is set up on earth and the beast is condemned and destroyed. Then a figure in human form is seen approaching the throne of God with the clouds of heaven, to be given ‘dominion and glory and kingdom’. An angel later makes it clear that this ‘one like a son of man’ is not an individual but a symbolic representation of a community, namely the saints of the Most High, the Jews who suffered because they refused to abandon the covenant.

 

The point of the vision is that eventually the pagan power that opposes and persecutes the saints of the Most High will be overthrown by God, apostate Israel will be punished, and the righteous will be vindicated and rewarded. My argument is that this story is retold in the New Testament – by Jesus, then by Paul and others – for the sake of the community of Jesus’ disciples, who could expect to be rejected and persecuted first by the Jews and then by the Rome. So for example, in Matthew 16:21-28 Jesus explains to his disciples that the Son of man must suffer many things and be killed, and on the third day he will be raised from the dead; but the story climaxes in the vision of the Son of man coming in his glory or in his kingdom. Jesus tells the story first about himself, but he also includes the disciples in it: they must also take up their cross and risk losing their lives for his sake; and they can expect to be vindicated with him when the reimagined ‘coming of the Son of man’ is fulfilled.

The big question that must then be answered is: When will that be? To cut a long story short, I would argue that for Jesus the historical event that constituted the fundamental vindication of his mission to Israel was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70. That, in effect, is what he reveals to his disciples in his apocalyptic discourse – and I would take very seriously Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16:28 that ‘there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom’.

For Paul, however, the story of the Son of man must be lived out on the much bigger stage of the Roman empire, and vindication for the suffering early churches would be the eventual victory of the church over an idolatrous and unjust Roman imperialism. The point is that this is the future that actually mattered to the early church, and it seems entirely reasonable to me to think that it was this foreseeable future that is described in the apocalyptic passages. This is what I mean by biblical theology ‘in a narrative-realist mode’.
 

Darren King: You’ve spent plenty of time outside of North America. I’m curious, how do you see American conceptions of Christian faith differing from other contexts – such as Europe? I’m guessing that your book goes over “better” in non-American circles. Is that fair to say?

Andrew Perriman: To be honest, I can’t say I’ve noticed much of a difference in response between Americans and Europeans. A lot of sane and frustrated Americans are looking for a credible alternative to the ‘Left Behind’ school of apocalyptic fantasizing, but they’re also wary of a methodology that gets labelled ‘preterist’ much too quickly for my liking. Europeans are probably less hidebound in many respects, but eschatology is not such a hot issue here – so it’s not immediately obvious why a book about the ‘coming of the Son of man’ is really so relevant to the ‘emerging church’. I have tried in Re: Mission: Biblical Mission for a Post-Biblical Church to show not only how eschatology is crucial for our understanding of the New Testament but also how by exploring outward from this centre we can develop a robust creational approach to mission.

Darren King: How open do you sense people are willing to be when it comes to rethinking apocalyptic literature and eschatology? Surely some people see you as coming to kill a sacred cow or two? And these may be cows they’re used to milking. Do you sense a willingness to discuss the evidence? Or do you feel people are automatically, almost superstitiously, dismissive?

Andrew Perriman: It depends how you approach the question. If you talk about the need to recover a sense of the historical relevance of the New Testament’s apocalyptic vision or the power of a final hope that is not merely an escape to heaven but embraces the whole of creation, people tend to follow along. If you argue that the doctrine of the second coming as we hold it in the church is a very poor account of what Jesus or Paul meant and should be consigned to history (in more ways than one), then people get rather uncomfortable.

Darren King: If part of what Jesus was doing was calling a group of people to a specific calling for a specific time – how does that change how we see that calling as applying to us today in the 21st century, so far removed from that context? How does the cut-and-paste method fall short?

Andrew Perriman: My view is that we answer this by grasping the bigger biblical story which contains the chapter about the calling of a specific group for a specific time. The story of the Son of man is the story of how Israel was saved from final destruction (the judgment of AD 70) through the suffering not of Jesus only but also of the community that was called to follow him down the difficult path leading to life. But what is actually ‘saved’ in this way is a bigger, overarching narrative about the God who brings into existence a new creation – a creation in microcosm – which will embody, both actually and prophetically, the full scope of an ideal createdness in the world.

Darren King: If what you’re saying is true, that in many ways we have moved beyond eschatology, how should that change how we envision being Jesus followers in the here and now?

Andrew Perriman: Yes, that’s the crucial question. My argument is that most of New Testament eschatology has to do with how the early church faced persecution and overcame its ‘enemies’ – not through violence but through the same self-sacrificing trust in God that Jesus demonstrated; indeed, by becoming part of his story. But the story doesn’t stop there; we have travelled a lot further down the road. We have moved beyond the crisis of extreme pagan opposition that called forth the hope of vindication, and in that sense I would say that we are a post-eschatological church. But at the outer edge of the New Testament’s prophetic vision is the conviction that the whole of creation will eventually  be made new – that there will be a final justice, a final victory over sin and death, and a final renewal of heaven and earth.

So in the here and now our mission must be defined not primarily in the light of the hope of vindication against our persecutors (though that may still happen on a localized basis) but in the light of the belief that God will not allow injustice and idolatry and corruption and death to have the last word over his creation. So the church must see itself now as God’s response to a creational crisis – and I would argue that much of what we see happening in the emerging church is a struggle to grasp the scope of that calling and develop the resources to respond to it.

A narrative theology does not allow us to disengage ourselves from the Son of man who suffered because of the sins of Israel and was raised and vindicated for the sake of the future of the people of God. The kingdom has come: it has been given to the vindicated Son of man, who has been given the name above all the ‘names’ that dominate our lives; and we are bound to confess him as Lord. But a narrative theology at the same time compels us to look back to Abraham who was called, I would argue, to be the father of God’s alternative humanity, already in effect a ‘new creation’, a world-within-a-world; and it compels us to look forwards to the final hope of a new heavens and a new earth in which the dwelling of God, the new Jerusalem, has descended to be with humanity in the midst of things.

Darren King: What would you say to the people who fear that the trail you’re on leads to a slippery slope; where the end result is relativism and the loss of biblical authority?

Andrew Perriman: I would say that, yes, this path is the beginning of a slope, perhaps a slippery one, certainly a difficult one; but it leads upwards rather than downwards, towards a more coherent and realistic grasp of the narrative power of scripture.


has a degree in English literature from Oxford and post-graduate degrees in theology (MPhil, PhD) from what is now the London School of Theology. In addition to a number of articles published in scholarly journals, he has written Speaking of Women: Interpreting Paul (IVP, 1998), The Coming of the Son of Man: New Testament Eschatology for an Emerging Church (Paternoster, 2005), Otherways: In Search of an Emerging Theology (OST, 2007), and Re: Mission: Biblical Mission for a Post-Biblical Church (Paternoster, 2007); he also edited Faith, Health and Prosperity for the Evangelical Alliance in the UK. He runs the Open Source Theology website. He has lived in various parts of the world but is currently to be found in the Hague with his wife Belinda, where he works with Christian Associates.


Brian McLaren's Inferno (2006) "We should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell."

Scot McKnight the Full Preterist (2009) "Scot makes 70 AD the focal point of not only many of Jesus’ prophecies, but the eternal things that He spoke of as well.  That is the point where I feel Scot crosses the line into full preterism and unorthodoxy.  Yet Scot still concedes that not everything is fulfilled which really puzzles me.  How can someone believe that Matthew 25:31-46 has been fulfilled?Or is Scot saying that this is not part of the eternal things?  That would make even less sense.  The section above remains unchanged in his recently published series so he obviously still believes this doctrine of full preterism, but this following quote from the original has been changed."

  • Scot McKnight: The Future of Eschatology (2009) "This is a 5-part series we will post this entire week at about this time. It will unpack a "partial preterist" view of Jesus' eschatology."

 

 

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security


 

 

 

Click For Index Page

Free Online Books Historical Preterism Modern Preterism Study Archive Critical Articles Dispensationalist dEmEnTiA  Main Josephus Church History Hyper Preterism Main

Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis  (todd @ preteristarchive.com) Opened in 1996
http://www.preteristarchive.com