It appears to me that in Scripture we sometimes encounter the phenomenon of two-stage prophecies. A short-term prophecy followed by a long-term prophecy. Examples include Isa 7-12, Dan 11, and Mt 24. To "skeptics," that explanation looks like special pleading. However, there's a logic to the strategy.
In the nature of the case, we have no direct evidence that a long-term prophecy is true in advance of the fact. That's something we can only confirm after the fact. So what's the evidence that a would-be prophet really knows the future? One strategy is to provide a short-term prophecy. If that comes true, then it establishes his prophetic credentials (assuming the prediction is naturally unforeseeable). Having proven, via short-term prophecy, that he knows the future, that lays the groundwork for long-term prophecy.
Great point. I think this is why Full Preterism cannot definitively press and demonstrate its case despite its claim to be the "truly consistent" eschatology. It seems to me that Full Preterists might be making a similar mistake that non-Messianic Jews make/made.
ReplyDeleteThe Jews expected and expect the Messiah would have only one Advent based on the OT prophecies. So they rejected Jesus as Messiah based on that false assumption. Full Preterists might also be making a wrong inference that Christ would only have two Comings. When it might be at least three. Namely, 1. the 1st Advent, 2. the Coming of Christ in judgment on Jerusalem at 70 AD, 3. the final Coming AKA the 2nd Advent.
Christ's Olivet Discourse prophecies might be among the "Two-stage prophecies".
Only after posting the above did I realize that Steve also posted a blog that makes a similar claim as I did.
Delete