Why Side with the Sadducees? A Question for "Full" or "Consistent" Preterists by Mark Horne There is no reason to believe that Matthew 24, Mark 13, or Luke 21 records Jesus prophesying about what is now known in Christian theology as "the Second Coming."

In my opinion, the fact that most modern conservative Christian scholars and pastors are not yet willing to acknowledge that the Second Coming was not a concern of Jesus, and in many cases are not even willing to investigate the possibility, is doing harm in Evangelical circles. The most obvious damage done is the whole "last days madness" phenomenon--the ridiculous hysteria and ludicrous speculation which result from trying to project first-century symbolism and scenarios into the newspaper reports of the next millennium. Fundamentalists continually try to re-imagine ways in which a first-century Roman Empire could invade a first-century Judea and Jerusalem and destroy a first-century temple where first-century sacrifices are being offered. After watching an episode of the Fox TV show, Millennium, I channel-surfed over to a local Christian station broadcasting Jack Van Impe furiously proclaiming how the latest world events are the culmination of Biblical prophecy. It was amazing to me how much this televangelist's ranting was like the occultic science fiction show. It was as if I had never changed programs.

HISTORY & THEOLOGY

But there is even more at stake. Conservatives claim that liberals make Jesus into merely a great moral teacher. Instead of being the savior of the human race, He is portrayed as simply the proclaimer of timeless ethical principles. But ironically, it is we conservative Evangelicals who taught the liberals their trade. It is we who make the first-century Palestinian prophet into a roving systematic theologian, always ready to expound various points in the ordo salutis (I have especially in mind the common Evangelical interpretation of John 3.1ff). As N. T. Wright has pointed out, except for the last week of Jesus' ministry, everything in the Gospel accounts is simply interpreted as a morality play. "Jesus becomes a composite figure, a cross between Socrates defeating the sophists and Luther standing up against the papists" (Jesus and the Victory of God, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996, p. 14).

This dehistoricized Jesus, this teacher of timeless truths, takes away our moral high ground in "the battle for the Bible." Sure, we claim that we believe that God has acted in history. Sure, we claim that we believe that the Bible records these events infallibly and is the very Word of God. Sure we claim that we must use responsible methods of interpretation taking the language and historical context of the Bible seriously. But in actual fact, Jesus is all too often simply a dummy with some theologian's hand up the back of his shirt desperately trying to keep his lips from moving while he manipulates the wooden idol's jaws. I have been as guilty of this practice as anyone; so let my repentance be noted here.

This issue is laid bare in the debate over "preterism"--the belief that most of Jesus' prophecies of impending doom were fulfilled in the coming of that doom on Jerusalem in AD 70. There are plenty of fine (and not so fine) web sites defending this view in various aspects and it is beyond the scope of this essay to argue for it here. I simply want to point out the importance of the issue. Critics of preterism often act as if it is some sort of a priori interpretive grid laid over the Scriptures in order to bring about a preconceived conclusion. But the truth is exactly the opposite. It is the presumption that Jesus possessed our concerns about the end of the physical universe which constitutes an arbitrary assumption distorting the data to fit the desired outcome. If we interpret Jesus words in light of the concerns of the time and in light of the literary background of the Hebrew Scriptures, it is obvious that Jesus was predicting judgment on Jerusalem and vindication for his followers as the true Israel.

While there are many people who argue for the preterist position, including Jay Adams, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, Ken Gentry, and James B. Jordan, it is especially notable that N. T. Wright also argues for preterism. Wright is notable because he is not primarily a theologian but is an apologist defending the historicity of Jesus in secular academic circles. In doing so, he does much to vindicate the historical Jesus not only from liberals, but from orthodox conservatives as well. He must show how it is credible to believe that a first-century Palestinian Jew did and said what the gospels assert that He did and said.

In carrying out this agenda, Wright invades territory that has been common ground between liberals and fundamentalists: Jesus' alleged teaching that the world--that is, the physical universe--was about to come to an end. For liberals, this means that Jesus was mistaken, and that the Church came into existence when it turned out that the end of the world was not as near as Jesus had taught. For fundamentalists, what Jesus taught was somehow true even though it was not true. Jesus taught his disciples should expect the end of the world to happen soon and this means, using rules of logic not reproducible in any other area of life, that we who live two thousand years later should expect the end of the world to happen soon. While this commonality is used by Chilton, DeMar and others to question why fundamentalists are aiding and abetting liberals, for Wright the situation poses a serious question for liberals: Why are scholars imposing twentieth-century fundamentalist literalism on first-century Palestine? How can such facile assumptions go unchallenged among serious historians?

As I said above, the actual case for preterism is made quite eloquently elsewhere on the web, and in many books. I will not spend time arguing for the position here. I simply wish to reiterate one of the important principles at stake: Do we really believe that God truly entered the human race as a Jew in ancient Palestine? If we really believe this, we will take seriously the historical context of Jesus' life, death, and new life. Also, we will interpret his words in light of their Hebrew background. Granted, Jesus was quite different from his contemporaries in many important ways. But if there had not been some basic "common property" between them, no one would have ever bothered to go hear him speak. Discovering this common property is an all-important step in determining the message of the Gospels.

More... http://www.hornes.org/theologia/content/mark_horne/why_side_with_the_sadducees.htm