Orthodoxy and Preterism

[Russell Tisdale]

I'm not asking about full-preterism that maintains that all Net Testament prophecy and future events were fulfilled in 70AD, but about what is commonly called 'partial preterism'. Is there any sources form on Orthodox perspective on preterism?

rusty

[George K.]

Reading St. Maximus "Apora tis Theias Graphis" (most of it has not been translated into English) it seems that a lot of those prophecies take place mystically, which makes sense, after all the kingdom of God, which has been prepared before the foundation of the world, is not something that has/will have its existence in time, but it is spiritually revealed to us, or as St. Maximus says it is the Sabbaths of Sabbaths, i.e. the souls rest in God.

St. Symeon the New Theologian also points in the same direction:

Woe to those who say, "When shall the day of the Lord come?" and they don't care to know and understand that day. For the Lord's Presence in the faithful has already come, and is continuously coming, and to all those who wish for it, has arrived and is firm. Because, if He is indeed the light of the world (John 8.12) and to His Apostles has said, that with us until the end of time will be (Matt. 28.20, cf. Matt. 1.23), how, with us being, will come? Not at all. For we are not sons of darkness and sons of night, in order for the light to overtake us, but sons of light and sons of the Lord's day, hence and living in the Lord we are, and dying in Him and with Him will live, as Paul says (Acts 17.28). About this also the Theologian thus speaks, Gregory: "This exactly that the sun is to sensible things, this is God to spiritual." He will be the future age and the eternal day and kingdom of heavens, brideroom and bed and earth of the peaceful and divine paradise and king and servant, as himself has thus spoke: "Blessed are those servants, their Lord will come and find awake. Verily I say to you, He will lie them in comfort and He will be prepared to serve them" (Luke 12.37). (Moral Speeches)

And from St. Maximus:

The text, 'The kingdom of heaven has drawn near' (Matt. 3:2; 4:17), does not in my judgment imply any temporal limitation. For the kingdom 'does not come in a way that can be observed: one cannot say, "Look, it is here" or "Look, it is there'" (Luke 17:20-21). The phrase has reference to the relationship which the saints have with the kingdom, each according to his or her inner state. For 'the kingdom of God', says Scripture, 'is within you' (Luke 17:21).

The kingdom of God the Father is present in all believers in potentiality; it is present in actuality in those who, after totally expelling all natural life of soul and body from their inner state, have attained the life of the Spirit alone and are able to say, 'I no longer live, but Christ lives in me' (Gal. 2:20).

Some say that the kingdom of heaven is the way of life which the saints lead in heaven; others that it is a state similar to that of the angels, attained by those who are saved; others that it is the very form of the divine beauty of those who 'wear the image of Him who is from heaven' (1 Cor. 15:49). In my judgment each of these three views is correct. For the grace of the kingdom is given to all according to the quality and quantity of the righteousness that is in them. (Second Century on Theology)

So Revelation is mostly about spiritual events that "take place" in our soul. It is also prophecy about external events, with no chronological order and which can and have been fulfilled many times over in different times and places, intended to arise men to repentance.

gk

[Russell Tisdale]

How does the Orthodox Church view the idea (present in preterism) that the antichrist was Nero and that the Great Tribulation has past already? As well as the interpretation that the entirety of the Olivet teaching was fulfilled in 70 AD.

Thank you for that wonderful response, George.

rusty

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Russell,

The following website contains a brief discussion of the Orthodox view of preterism (although I don't know how accurate a description this is theologically, it sounds OK to my inexperienced ears)

http://www.findthelinks.com/Religion/book_of_revelation.htm

ICXC
Byron

[Justin]

St. John Chrysostom's Homilies on Matthew (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/TOC.htm) are online, and the relevant Homilies might be of some help, if not in understanding the Orthodox position, at least in hearing an Orthodox position from a somewhat authoritative source. I haven't read through all of them trying to discern his eschatological beliefs, but from what I remember St. John did not affirm a position akin to the preterist one. When talking about the verse(s) "this generation shall not pass away," for example, he said that Jesus was using "generation" to speak of our entire (Church) age, and not meaning to speak of a period of a few decades in which specific individuals were born and lived.

[George K.]

How does the Orthodox Church view the idea (present in preterism) that the antichrist was Nero and that the Great Tribulation has past already? As well as the interpretation that the entirety of the Olivet teaching was fulfilled in 70 AD.

PART of what Christ prophesized was fulfilled EXTERNALLY in 70AD i.e. the armies and the destruction of the temple and the city, etc. As for Nero, he was a type of Antichrist as many others after him (the final Antichrist is yet to come).

On the spiritual sphere, that is when the temple is taken to mean a human being, the prophecy was and is continually being fulfilled (fully) in the Saints ever since. This is what Christ meant (IMO) when He said, “This generation will not pass away until...etc” and “...there are some standing here who will not taste death until the see the Kingdom of God come with power.” The later was clearly fulfilled in the person of Peter, John and James on mount Tabor and many others later and even today. Again, reading St. Maximus, it seems to me that the nations, which surround Jerusalem (soul) and strive to destroy it, are the demonic powers. The signs in the sun, moon and stars, perhaps mean spiritual, natural and instructive (coming from our spiritual fathers) discernment that warns us of coming temptations, which in turn are signified by the roaring of the sea. These temptations, which the Saints go through, seem to increase dramatically before the divine manifestation. The life of St. Anthony the great is a good example of this. So I think the great tribulation is nothing else but the spiritual anguish of the soul in the midst of temptations. It is the instructive abandonment (by God) of a soul in order to learn true humility. Anyway, these things I say conjecturally. Perhaps others with more experience will correct me and fill the blanks.

Here’s also a quote from St. Gregory Palamas:

“There be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste death, till they have seen the Kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1). The King of all is everywhere, and so is the Kingdom, so the coming of His Kingdom does not mean it arrives here from somewhere else, but it is revealed through the power of the divine Spirit. That is why He said it would come with power. But this power is not for just anyone, but for those who have stood with the Lord, those who have been established in His faith, men like Peter, James and John, who, as the scripture tells us, were first brought up a high mountain, that is to say, above the lowliness of our nature. That is why God is imagined to be on a mountain, coming down from His heights and leading us up from the depths of our abasement, that He Who cannot be contained might, to an extent compatible with our human nature and our safety, be contained. The idea is not something inferior to man’s mind, but far superior and more exalted that it, being instilled in it by the power of the Holy Spirit.

The light of the Lord’s Transfiguration does not come into being or cease to be, nor is it circumscribed or perceptible to the senses, even though for a short time on the narrow mountaintop it was seen by human eyes. Rather, at that moment the initiated disciples of the Lord ‘passed’, as we have been taught, ‘from flesh to spirit’ by the transformation of their senses, which the Spirit wrought in them, and so they saw that ineffable light, when and as much as the Holy Spirit’s power granted them to do so. Those who are not aware of this light and who now blaspheme against it think that the chosen Apostles saw the light of the Lord’s Transfiguration with their created faculty of sight, and in this way they endeavor to bring down to the level of a created object not just the light – God’s power and Kingdom – but even the power of the Holy Spirit, by which divine things are revealed to the worthy. They have not heard, or have not believed, Paul’s words, “Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us by His Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God” (1 Cor. 2:9-10).
(St. Gregory Palamas, Homily on the Transfiguration)

gk

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

PS: I feel confident that this must be connected to the fact that I do not understand what 'Formatting' is- but could someone please explain what 'preterism' is? At first I thought it might refer to the infant stage of terrorism but now can see I may have gone astray.
In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Russell Tisdale]

I have many online 'friends' who are Preterist. They call themselves 'orthodox' preterists because they still look for the Final Day - but what that may mean is not well agreed upon among them. They maintain that the book of Revelation was written prior to 70 AD and that the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem (although I've been told that some maintain that Matt 24 also addresses the Day of Judgment- I haven't met any who do). They interpret such verses as "coming in the clouds' as meaning 'in judgement - specifically the judgement of Israel and the destruction of the old sacrificial system.

There are some who call themselves preterists (who are not technically) that say that the Resurrection, Second Coming, all prophecy was fulfilled in 70 AD. Most would recognize these as heretics because they deny the bodily resurrection not only of Jesus but also of the righteous.

rusty

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Irene,

Thanks a lot for that info about formatting a link! I've printed it out so going slowly step by step should work. Thanks also for the info on preterism- what denomination of Christians believes in this? I have not heard of this before.

As Russell points out, strict preterism is heretical (doesn't St Paul or one of the Epistle writers refer to this mistaken belief?) but what is "partial preterism"? Even if coming from a non-Orthodox source could there be an Orthodox preterism? Perhaps look at how Christ is the Alpha & Omega of all things. He recapitulates all things (St Irenaeus of Lyons) & He is the Logos of all logoi (St Maximos the Confessor). So all things come from & are fulfilled in Him.

There are some interesting pages on this in the Preface by Joseph Farrell to The Disputation with Pyrrhus of our Father Among the Saints Maximus the Confessor (St Tikhon's Press). Perhaps later I could provide some quotes from this- it really is interesting.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Irene]

Dear Father Raphael,

You are welcome, I hope it helps a little.

In Christ
Irene

[Arsenios]

Hey, Rusty -

Nice to see you over here on this board.

I don't post often here, but sometimes...

Have you told Dee Dee about this thread? I should think she would be VERY interested in it...

Arsenios

[Scott]

What does the Church think about Preterism? I've been studying this belief, and whether I convert to Orthodoxy or remain Protestant, this belief seems to be a false and heretical doctrine. What do you think?

[Shawn Lazar]

Hi Rusty,

Full or consistent preterism is definetly not a part of confessional Christianity, but it would seem to me that partial preterism is pretty unavoidable, unless you totally allegorize scripture. Here's a quote from Chrysostom about his views on "the days of vengeance" and when those days occurred:


"For I will ask them, Did He send the prophets and wise men? Did they slay them in their synagogue? Was their house left desolate? Did all the vengeance come upon that generation? It is quite plain that it was so, and no man gainsays it." (Homily LXXIV)

The Preterist Archive (www.preteristarchive.com) has a section on church history with a number of quotes from the Church Fathers to show just how much of Jesus' prophecies in Matthew 24 and Luke 21 came to pass in 70 AD.

In Christ,
Shawn

PS: I write all of this with one caveat - I have not yet converted to Orthodoxy.

[Tim Grass]

Can somebody define what they mean when using the term "preterism" as relating to Orthodoxy? I always thought of it as basically a different religious view all together.

--tim

[Shawn Lazar]

Well, preterism more or less refers to the view that some (or possibly most) of the New Testament prophecies (such as those in the Gospels and in the Apocalypse) have already been fulfilled.

"Preterists" can be contrasted with "futurists" who await future fulfillment of prophecy, or with "idealists" who see in any given prophecy a principle that finds multiple fulfillment over time.

For example, anyone who understands Jesus' prophecy regarding the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem as having been fulfilled in 70 AD (as is almost univerally attested to by Christians of all denominations) is a partial preterist. "Full" or "consistent" preterists, on the other hand, are controversial to say the least, because they contend that even the Second Coming and the Final Judgement are prophetic events that do not await a future fulfillment.

Hope that helps,

Cheers,
Shawn

[Father David Moser]

Well, preterism more or less refers to the view that some (or possibly most) of the New Testament prophecies (such as those in the Gospels and in the Apocalypse) have already been fulfilled.

"Preterists" can be contrasted with "futurists" who await future fulfillment of prophecy, or with "idealists" who see in any given prophecy a principle that finds multiple fulfillment over time.



One of the things I have always loved about Orthodoxy is that it has a much more "three dimensional" understanding of scripture - particularly prophecy than my former protestant experience. Orthodoxy is preterist, and at the same time "futurist" and "idealist" as well. There are layers and layers of meaining in Scripture and there is not one that is "right" while all the others are "wrong". Thus we can recognize the destruction of the temple as a fulfillment of prophecy, without ruling out the very real possibility that that very prophecy still may be fulfilled in some manner in the future.

I was having a discussion with an Orthodox screenwriter about the technique of "layering" in Orthodox services - the same thing is repeated over and over (this was in the context of the Holy Thursday Gospels) and the unique effect on the soul that such a technique has. This same technique is found in the painting of icons wherein the "layering" effect of the paint produceds a distinct and spiritually significant quality. This same "layering" effect applies to the reading of the Gospels - there are multiple "layers" of meaning, each enhancing the others which produce wonderful spiritual effect. Thus a prophecy can have multiple fulfillments and multiple meanings (some having nothing to do with prophetic "events") and mulitple applications. All of these mulitple layers serve the purpose of producing a very concentrated, very rich spiritual result.

Fr David Moser

[Shawn Lazar]

Dear Fr Moser,

I think you raise a very interesting point about Biblical hermeneutics. In the church circles I've been encountering in the Dallas area, almost all of whom have some connection to the dispensational Dallas Theological Seminary, the standard method of interpreting the Bible is the grammatico-historical method - in other words, interpreting the Bible according to its language and historical context (otherwise known as the common-sense method of interpretation), though in all fairness to evangelicals, many different reading strategies are usually employed.

In any case, what you have reminded me of is that the Fathers, and by extension the Rabbis, didn't really interpret the Bible that way (the DTS way). When I go through the New Testament usage of the Old Testament, it seems to be a mixture of a literal, common-sense expectation of fulfillment, combined with some... I don't know how to describe it... midrashic or allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament (ex: out of Egypt I called my son...). What I'm saying is, I think Orthodox theologians are right to say that the Bible can be interpreted in terms of multiple layers. Although, I would admit that with a caveat... that its a dangerous hermeneutic in that it can lead to very fanciful interpretations, that too easily allows the interpreter to forgo struggling with the plain meaning of the text. But I will say again, I think that on the whole, you're point is well taken.

In Christ,
Shawn

[Antonios]

I thought about the previous two posts last night while reading St. Maximos in the Philokalia Vol 2, and thought I would share them with all of you. St. Maximos, who is assinged more space in the Philokalia than any other writer, himself uses a lot of allegories in interpreting the Scriptures.

Second Century on Theology, Philokalia, volume 2

60. The Logos of God is called flesh not only inasmuch as He became incarnate, but in another sense as well. When He is contemplated in His true simplicity, in His principal state with God the Father (cf. John 1:1-2), although He embraces the models of the truth of all things in a distinct and naked manner, He does not contain within Himself parables, symbols and stories needing allegorical interpretation. But when He draws near to men who cannot with the naked intellect come into contact with noetic realities in their naked state, He selects things which are familiar to them, combining together various stories, symbols, parables and dark sayings; and in this way He becomes flesh. Thus at the first encounter our intellect comes into contact not with naked Logos but with the incarnate Logos, that is, with various sayings and stories. The incarnate Logos, though Logos by nature, is flesh in appearance. Hence most people think they see flesh and not the Logos, although in fact He is the Logos. The intellect- that is, the inner meaning- of Scripture is other than what it seems to most people. For the Logos becomes flesh in each of the recorded sayings.

61. The initial stages of learning about religious devotion are naturally related to the flesh. For in our first encounter with religion we come into contact with the letter and not the spirit. But as we get nearer to the spirit and refine the materiality of words with the more subtle forms of contemplation, we come to dwell- so far as this is possible for man- purely in the pure Christ, so that we can say with St. Paul, "Though we have known Christ according to the flesh, now we no longer know Him in this manner' (2 Cor 5:16). That is to say, we no longer know Him according to the flesh because, through the intellect's naked encounter with the Logos stripped of the veils covering Him, we have advanced from knowing Him according to the flesh to knowing His 'glory as of the only begotten Son of the Father' (John 1:14)

75. When our intellect has shaken off its many opinions about created things, then the inner principles of truth appears clearly to it, providing it with a foundation of real knowledge and removing its former preconceptions as though removing scales from the eyes, as happened in the case of St. Paul (cr Acts 9:18). For an understanding of Scripture that does not go beyond the literal meaning, and a view of the sensible world that relies exclusively on sense-perception, are indeed scales, blinding the soul's visionary faculty and preventing access to the pure Logos of truth.