Your Own Tradition Gautier

"That Ye May Keep Your Own Tradition"

A Refutation of the Partial Preterist’ "we" Excuse

Copyrighted by IPA (as part of a Preterist response to - The End of All Things)

J. E. Gautier Jr.

Into such paradoxes interpreters are led by a false theory. But as in a true theory in science every fact fits easily into its place, and lends support to all the rest, so in a true theory of interpretation every passage finds an easy solution, and contributes its quota to support the correctness of the general principle. (The Parousia, Dr. James Stuart Russell, pp.198-199)

In the recently republished classic, The Parousia by Dr. James Stuart Russell, Dr. R. C. Sproul states in the Foreword -

But for me one thing is certain: I can never read the New Testament again the same way I read it before reading The Parousia. (p.x)

In his book, Last Days According To Jesus, Dr. Sproul quotes Dr. Russell extensively. Since I too appreciate Dr. Russell’s work, I will also refer to some excellent statements of his. All of Dr. Russell’s quotes are from The Parousia, published in 1878.

_____________________

There is a new book out called, The End of All Things - A Defense of the Future, by C. Jonathin Seraiah. I find the title of this book rather odd. Apparently, Mr. Seraiah is taking this from I Peter 4:7, "The end of all things is near (or, at hand)." How does Mr. Seraiah interpret this verse?

Clearly his reference to the "end" being "near" shows that he is referring in this context to the end of all things in the Jewish age. (p.83)

So how did he come up with such a title? To support a future coming, he uses a verse that says "all things" would end in the Jewish age? That’s peculiar. Peter said, "The end of ALL things is at hand." Mr. Seraiah, however, takes exception to Peter’s statement. In defense of the future does Mr. Seraiah go on to prove how Peter was mistaken; and that it was actually the end of only some things? Partial preterists must do the same with Christ’s words in Luke 21:22 -

But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand. For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

Partial preterists would agree that both verses, I Peter 4:7 and Luke 21:22 are within the context of the fall of Jerusalem at AD 70. Both verses say that "all things" would see their fulfillment by that time. Christ emphasizes the statement further by saying that it is "all things which are written;" but the partial preterist says, "No. Not all things."

Perhaps a better title for Mr. Seraiah’s book would have been -

The End of Some Things - A Defense for the Futurist.

The Name Game
On the back cover of The End of All Things, you'll find endorsements. It looks as though all of the heavyweight partial preterists are jumping on the -- "If we change their name, people won’t associate us with them anymore" bandwagon. The "Hyper-Preterist" name-calling didn’t work, it still had the word "preterist" in it, so they’ve come up with a new one -- "pantelist," and hope that it sticks. As one brother noted, "Well, doesn’t this make them partial pantelists?"

Just for the record, only those who believe that the Scriptures teach that ALL the events related to Christ’s Parousia (i.e. "Second Advent," the resurrection and judgment, etc.) are PAST deserve the name "Preterist." All others are simply Futurists of a sort. In an email from Kenneth Davies -

The term "preterist" can be found in the Unabridged versions of Webster's Dictionary. I've found the definition as far back as 1913. It says -- "2. (Theol.) One who believes the prophecies of the Apocalypse to have been already fulfilled. Farrar." Dictionaries are by definition authoritative compilations of word meanings, and the inclusion of a word is significant. The fact that the word "preterist" can be found as far back as 1913 shows conclusively that it has had the meaning we've been associating it with for at least 86 years!

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition 1996, defines the words "preterit" and/or "preterite" as -

Of, relating to, or being the verb tense that describes a past action or state.

On page 99 of his book, The Last Days According To Jesus, Dr. R. C. Sproul Sr. used the term "Preterist" to describe those who hold to the one New Testament Parousia of Christ that saw fulfillment at the end of the Jewish age. And Dr. Sproul actually gives an excellent definition of who should rightfully be called a Preterist, and who should not -

Both are preterist with respect to some eschatological events, but both are not preterist with respect to all eschatological events. (p.156)

Even Dr. Sproul says that partial preterists "are not preterist with respect to all eschatological events."

As we shall see, the partial preterists’ predilection of a still future-to-us coming of Christ, forces them to find passages that actually support one. In the process, they must reject the hermeneutical principles (rules of interpretation) set forth by the Reformers. Only true Preterists adhere to these principles; and by so doing, have found that the New Testament teaches only a (one) past Parousia of Christ. Partial preterists pick and choose at their convenience when to comply with these rules. Because this future-to-us coming cannot be found in Scripture Alone, the rules are abandoned, and tradition and name-calling become their tools. And as we shall see, since these have not worked to counter Preterist arguments, some have resorted to another tactic that will certainly prove to be their downfall.

Dr. Sproul from his book, Faith Alone -

No church tradition can bind the conscience. But the Word of God must bind the conscience and take precedence over any and all other loyalties. (p.191)

Please let it be known that, although I quote Dr. Sproul frequently, I am by no means placing him in the same category as the above. Dr. Sproul has made it clear that tradition and the creeds are, and always will be subordinate to Scripture. I hold Dr. Sproul in the highest respect. Also note: In this article, R. C. Sproul Sr. is referred to as "Dr. R. C. Sproul." His son is referred to as "R. C. Sproul Jr." And quotes that used the term "pantelist" have been changed to - Preterist.

The purpose of this article is not to critique Mr. Seraiah’s entire book, but to question certain statements made, to examine the implications of what R. C. Sproul Jr. wrote in the Foreword, and to tie these comments into some significant passages of Scripture and statements made by other prominent partial preterists.

One "Second Coming" -- Not Two
The partial preterist position is by nature inconsistent. The knowledge of a type of coming of Christ in AD 70 forces them to deny, in many passages, the analogy of faith (comparing Scripture with Scripture).

Dr. Kenneth Gentry from the front page of his short work, A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism -

I deem my historic, orthodox preterism to be exegetical preterism (because I find specific passages calling for specific preterist events); I deem Max King and Ed Stevens’ views to be theological preterism or comprehensive preterism (they apply exegetical conclusions drawn from several eschatological passages to all eschatological passages because of their theological paradigm.)

To his credit Dr. Sproul says this of Preterism in Last Days -

Gentry distinguishes between "exegetical preterism" and "theological preterism." This distinction is not all that helpful. Gentry’s view is intensely theological, and that of Stevens and others is vitally concerned with exegesis. Gentry is charging that comprehensive preterists are driven to their "consistent" viewpoint by their theological paradigm. (p.154)

And Preterists would "deem" that Dr. Gentry and partial preterists are driven to their inconsistent viewpoint "by their theological paradigm." Most Preterists were previously partial preterists who saw the inconsistency of their traditionally-driven paradigm.

Dr. Murray J. Harris, from his book From Grave to Glory -

It is, of course, somewhat arbitrary to distinguish between exegetical and theological issues, for any sound theology is based on careful exegesis. (p.401)

Unlike Dr. Sproul’s statement above, I believe the statement below to be to his detriment. From Last Days (ital. emphasis his, bold mine) -

[P]artial preterists acknowledge that in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70 there was a parousia or coming of Christ, they maintain that it was not the parousia...Partial preterists understand that there are nuances to biblical terminology regarding the coming of Christ and the day of the Lord, nuances that make it possible and necessary to speak of more than one event that encompasses all these things at once. (pp.158-159)

And due to these "nuances" it is "possible and necessary" to have two of everything! The partial preterists must pluralize all things related to "the end times." They are even forced to teach two "end times!" It should be noted that the New Testament never refers to the Parousias (plural) of Christ; it is always singular. Nor does it ever distinguish one Parousia from another, as the partial preterists insist. Milton S. Terry’s words from Biblical Apocalyptics, published in 1898, would pertain -

It creates more difficulties than it presumes to solve...All sorts of efforts have been made to evade the simple meaning of these words, but they all spring from the dogmatic prepossession that the coming of the Son of man in his glory must needs be an event far future from the time when the words were spoken. (pp.213-252)

One reason to be suspicious of the partial preterists’ conclusions is the fact that it exists in such varying degrees. What one partial preterist says was fulfilled at AD 70, another says has a yet-future fulfillment, and vice-versa. Reminds me of plucking the petals off a daisy -- "AD 70, AD 70 not..." You never know where a certain partial preterist posits a particular verse until you see it in writing. And then that may change tomorrow. Milton S. Terry in Biblical Apocalyptics wrote this in reference to the arbitrary "splitting" of Matthew 24, but it applies well to all attempts by partial preterists -

[T]he attempts to show a dividing line between what refers to the fall of Jerusalem and what refers to a yet future coming of Christ, the remarkable differences of opinion as to the point of transition from one subject to the other are of a nature to make one suspicious of the hypothesis. (pp.213-252)

____________________

In his comment, "[Preterists] apply exegetical conclusions drawn from several eschatological passages to all eschatological passages," isn’t Dr. Gentry giving us the perfect definition of what happens when you allow Scripture to interpret Scripture? Church history has always recognized ONE Second Coming of Christ. Now partial preterism comes along and "splits" in two what the Church, by the analogy of faith, has always recognized as one. The partial preterist is taking the previous work of the Church and "splitting" it. The Preterist, however, takes that same work and applies it to the time statements (audience relevance); that the creeds and confessions never did.

Example: Let’s take a look at two passages that the Westminster Confession of Faith attributes to a yet future-to-us coming of Christ, at "the Last Day." One of these passages, Matthew 24:30-31 (WCF Larger Catechism-question 56), Dr. Gentry and most partial preterists posit at AD 70. The other is I Thessalonians 4:16-17 (WCF Chapter XXXII .II e.); that they contend is still future. Remember, the WCF uses both of these as proof texts for a yet future (one) coming of Christ (bold emph. mine). -

...They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other. (Mtt.24:30-31)

For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God...we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. (I Thess.4:16-17)

And the Preterist is said to be driven by a paradigm? The analogy of faith (Scripture interpreting Scripture) demands that these two passages are speaking of the same one coming of Christ; and the WCF agrees. Church history has agreed. But because the Thessalonian passage is within a resurrection/rapture context, the partial preterist is forced to deny the teaching of one past coming. Their system demands a future coming, so Scripture is not allowed to interpret Scripture. In turn, the partial preterist is allowed to keep his future-to-him coming. Isn’t "the Son of Man coming on the clouds" the same as "the Lord himself will come down from heaven"? And isn’t "a loud trumpet call" the same as "the trumpet call of God"? And isn’t the "gather[ing] of the elect, the same as "meet[ing] the Lord in the air"? Paul says it is (emphasis mine). -

Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ AND our being gathered to him...Don't you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things? (II Thess. 2:1 and 5)

Don’t you remember, Thessalonians, about "our being gathered to him"? That "we" would be "caught up together with them"? Just as ("by the word of the Lord") He described -- "they will gather his elect"?

Dr. Russell on II Thessalonians 2:1 -

The apostle begins by distinctly stating the subjects on which he is desirous of setting the Thessalonians right. They are, (1) ‘the coming of Christ,’ and (2) ‘our gathering together unto him.’ These are evidently regarded by the apostle as simultaneous, or, at all events, closely connected. What are we to understand by this ‘gathering together unto Christ’ at the Parousia? There is no doubt a reference here to our Lord’s own words, Matt. xxiv. 31: ‘He shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds,’ etc. The episunaxosi [shall gather together] in the gospel is evidently the episunagwgh [the gathering together] of the epistle; and we have another reference to the same event and the same period in 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17: ‘For the Lord shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God,’ etc. This can be nothing else, then, than the summoning of the living and the dead to the tribunal of Christ. (p.174)

Church history, the creeds, and the Westminster Confession of Faith have all, always interpreted one coming of Christ. When Scripture is allowed to interpret Scripture, it remains one coming. And when audience relevance is applied, that one coming has already happened.

"Some Of You Will Not Sleep" -- Huh?
In Mr. Sproul Jr.’s Foreword to The End of All Things -- Let’s examine the comment made about how effective the preterist approach to interpretation has been in the fight against premil-dispensationalism -

Thankfully, God in his mercy has done a great work in waking up many people to their condition. The rapid spread of the doctrine of preterism has been a welcome tonic. No more visits to the chiropractor after making "some of you will not sleep" and "this generation shall not pass" stretch out into two millennia. (p.9)

One of the major inconsistencies that partial preterists try to defend (or should I say cover up?) is the plain language time statements found in I Corinthians 15:51-52 "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed," and I Thessalonians 4:15-17 "we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord." Because of the surrounding context (resurrection and change, rapture) partial preterists are forced to play word games with the obvious time-frame references. Ideas are concocted in an attempt to escape the impact of the plain meaning of the text. Isn’t this what the premil-dispensationalists do? Isn’t this the very issue that Mr. Sproul Jr. is addressing in the above statement? Aren’t partial preterists engaging in the same tactics they detest? How do "We shall not all sleep" and "we which are alive and remain" NOT fit into the below verses that partial preterists (All Things p.14) posit at AD 70?

When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes. (Mtt.10:23)

For the Son of Man is about to (Gr. mello) come with His angels in the glory of His Father. And then He will give reward to each according to his works. I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (Mtt.16:27-28)

Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven. (Mtt.26:64)

Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (Mtt.24:34)

In all of these verses, some of that generation would still be alive to witness Christ’s coming. What does "some of you standing here shall not taste death" mean? Doesn’t it mean that some would live, and some would die? Doesn’t that fit perfectly into "this generation"? -- Before this generation passes, some of you will die, yet some of you will live to see the Parousia of Christ in the destruction of Jerusalem. This is how the partial preterists understand Matthew 16:27-28 and 24:34 together. Again, how is it that "We shall not all sleep" and "we which are alive and remain" do not fit into this understanding? Some would live, and some would die.

I propose that this really isn’t as hard to understand as the partial preterists are making it out to be. In the January, 1999 issue of Tabletalk magazine (R. C. Sproul Jr., editor in chief), Ligonier Ministries monthly publication, on the cover the phrase "Some Of You Will Not Sleep" is written. And just inside the front cover is R. C. Sproul Jr.’s "Coram Deo," where again you will find the phrase "some of you will not sleep." In this section, Mr. Sproul Jr. states in similar language what he wrote in the Foreword to Mr. Seraiah’s book -

This position, known as preterism, takes seriously the time frame references of Jesus and the apostles regarding Christ’s return. While all others, especially the most hard-core dispensationalists, are practicing exegetical yoga with Jesus’ promises that "some of you will not sleep" and "this generation will not pass," preterists read and understand without contortion or embarrassment.

Mr. Sproul Jr., in this excerpt once again uses this phrase -- "some of you will not sleep." I have one question: Where does he find this? It’s not in my Bible. It’s not in any Bible that I have ever seen. It’s not a verse! If he is trying to quote from Matthew 16:28, and I believe that he is, that’s not what the verse says! Matthew 16:28 says, "some of you standing here shall not taste of death." This must be what he meant to quote; because he certainly would not have been quoting from the verse that actually has -- "not sleep" in it, and apply that to AD 70! The verse that more closely reflects his phrase would be I Corinthians 15:51 -

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

Mr. Sproul Jr. would not have intentionally connected I Corinthians 15:51’s "We shall not all sleep" with Matthew 24:34’s "this generation will not pass" would he? That would be a "damnable heresy" (All Things p.10)! How could he have confused Matthew 16:28 with I Corinthians 15:51? Partial preterists know where to draw the line don’t they? They know that Matthew 16:28 must be applied to AD 70, because Christ was SPEAKING TO His disciples, and He said, "you." But I Corinthians 15:51 is allowed to be applied to some other coming because Paul was WRITING TO the Corinthians, and he said, "we"? I guess audience relevance is only good for you when taken in moderation. (cover photo of Tabletalk)

It’s not surprising to find that Dr. R. C. Sproul did something similar in Last Days. On pages 160-163, Dr. Sproul contends with I Corinthians 15. Take a look at what he says -

[I]t is likewise possible that the "we who are alive" can be even more inclusive and refers to any reader of the Corinthian text in the future. (p.162)

Do you see what happened? Dr. Sproul wrote, "we who are alive." "We who are alive" is not in the Corinthian passage! It’s in the Thessalonian passage!

Why are these men confusing these verses? Could it be because they all connote the same meaning?

"Some of you standing here shall not taste death" = "We shall not all sleep" = "we who are alive and remain"

All three fit perfectly into "this generation." Partial preterists argue for a coming of Christ in AD 70 against premil-dispensationalists. The above verses, when allowed to plainly speak, support their argument! But they are not used. Why is that?

R. C. Sproul Jr. writes that "preterists read and understand" the time-frame references in the New Testament. I wholeheartedly agree.

The -- "But Paul died before AD 70" Excuse
Dr. Russell’s Introduction to I Corinthians 15 -

In entering upon this grand and solemn portion of the Word of God we desire to do so with profound reverence and humility of spirit, dreading to rush in where angels might fear to tread; and anxiously solicitous ‘to bring out of the inspired words what is really in them, and to put nothing into them that is not really there.’...Old traditions and preconceived opinions are not patient of contradiction, and even truth may often be in danger of being spurned as foolishness merely because it is novel. Let him be assured that every word is spoken in all honesty, after every effort to discover the true meaning of the text has been exhausted, and in the spirit of loyalty and submission to the supreme authority of Scripture. It is no part of the business of an interpreter to vindicate the sayings of inspiration; his whole care should be to find out what those sayings are. (p.199)

Partial preterists in their attempts to water-down the strong words of Paul in I Corinthians 15:51 and I Thessalonians 4:15-17, have come up with some pretty weak arguments (see The End of All Things, pp.175-181). One of these comes from the fact that Paul did not live to AD 70. Partial preterists see this as a loophole to manipulate in these otherwise obvious time statements.

Although I do not believe this to be the correct answer, it could be argued that at the time Paul wrote these letters it had not yet been revealed to him ("the time of my departure is at hand." II Timothy 4:6) that he would not live to see the Day.

The New Geneva Study Bible, notes on II Timothy -

2 Timothy is the last letter written by Paul...Paul wrote 2 Timothy during his second Roman imprisonment (1:8; 2:9)...probably between A.D. 64 and 68. (p.1917)

And on I Corinthians -

Paul makes it clear in 16:8 that he wrote this letter from Ephesus during the third missionary journey (A.D. 53-57). Since the apostle stayed in Ephesus well over two years (Acts 19:8, 10), I Corinthians was written about A.D. 55. (p.1797)

And I Thessalonians 4 -

Paul wrote the first letter to the Thessalonians almost certainly from Corinth, where Silas and Timothy, senders with him of the letters, were reunited with him (Acts 18:5; 2 Cor. 1:19). The letter was most likely written in A.D. 50 or 51, with 2 Thessalonians following shortly. Therefore, 1 and 2 Thessalonians are among the earliest letters we have from the hand of Paul... (p.1893)

Mr. Seraiah wants to assign the year AD 66 (p.177) to Paul’s death. O.K., we’ll give him that. And the New Geneva Study Bible, dated II Timothy as "probably between A.D. 64 and 68." So for the purpose of this paper we’ll take the date of AD 65 for the writing of II Timothy. One year before Paul’s death.

This means that at least fourteen years had passed (51 to 65) between the writing of I Thessalonians 4:15-17, when Paul included himself among the "we who are alive and remain" and II Timothy 4:6, when he now knew that he would probably not live to see the Day. And considering the I Corinthians passage -- ten years (55 to 65) had expired from the time that he had included himself within the "We shall not all sleep," and the II Timothy passage when he declared that his "departure [was] at hand."

The above is to demonstrate that -- just like you or I, if we were the author and did not know, we would naturally have included ourselves. It is very simple language when allowed. It’s obvious that what impairs the partial preterists’ ability to see this is a "persistent blindness of a dogmatic bias" (M.S. Terry).

____________________

I also don't believe this to be the correct answer, but another point to consider in the "we" excuse, is that I Thessalonians is addressed from -

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy, unto the church of the Thessalonians...

In I Thessalonians 4:15, who are the "we" and the "you"?

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.

This epistle is from "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy," the first "we" of verse 15. Unless one can prove that all three, Paul, Silas and Timothy did not live to see the Day, then the -- "Paul couldn’t have been meaning that he would live to see the Day because he died before it, and therefore the ‘we’ is for countless generations" excuse, won’t work. At the time that Paul wrote this epistle, he knew that it was possible that he could live to see it; so he said "we."

AND NOW -- what I consider to be the real answer. Don’t forget that within the "we" there are two groups of people -- those who would live to see the Day, and those who would die before it came. In that he says "we," he includes himself in either group. Simply because Paul died before AD 70, in no way gives us free license to change a letter written "to the church of God which is at Corinth" or "To the church of the Thessalonians," into one written TO US 2,000 years later.

Dr. Russell -

[I]t would not alter the plain and natural meaning of words, or make it incumbent upon us to force an interpretation upon them which they will not bear. The Scriptures must be allowed to speak for themselves -- a liberty which many will not concede. (p.172)

_____________________

On page 162 of Last Days, Dr. R. C. Sproul argues -

If we conclude that Paul, by divine inspiration, is predicting that the resurrection will occur while he is still alive, then the resurrection occurred at least five years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem (Paul was martyred under Nero in A.D.65).

Dr. Sproul is trying to assert that since Preterists contend that the resurrection occurred at the Parousia in AD 70, and since "by divine inspiration" Paul said "we," then for Preterism to be correct this demands that the resurrection must have taken place while Paul was still living. I will refer to the arguments above and below to refute this logic. The fact remains, Paul under divine inspiration said "we." Even Jesus in Matthew 24:36 said, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Jesus said that even He didn’t know when! But He did say, "this generation." Jesus said that "no man" knows. Paul did not, under divine inspiration know the day or hour; and he says as much in I Thessalonians 5:1, but he did know and teach that Christ would Return in that generation. Paul is teaching the exact same thing as Christ! According to Dr. Sproul’s argument Paul was saying, "I’m definitely going to be among the ‘alive’ when He comes." But is this what Paul said? No, he said that some of them, maybe even he himself, would live unto the coming of the Lord. How would you have said it? How could Paul have been any clearer? "We shall not all sleep" and "we who are alive and remain." How do these not fit perfectly into Christ’s Parousia at AD 70 that partial preterists admit to having happened? Dr. Sproul argues that because Paul said "we," this demands that Paul had to be among those alive. How does this allow for Dr. Sproul’s resurrection 2,000+ years into the future? How does Paul saying "we," now mean "me" in the 21st century and beyond?

Paul was Wrong?
It’s interesting to note that many commentators used to know what "we" meant. They saw the implication of Paul’s words, and said something like, "It’s obvious that Paul thought Christ was coming back in his day, but he was wrong." To them "we" meant "we" (this generation). But now, this new-found knowledge of "a type of coming" at AD 70, and all of a sudden the definition they used to give to "we" no longer exists. Why is that? Has the knowledge of AD 70 provided them with an apparent escape route? They no longer have to say under their breath, "Paul was wrong." Now it’s -- "‘We’ doesn’t mean ‘we.’"

Dr. Russell -

The legitimate inference from the words of St. Paul in ver. 15, ‘we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord,’ is that he anticipated it as possible, and even probable, that his readers and himself would be alive at the coming of the Lord. Such is the natural and obvious interpretation of his language. Dean Alford observes, with much force and candour, --

‘Then, beyond question, he himself expected to be alive, together with the majority of those to whom he was writing, at the Lord’s coming. For we cannot for a moment accept the evasion of Theodoret and the majority of ancient commentators (viz. that the apostle does not speak of himself personally, but of those who should be living at the period), but we must take the words in their only plain grammatical meaning, that "we which are alive and remain" are a class distinguished from "they that sleep" by being yet in the flesh when Christ comes, in which class by prefixing "we" he includes his readers and himself. That this was his expectation we know from other passages, especially from 2 Cor. v.’

But while thus admitting that the apostle held this expectation, Alford treats it as a mistaken one, for he goes on to say: --

‘Nor need it surprise any Christian that the apostles should in this matter of detail have found their personal expectation liable to disappointment respecting a day of which it is so solemnly said that no man knoweth its appointed time, not the angels in heaven, not the Son, but the Father only (Mark xiii. 32).’

But the question is, had the apostles sufficient grounds for their expectation? Were they not fully justified in believing as they did? Had not the Lord expressly predicted His own coming within the limit of the existing generation? (pp.166-167)

Dean Alford recognized the plain language and said that Paul by saying "we who are alive and remain" meant that generation. He then goes on to say that they (the apostles) were mistaken; and that, no man knows the day or hour, not even Christ. But is this what Paul was teaching? That he knew the day and hour? Or was Paul simply teaching exactly what Christ had taught -- "this generation"? By the way, how can one go to Paul’s teaching on the nature of the resurrection, yet not believe him on the time of it?

Within the "We" there are Two Groups of First Century Believers
As previously stated, I believe the correct answer is -- Paul, by writing, "We shall not all sleep," includes himself in one of two groups -

group 1) Not all of them would die, and

group 2) Not all of them would live.

This fits hand in glove with "some of you standing here shall not taste of death" and "this generation."

Partial preterists argue that -- "Paul said ‘we,’ but he died before AD 70, therefore he couldn’t have meant Christ’s coming at AD 70." But we mustn’t forget the rest of the verse. I Corinthians 15:51 -

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,

In the first "we" Paul includes himself within one of the two groups. No one knows who is going to live or who is going to die before the Day. Paul does not know which group he will be a part of, but he does know and tells them as much, that -- some will live to see Christ’s Return, and some will die before it happens. Now look at the second "we" -

but we shall all be changed

The second half of the verse cannot be overlooked. Paul says, "we shall all be changed" -- Not all of us are going to die, but we all, even those of us who die, will be changed. By saying "we-all," Paul has, without a doubt, included himself among that first century audience! In that he says, "we shall all be changed," Paul is now speaking of both groups, the living and the dead ("him who is ready to judge the living and the dead" I Peter 4:5). At Christ’s coming all would be changed, the living and the dead. The fact that Paul says "we" both times shows that he considered himself to be in one group (the living), or the other (those who would die). Some of the Corinthians certainly DID live to see the Day at AD 70! This demands that "by divine inspiration" Paul taught that the resurrection/change would occur at Christ’s Parousia in that generation! Whether we believe that it happened or not (like Dean Alford), is another story. The plain language "without contortion or embarrassment" fits into that generation! I Corinthians 15:51-52 -

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

The very next verse defines this "change" that both groups ("we-all") would experience. I Corinthians 15:53 -

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

The "change" for the dead saints was that they would be "raised incorruptible;" they would "put on incorruption." The still living "mortal" Christians would "put on immortality" (a condition not available under the Old Covenant).

Dr. R. C. Sproul from Essential Truths of the Christian Faith (Interpreting The Bible) (ital. emphasis his, bold mine) -

[P]roperly understood, the only legitimate and valid method of interpreting the Bible is the method of literal interpretation. Yet there is much confusion about the idea of literal interpretation. Literal interpretation, strictly speaking, means that we are to interpret the Bible as it is written. A noun is treated as a noun and a verb as a verb. It means that all forms that are used in the writing of the Bible are to be interpreted according to the normal rules governing those forms. Poetry is to be treated as poetry. Historical accounts are to be treated as history...In this regard, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the rules that govern the interpretation of any book. (pp.25-26)

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition 1996 -

we - pronoun 1. Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject.

Dr. Russell on I Corinthians 15:51-52 -

But the question for us is, To whom does the apostle refer when he says, ‘We shall not all sleep,’ etc.? Is it to some hypothetical persons living in some distant age of time, or is it of the Corinthians and himself that he is thinking? Why should he think of the distant future when it is certain that he considered the Parousia to be imminent? Why should he not refer to himself and the Corinthians when their common hope and expectation was that they should live to witness the Parousia? There is no conceivable reason, then, why we should depart from the proper grammatical force of the language. When the apostle says ‘we,’ he no doubt means the Christians of Corinth and himself. (pp.208-209)

Is Audience Relevance Really that Important?
Dr. R. C. Sproul in Last Days, fights for an audience relevance-based interpretation (preteristic) of Matthew 24:4-13 -

What significance did Jesus’ warning have for and to his immediate hearers? It is one thing for us to ask how Jesus’ teaching applies to us; it is quite another to ask what it meant in its original context. We must keep in mind that Jesus was answering questions posed by his disciples, questions about when his previous utterances would be fulfilled. His words were directed to them. "Take heed," he said, "that no one deceives you." He told his disciples that they would hear of wars and rumors of wars, and so forth. (pp.34-35)

And Paul was writing TO the Corinthian and Thessalonian churches. "His words were directed TO them." It seems that rules of interpretation are arbitrarily enforced in the partial preterist camp. "[W]hat it meant in its original context" is cast aside when it doesn’t produce the desired result.

Again Dr. Sproul from Last Days (emphasis mine) -

It is one thing for us to ask how Jesus’ teaching applies to us; it is quite another to ask what it meant in its original context. (p.35)

And from Essential Truths of the Christian Faith (Private Interpretation) -

A particular statement may have numerous possible personal applications, but it can only have one correct meaning. (p.28)

If you were a member of the first century church in Corinth or Thessalonica, what would you have thought Paul meant? And if Paul was teaching two different Parousias separated by thousands of years as the partial preterists contend, which Parousia would you have connected the resurrection to? The one in your generation, right?!? He said, "We shall not all sleep;" and "we which are alive and remain." Again, how do these clear time statements (and they are clear), when allowed to mean what they plainly say, not fit perfectly into the partial preterists’ Parousia in AD 70?

___________________

We saw above that for Dr. Sproul, the use of the word "you" when Christ was speaking to his disciples was a deciding factor for an audience relevance-based interpretation. In an effort to help the partial preterists convert (Scripture interprets Scripture) the I Corinthians 15 and I Thessalonians 4 passages into acceptable preteristic interpretations, let’s take a look at II Corinthians 4:14, where Paul uses the preferred word "you" when writing TO the Corinthians -

Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you.

Dr. Russell on II Corinthians 4:14 -

We have already seen (1 Thess. iv.15, and 1 Cor. xv.51) that the apostle cherished the hope that he himself would be among those ‘who would be alive, and remain unto the coming of the Lord.’ In this epistle, however, it would seem as if this hope regarding himself were somewhat shaken. His experience in the interval between the First Epistle and the Second had been such as to lead him to apprehend speedy death. (See chap. i.8, etc.) His ‘trouble in Asia’ had made him despair of life, and he probably felt that he could not calculate on escaping the malignant hostility of his enemies much longer. He had now ‘the sentence of death in himself;’ he bore about ‘in his body the dying of the Lord Jesus,’ and felt that he was ‘always delivered unto death for Jesus’ sake.’

But this anticipation did not diminish the confidence with which he looked forward to the future; for even should he die before the Parousia, he would not on that account lose his part in the triumphs and glories of that day. He was assured that ‘he which raised up the Lord Jesus would raise up him also by Jesus, and would present him along with the living saints who might survive to that period. He would not be absent from the great episunagwgh (gathering together, JEGjr) at the coming of our Lord (2 Thess. ii. 1), but would be ‘presented,’ along with his friends at Corinth and elsewhere, ‘before the presence of his glory.’ In fact, the apostle now comforts himself with the same words with which he had comforted the bereaved mourners in Thessalonica. He appears to have relinquished the hope that he would himself live to witness the glorious appearing of the Lord; but not the less was he persuaded that he would suffer no loss by having to die; for, as he had taught the Thessalonians, ‘them also which sleep in Jesus God would bring with him;’ and the living saints would in that day have no advantage above those who slept (1 Thess. iv. 14, 15). (pp.215-216)

Isn’t this verse, II Corinthians 4:14, speaking of the same rapture passage as I Thessalonians 4:14-17? But now Paul uses the personal pronoun "you," that partial preterists demand for an AD 70 fulfillment -

Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. (II Cor.4:14)

We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. (I Thess.4:14 and 17)

Dr. Russell on I Thessalonians 4:13-17; the resurrection of the dead and the rapture of the living saints -

These explanations of St. Paul are evidently intended to meet a state of things which had begun to manifest itself among the Christians of Thessalonica, and which had been reported to him by Timotheus. Eagerly looking for the coming of Christ, they deplored the death of their fellow- Christians as excluding them from participation in the triumph and blessedness of the Parousia. ‘They feared that these departed Christians would lose the happiness of witnessing their Lord’s second coming, which they expected soon to behold.’ (Conybeare and Howson, ch. xi.) To correct this misapprehension the apostle makes the explanations contained in this passage.

First, he assures them that they had no reason to regret the departure of their friends in Christ, as if they had sustained any disadvantage by dying before the coming of the Lord; for as God raised up Jesus from the dead, so He would raise up His sleeping disciples from their graves, at His return in glory.

Secondly, he informs them, on the authority of the Lord Jesus, that those of themselves who lived to see His coming would not take precedence of, or have any advantage over, the faithful who had deceased before that event.

Paul says "you" in II Corinthians 4:14 when referring to the Corinthians; those who would live to see the Day. This letter was written to the Corinthian church and Paul says "you." Are the partial preterists going to play the word game again? "You" means "you" when Jesus speaks it, but "you" doesn’t mean "you" when Paul writes it? These epistles were written TO the Corinithians, and TO the Thessalonians and they are addressed as "you" (emph. mine) -

Behold, I shew YOU a mystery; We shall not all sleep... (I Cor.15:51)

For this we say TO YOU by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord... (I Thess.4:15)

How does the partial preterist explain Paul’s use of "you" here? How are the "you" NOT part of the "we" of the very same verses?

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition 1996 -

you - pronoun 1. Used to refer to the one or ones being addressed

_____________________

Let’s take another look at the resurrection and rapture of I Thessalonians 4:14,17 and compare it to Hebrews 11:39-40. Remember, the Hebrews writer in the previous verses had been listing many of the Old Testament saints who had died in faith, but "none of them received what had been promised." In 11:39-40, he goes on to tell the first century LIVING readers of the epistle ("us") that those ("them") who had died before, would be "perfect[ed]" together with the living -

These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only TOGETHER WITH US would they be made perfect. (Heb.11:39-40)

We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him. After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up TOGETHER WITH THEM in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. (I Thess.4:14, 17)

Both of these passages are teaching the same thing. And both were written to those first century Christians. Both passages place the resurrection of the Old Testament saints in that generation. They would be "made perfect" along with those "who [were] still alive" at His coming (the "change" of the living). The only way to get around these time statements is to say, "It didn’t happen," and "they were wrong." That is something that Preterists will not tolerate. Preterists say, "I’m taking their word for it. Now let’s dig deeper and see what they meant, and exactly what did happen back then."

Greek [Mello] -- "[P]referred meaning is: ‘be on the point of, be about to’" -Dr. Ken Gentry
Above we saw that Peter wrote that Christ was "ready to judge the living and the dead." In Acts 24:15, Paul states that there was "a resurrection to be about to be [Gr. mello] both of just and of unjust" (Alfred Marshall’s Literal Translation Bible). Just before Paul died he wrote to Timothy, "I solemnly witness before - God and Christ Jesus, the one being about to [Gr. mello] judge living ones and dead, both by the appearance of him and by the kingdom of him" (II Timothy 4:1 LTB). Although the partial preterists have an ‘appearance’ of Christ and a ‘kingdom’ coming at AD 70, they consider the events of II Timothy 4:1 to be something different; despite the clear indication of imminence, these are reserved for some other coming. Remember -- two of everything?

Dr. Russell on II Timothy 4:1 -

The nearness of this consummation is distinctly affirmed. It is not, as in our Authorised Version, ‘who shall judge,’ but ‘who is about to judge’ [tou mellontoz krinein]. One statement like this might suffice to settle the question both as to the fact, that the time of the Parousia was at hand. But, instead of a single affirmation, we have the constant and uniform tenor of the whole New Testament doctrine on the subject. Those who say the apostles were in error on this point must have ‘a verifying faculty’ to distinguish between their inspired and their uninspired utterances. If St. Paul was inspired to write krinein (to judge, JEGjr), was he not equally inspired to write mellontoz (being about, JEGjr)? (p.262)

Why is it that the partial preterists only use the Greek mello - "about to" when it suits them? You’ll see it in all of their books. But when it comes to these verses -- Acts 24:15 and II Timothy 4:1, they are silent. Why is that? Why would all of the popular literal translators -- Marshall, Young, Green, Weymouth, etc., translate this word as "about to" in these resurrection and judgment verses? They were not Preterists. They certainly did not translate mello as "about to" in order to support an agenda. The answer is simple -- It’s what the word means, and these men were honest with the text!

Partial preterists go to these same translators of mello in passages they choose in order to support their claim of a type of coming in AD 70. For example, Dr. Kenneth Gentry on Revelation 1:19, Before Jerusalem Fell -

The relevant phrases read: "the things which are about to occur"... the word’s preponderate usage and preferred meaning is: "be on the point of, be about to." All of this is particularly significant when the contexts of these occurrences of mellw (Rev.1:19 and 3:10 JEGjr) in Revelation are considered: the words appear in near proximity with the statements made up of the two other word groups indicating "nearness." ...Clearly, then, the Revelation 1:19 and 3:10 references hold forth an excited expectation of soon occurrence. (pp.141-142)

Let’s take a look at how one of Dr. Gentry’s preferred translators, Jay P. Green Sr. (BJF footnote p.141) translates Revelation 1:19 -

Write what things you saw, and what things are, and what things are about to occur after these things.

The apostle John is told to write down -- what things he saw (past to him), what things are (present to him), and the things that are about to occur (near future to him).

Dr. Gentry has done well to point out that John was given specific instruction to write down the things that are about to occur; and that these "things" were also said to be "[near]." But where in this verse is John told to write down the things that are going to occur at least 2,000 years in the future? In two chapters (Rev.11 and 20), John writes about the resurrection and judgment. How does the partial preterists’ postponed resurrection and judgment fit into "the things that are about to occur," that were declared to be "[near]"?

Dr. Gentry also shows that in Revelation 1 and 22, John is shown "the things which must shortly come to pass...for the time is at hand." Aren’t these the same "the things that are about to occur"? Aren’t the resurrection and judgment part of "the things" that John wrote down? How is it that the partial preterists are allowed to get away with violating their own rules? This is the very nature of partial preterist’ hermeneutics -- Dr. Gentry argues like a Preterist, then again, he doesn’t.

Why do partial preterists feel safe in their use of mello against the premil- dispensationalists? Think about it. What premil-dispensationalist would bring up the fact that the partial preterists are inconsistent in their use of mello in Acts 24:15 and II Timothy 4:1? None. The premil-dispensationalists are not going to point out to the "Christian World" that the proper translation of those verses support a PAST Resurrection and Judgment!

Why is the partial preterist inconsistent in the use of the word? Is it because the consistent translation of mello only supports one coming, and not two? Is it by sheer coincidence that when mello is translated properly in all verses, those verses fit perfectly into "this generation"? As Dr. Russell pointed out, the word is in the original Greek text, God put it there, it is just as inspired as every other word in the New Testament. Why don’t we find it properly and consistently translated in our popular versions? Why won’t the partial preterists go to their favorite literal translators for the very same Greek word (mello) in these resurrection verses? Mello translated as "about to" in Acts 24:15 and II Timothy 4:1 supports the partial preterists’ argument for a coming at AD 70! But we don’t see them use it. Why is that? The irony is -- It’s not as though Preterists are arguing for some strange and obscure date in history, like, say, 1584 for some other coming of Christ. No, Preterists are arguing for the partial preterist! Preterists recognize the plain language, and when that language is allowed to mean what it plainly says, it fits perfectly into AD 70. Preterists, through the plain language of the Scriptures are arguing for the partial preterists’ coming at AD 70. Yet, the partial preterists argue against Scripture - against their own coming at AD 70 - against themselves!

When it’s in their favor partial preterists will use "audience relevance" argumentation and mello against the premil-dispensationalists. Notice, however, that these two favorite weapons must be abandoned when arguing against true Preterists. In the partial preterist system the "analogy of faith" no longer exists. Passages that are almost identical in word and meaning that used to speak of the same one coming of Christ, don’t anymore. This is now explained-away as, "understand[ing] that there are nuances to biblical terminology... nuances that make it possible and necessary to speak of more than one event."

(See article: All Nations Stood Before The Throne -- points out many of the violations of plain Scripture by partial preterists; in order to maintain a future resurrection.)

TO: Only One Possible Generation
Dr. Sproul from Last Days (emph. mine) -

[I]t is likewise possible that the "we who are alive" can be even more inclusive and refers to any reader of the Corinthian text in the future. (p.162)

This argument doesn’t work either. If Paul says, "We shall not all sleep," he can only be writing that TO the generation that the Lord’s coming actually occurs in, past or future. The Futurists’ understanding of this is -- at the time of Christ’s Return in our future, those "who are alive and remain" - those who would "not all sleep" - will be raptured. Well, doesn’t this demand that Paul was only writing these verses TO that generation in the future that it will actually happen in, and that he was writing it FOR every other generation since? For the past 1,900 years of Christianity, Christians have "all [slept]." How can it be said that this was written TO them? It can’t. But it was written FOR them. The verses say that some of the "we" would be ALIVE at the Lord’s coming! So these verses must be proscribed to only one generation -- The first century generation Christians TO whom Paul’s letters are actually addressed, many of whom were ALIVE at Christ’s coming in AD 70.

In Matthew 24, the signs that were to precede Christ’s coming... The full-on Futurist believes that these signs are still to come, or, are happening now. So, were these "signs of the times" written TO the Christians in, say, the 15th century? No. It would have to be said that they were written FOR them. Now, the partial preterist understands that those signs were spoken TO the first century Christians who would actually live through the Great Tribulation that led up to AD 70, and that these "signs" are past in fulfillment. But weren’t Matthew 24’s "signs of the times" written FOR us? Haven’t we learned from them what happened back then? Would the partial preterist argue that Christ’s warning "signs" were spoken TO us? No. The one generation that would actually see the fulfillment of these prophecies is the only generation TO whom they were spoken/written! The prophecies, and the knowledge of the fulfillment of those prophecies are FOR the benefit of every other generation since that time.

______________________

And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (I Corinthians 15:4-6)

Even the most staunch premil-dispensationalist must read this verse (15:6) like a Preterist. Is Paul writing this TO some generation 2,000 + years later? Are most of those brethren who had seen the risen Jesus, still alive today; and only some of them have fallen asleep? Of course not; that would be ridiculous! So why does the partial preterist insist that Paul all of a sudden, just a couple of verses later, must now be writing TO some other generation way off in the future?

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep... (I Cor.15:51)

Isn’t Paul, in this verse (15:51), simply stating the same as he had previously? Some of their contemporaries, who had seen the risen Savior, had "fallen asleep," but most were still alive! He then repeats TO the Corinthians, his contemporaries, that -- "We shall not all sleep." These verses proclaim exactly what Christ affirmed in Matthew 16:28 -- "Some of you standing here shall not taste of death."

What is it that makes the partial preterists change the plain meaning of the word "we" in verse 51? It must be the surrounding context -- resurrection. But isn’t verse 6 introducing the resurrection context which doesn’t end until verse 58? The point being -- Just like Matthew 16:28, these phrases are interchangeable, they mean the same thing. Paul was writing TO the Corinthians in verse 6, and he was still writing TO the Corinthians in verse 51! Not all of THEM would sleep!

"The Reason that THEY Might Sleep" - C. Jonathin Seraiah
Immediately following the great rapture passage -

Now, brothers, about times and dates we do not need to write to you, for you know very well that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "Peace and safety," destruction will come on them suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. But you, brothers, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief. (I Thessalonians 5:1-4)

Mr. Seraiah from The End of All Things -

I am not denying that 1 Thessalonians 5:1-9 speaks of the readiness that Paul wanted his readers to have in preparation for the Neronic persecution. We are, however, stating that Paul does make a clear switch in topic when he says, "but as to the times and seasons" (i.e., the times and seasons that he and his readers were then in as opposed to the Final Advent which they would not even see). (p.178)

In the very next sentence, Mr. Seraiah gives away his entire argument for the rejection of the plain language meaning of "we" in I Thessalonians 4:15-17 (emph. mine) -

In verse ten, Paul brings together the two topics (of the Final Advent and Christ’s spiritual coming against Jerusalem) by saying that "whether we wake or sleep we might live with him." His point of our "living with him" is an obvious reference back to the "raising" of believers that happens in 4:16-17; the fact that Christ "rose again" to life and that we are to "rise" means that we will "live with him" (see also John 14:19). The reason that they might "sleep" is because they may not survive the Neronic persecution he was warning them about. The fact that he has returned to the topic of resurrection, as found in 4:16-17, is evident in 5:11 that he repeats from 4:18. (pp.178-179)

In this whole incongruous argument, Mr. Seraiah has inadvertently given away the "we" of I Thessalonians 4:15-17! By admitting that when Paul says, "whether we-sleep" means that "they might ‘sleep’- because they may not survive the Neronic persecution" -- This demands that Mr. Seraiah is equating the "we" of this resurrection passage TO the THE THESSALONIANS! IF according to Mr. Seraiah, Paul’s "we" means "they" in this verse (5:10), THEN it certainly must mean "they" (Thessalonian Christians) in I Thessalonians 4:15-17! IF I Thessalonians 5:10 was written TO the Thessalonians, THEN so was I Thessalonians 4:15-17!

This means that -- THE FIRST CENTURY CHRISTIANS WERE INCLUDED AMONG THE "WE WHO ARE ALIVE AND REMAIN UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD"!

And isn’t "whether we wake or sleep" saying EXACTLY THE SAME THING AS IN I CORINTHIANS 15:51’s "WE SHALL NOT ALL SLEEP"? Doesn’t "we shall not all sleep" mean that -- some would be "awake" and some would be "[a]sleep"? Mr. Seraiah said, "The reason that they might ‘sleep’..." This is not what Mr. Seraiah wanted to say, but he did. He has equated the "we" TO "[them]." Because the epistle was only written TO one generation, past or future, this demands that Paul was writing TO those first century Christians (Mr. Seraiah’s "they") and that it was to occur in their generation while some of THEM were STILL ALIVE!

_____________________

Also note that Mr. Seraiah connects Paul’s statements for readiness (emph. mine) -

The fact that he [Paul] has returned to the topic of resurrection, as found in 4:16-17, is evident in 5:11 that he repeats from 4:18.

So according to Mr. Seraiah, these two resurrection references (4:16-17 and 5:10) are speaking of the same future-to-us event, but both have readiness exhortations TO the Thessalonians attached to them in their subsequent verses (4:18 and 5:11). (emph. mine) -

After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever. Therefore encourage each other with these words. (I Thess.4:17-18)

He died for us so that, whether we are awake or asleep, we may live together with him. Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. (I Thess. 5:10-11)

"[J]ust as in fact you are doing" -- Is Paul looking through the ages of generations of Christians and applying this statement to us? It was a present reality in that generation! They were "build[ing] each other up." If Paul was teaching a far-distant future Parousia with accompanied resurrection/rapture, why would he have said, "whether we are-asleep;" as if "sleep[ing]" was merely an option for the Thessalonian, not a certainty?

____________________

Also note that just as in I Thessalonians 4:15, where Paul uses the personal pronouns "you" and "we" together, we find the same in I Thessalonians 5:10-11 -

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain (I Thess.4:15)

whether we are awake or asleep...encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing. (I Thess. 5:10-11)

Again, how does the partial preterist explain Paul’s use of "you" here in connection to the "we" of the previous verse?

Mr. Seraiah is absolutely correct to connect these two together. Both are saying the exact same thing -- Some of them would live (be "awake") and some of them would die ("sleep") before the Lord Returned -- "Therefore encourage each other with these words." By including "[them]" in the "we" of 5:10, Mr. Seraiah proves the Preterists’ case for Paul’s plain language usage of "we" in the resurrection/rapture passage of 4:15-17!

___________________

Just a few verses down in I Thessalonians 5:23, Paul further emphasizes the fact that some of them would live to see the Day (emph. mine) -

And the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and BODY be PRESERVED ENTIRE, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Dr. Russell -

If any shadow of a doubt still rested on the question whether St. Paul believed and taught the incidence of the Parousia in his own day, this passage would dispel it. No words can more clearly imply this belief than this prayer that the Thessalonian Christians might not die before the appearing of Christ. Death is the dissolution of the union between body, soul, and spirit, and the apostle’s prayer is that spirit, soul, and body might ‘all together’ (oloklhron) be preserved in sanctity till the Lord’s coming. This implies the continuance of their corporeal life until that event. (p.170)

The fact is -- When the plain language of all of these passages is allowed, every one of them fits perfectly into the partial preterists’ return of Christ in AD 70! This is ungetoverable.

Too Much Information
One of the clearest and easiest passages to read preteristically concerning our Lord’s coming is II Thessalonians 1:1-10. Keep in mind who wrote this epistle - "Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy" - they are the "we" and the "us." The Thessalonians are the "you" (not you and me 2,000 years later) -

Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith grows exceedingly, and the love of every one of you all abounds toward each other, so that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure, which is manifest evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe, because our testimony among you was believed.

If I was a partial preterist, and I wanted to prove my case for a coming of Christ in AD 70, this sure would be a passage that I would use! But why don’t we see this? Why isn’t this one in their books? Why does Mr. Seraiah only mention it in passing (below) as fulfilled at AD 70, and not dedicate an entire chapter to it? Could it be that this passage says too much? For the partial preterist this passage is so very preteristic, yet at the same time it is so very futuristic. What is the partial preterist to do? The content of this passage is too damaging to their system for it to be AD 70, and they know it, so they must be silent.

Paraphrase: On THAT DAY, when Christ is REVEALED FROM HEAVEN with HIS MIGHTY ANGELS, taking vengeance on THOSE who persecuted THE THESSALONIANS, God would repay THEM with EVERLASTING destruction from the presence of the Lord! This passage says too much! It has AD 70 AND Second Advent written all over it! Those who were persecuting the Thessalonians would be -- "punished with everlasting destruction." Paul wrote, "EVERLASTING!" When does Christ say the unrighteous go into "everlasting punishment"? Isn’t it at the same time the righteous go into eternal life?

Matthew 25:46 -

Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.

Dr. Russell on II Thessalonians 1:7-10 -

It is manifest that there would be no meaning in these urgent calls to watchfulness unless the apostle believed in the nearness of the coming crisis. Was it to the Thessalonians, or to some unborn generation in the far distant future, that St. Paul was penning these lines? Why urge men in A.D. 52 to watch, and be on the alert, for a catastrophe which was not to take place for hundreds and thousands of years? Every word of this exhortation supposes the crisis to be impending and imminent.

To say that the apostle writes not for any one generation, nor to any persons in particular, is to throw an air of unreality into his exhortations from which reverent criticism revolts. He certainly meant the very persons to whom he wrote, and who read this epistle, and he thought of none others. (p.169)

The Westminster Confession of Faith assigns II Thessalonians 1:7-10 (and Matt. 25:31-46, above) as proof for a future-to-us coming.

Chapter XXXIII - Of the Last Judgment, II e., -