Index to Articles on The Future

Introduction by InPlainSite.org: While the following article is very useful in understanding how Jesus was asked and answered two questions in Matthew 24, it does not take into account the nature of prophecy in Scripture. It is important to bear in mind that the Hebrew idea of prophecy is a pattern that is repeated, multiple fulfillments with one ultimate fulfillment. Each of the multiple fulfillments is both a type of, and a lesson on, the ultimate fulfillment. For more on this subject See Understanding Prophecy and Typology.  While much of the Olivet discourse refers to events in the first century it also refers to the end of time. We know this because the discourse exactly parallels the seven seals. Jesus' description of the "beginning of sorrows," the "great tribulation," and His post-tribulation coming, complete with the cosmic signs, are fulfilled in the same sequence in Revelation 6. See The Seven Seals

A Study of Matthew Twenty-Four

Publish date: November 23, 1998

Author: Wayne Jackson [ChristianCourier.com]

Article description: Matthew 24 is a largely symbolic chapter of the New Testament that has been misinterpreted in two extreme directions.

In this era of change, from one millennium to another, there may be no context that has become the focus of more controversy than the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel record. This marvelous depository of prophetic literature has been victimized by considerable theological speculation. Several theories, spawned by a misunderstanding of this chapter, have generated confusion in the religious community.

There are two extremes relative to Matthew 24 which must be addressed.

First, there is the notion, advocated by the proponents of “realized eschatology,” that all Bible prophecy, including everything within Matthew 24 (e.g., the second coming of Christ, the judgment day, and the end of the world), was fulfilled in the event of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans in A.D. 70 (see King, 342-78). For a refutation of the major components of the A.D. 70 dogma, see the author’s book, The A.D. 70 Theory – A Review of the Max King Doctrine.

On the other hand, those who subscribe to the doctrine of “dispensational premillennialism” tend to view the whole of Matthew 24 as a sort of end-time manual which allows one to determine the characteristic events, and therefore the general time, at which the Lord will return to initiate his “millennial reign.”

For example, in his popular book, The Late Great Planet Earth, first published in 1976, Hal Lindsey argued that Matthew 24 contains the prophetical information which indicates that the “generation” witnessing the “rebirth of Israel” is the same generation that will observe the fulfillment of the “signs” of Matthew 24:1-33, consummated by the second coming of Christ. Inasmuch as the “rebirth of Israel” took place in 1948, and since Lindsey viewed a “generation,” as “something like forty years,” he felt confident in contending that the Lord’s return would be in the neighborhood of 1988 (43).

Later, as the 80s approached, Lindsey vacillated, stretched his 40-year timetable to as long as 100 years. He also confessed that he really did not know whether or not the terminal “generation” commenced with the rebirth of Israel (Eternity, 1/77). Billy Graham frequently has preached that “Matthew 24 is knocking at the door.” Neither of these views is correct.

The “Key” that Unlocks the Chapter

Occasionally, in a context characterized by some difficulty, there will be a “key” passage that unlocks the meaning of the material (cf. 1 Cor. 7:26). Such is the case with reference to Matthew 24. The significant verse is 34, wherein the Lord states:

“Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, till all these things be accomplished” (ASV).

Before giving consideration to some of the details of this verse, let us make a general observation. When there are several passages that deal with a topic, some of which are clearer than others, or some of which are framed in language more literal than others, the less-ambiguous, or more literal, are to be employed as the guiding force in the interpretation. This is fundamental exegetical procedure.

Now here is the point: Matthew 24:34 is a clear, literal statement from the Lord relative to the events previously discussed. This text, therefore, must be a prevailing guideline in the interpretation of this inspired narrative.

Crucial to understanding this verse, and the context overall, is the term “generation.” The Lord clearly indicated that “this” generation, i.e., His generation, would not “pass away,” until the events depicted in verses 4-33 were “accomplished,” i.e., fulfilled.

It has been common for dispensationalists to identify “generation” (Grk. genea) with the Jewish race, hence to contend that “the family of Israel” will be preserved until all “these things” are fulfilled (Scofield, 1034). Since the Jewish people are still extant, this concept allows dispensationalists to stretch the circumstances of Matthew 24 all the way to the present time. This view of the passage is seriously flawed.

While millennialists argue that genea means “race” in rare instances, some of them acknowledge that this is not the “more common and usual meaning of the word” (Archer, 339). Certainly there is no indication that genea is ever employed in the sense of “race” in the Gospel of Matthew—perhaps in the entire New Testament.

Genea is found 43 times in the New Testament. In 17 of these cases, the expression is “this generation.” In Matthew’s record, for example, “this generation” is found in 11:16; 12:41,42,45; 23:36, 24:34. A careful consideration of these passages provides a clear sense of the significance of the expression.

For instance, Jesus, surveying the Jewish wickedness of his day, warned of an impending punishment. He said:

“All these things [the consequences of the Jews’ rebellion] shall come upon this generation” (Mt. 23:36; emph. added).

Why is it millennialists contend that “this generation” in 23:36 is the generation devastated by the Romans in A.D. 70, but allege that “this generation” in 24:34 refers to a far-away “future day” (Barbieri, 75,78)?

Arndt & Gingrich suggest that genea denotes “basically, the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time generation, contemporaries” (153).

McClintock & Strong state that the phrase “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 denotes “the generation of persons then living contemporary with Christ” (776).

Herodotus, the Greek historian, said that “three generations” fill up a “century” (II.142). To him, a “generation” was a period of some 33 years.

It should be obvious that the events of Matthew 24:4-34 have to do with the “generation” that was contemporary with the Lord. The Christians could look for certain tell-tale indicators, detailed by the Savior, and “know” that the Lord’s judgment upon Jerusalem was near (33).

But of “that [the] day” of the Son’s final coming, “knoweth no one” except the Father (36). There is thus a clear contrast between Christ’s temporal activity, chronicled prior to verse 34, and that of the Lord’s judgment at the end of time.

Jerusalem’s Destruction

As Jesus left the environs of the sacred area, his disciples directed attention to the temple. The Lord declared that this edifice would be “thrown down” so that not one stone would be left upon another (24:2). There is no doubt but that Jesus was uttering an oracle concerning the destruction of the city by the Romans (cf. Mt. 22:7; Lk. 21:20).

Later, on the mount of Olives, the disciples asked: “When shall these things [the demolition of the temple] be?” They also wanted to know what would be the “sign” of his “coming, and of the end of the world” (24:3).

R.C. Foster has well observed:

“Much of the confusion in interpreting the predictions of Jesus recorded in Matthew 24 and the parallel passages arises from the failure to see that the disciples asked and Jesus answered two questions: one, concerning the fall of Jerusalem; the other, concerning His second coming” (1187).

The disciples likely assumed that the destruction of the temple, and the end of the world, would occur at the same time. The Master sought to correct that impression, first, by discussing the Roman invasion (4-34), and then by commenting regarding his final coming to render universal judgment (35-51).

Jesus gave a series of clues which could be used by first-century saints to determine when Judaism’s fall would occur. A brief survey of these is as follows (see vss. 5-14):

False “messiahs” would arise.

There would be numerous military encounters.

Famines and earthquakes would occur.

Disciples would be persecuted.

Some would “stumble,” i.e., depart from the faith.

False prophets would be prevalent.

Decreasing spirituality on the part of some saints would be evident.

Those who endured would be delivered.

The gospel would be published far and wide during these four decades.

As unlikely as some of these prophetic declarations may seem to the skeptic, each of them was fulfilled by the time Jerusalem fell in A.D. 70. A more thorough discussion of these matters may be found in J. Marcellus Kik’s volume, Matthew 24.

Continuing, Christ declared that the impending invasion had been foretold in the book of Daniel (15). The Savior thus urged the disciples to be ready to flee the city, praying that God would providentially accommodate their departure (16-19).

He described the intensity of the Roman assault and promised that God would intervene for “the elect’s” sake (21-22). The disciples were not to be swayed by false claims that Jesus had personally arrived, because, when that event actually occurred, it would be globally evident (23-27).

The Jewish nation was described as a rotting carcass where birds of prey would gather (28). The fall of the Hebrew system is set forth in the sort of apocalyptic nomenclature that is characteristic of Old Testament literature, e.g., when the prophets pictorially portray the overthrow of Jehovah’s enemies (cf. Isa. 13:10-11; 34:2ff; Ezek. 32:7-8).

All of this would be a “sign” of the fact that “the Son of man in heaven” was orchestrating these events (29-30). It is important to observe that the Lord would be accomplishing “these things” from heaven, not from some position upon the earth. The result of Judaism’s demise would be a great gospel harvest, reminiscent of the Jubilee celebration of Old Testament fame (31; cf. Lk. 4:17-21).

Finally, just as the ancient citizen of Palestine could determine the coming of summer by the budding of the fig tree, even so, by reflecting upon the signals given by Christ, the disciples would be able to discern the approach of the promised calamity (32-33).

The “Signs” of Matthew 24

Our major thrust now will be to argue the case that the “signs” of Matthew 24:4ff do not find their fulfillment in the final return of Christ.

First, whereas dispensationalists argue for a 20th century fulfillment of these “signs,” accompanied by a nuclear holocaust (Lindsey, 135-57), contextual indicators clearly reflect the fact that Jesus had reference to an ancient and local situation. Consider the following factors.

The impending destruction would involve the Jewish temple—“the holy place” (24:15), and the city of Jerusalem (Lk. 21:20)—not New York, Paris, etc., as alleged by Lindsey and others. The temple has lain in ruins for more than 19 centuries, and there is no evidence that it will ever be rebuilt.

The Jerusalem disciples were warned to flee unto the mountains (16)—hardly efficacious advice if a nuclear attack were envisioned. However, the early Christians understood this admonition, and fled to Pella, beyond the Jordan, when the Romans advanced toward the city (Eusebius III.5).

Christ warned: “Let him that is on the housetop not go down to take out the things that are in his house” (17). Again, such instruction hardly would be appropriate under the conditions of a nuclear assault. “On the house top” is the last place one would want to be!

But the admonition made perfect sense in view of the fact that the houses of old Jerusalem were flat-roofed and situated close to one another. Accordingly, Christians might proceed, by way of “the road of roofs,” to the edge of the city, thus escaping the invading soldiers (Edersheim, 93).

Jesus urged: “Pray ye that your flight be not in the winter” nor “on a sabbath” (20). This anticipates primitive conditions when winter travel could be rigorous; moreover, the gates of Jerusalem would be closed on the sabbath (Neh. 13:19), which would make escape more difficult.

Second, though the destruction of Jerusalem was seen as a sort of “coming” of Christ (cf. Mt. 10:23; 24:30,33; Lk. 21:27), i.e., in judgment upon the Hebrew nation, such was emphatically distinguished from the event known as the “second” coming (cf. Heb. 9:28). The Lord cautioned that if any false teacher should attempt to proclaim his visible “coming” in connection with Jerusalem’s fall, the bogus prophet was to be ignored, because the second coming would be apparent universally (23-27), whereas the destruction of Jerusalem was but a local event. Jerusalem’s fall would only reflect a “sign” of Christ’s providential “coming” in destructive judgment upon the holy city (29-31), not the Savior’s visible, final coming. More on this momentarily.

Third, it is very significant that the Lord, in connection with his discussion of the destruction of Jerusalem, introduced the remarkable prophecy that had been given five centuries earlier to the prophet Daniel. Jesus said:

“When therefore ye see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let him that readeth understand), then let them that are in Judea flee …” (24:15,16).

The dispensational theory argues that the “abomination of desolation” is, from our vantage point, yet in the future. Supposedly, the prophetic focus is upon “the Antichrist,” alleged to be “a world dictator” who will “make the temple abominable” in the so-called “Tribulation” period just prior to the Lord’s second coming (Barbieri, 77). The problem with this view is this: Daniel connects the appearance of the “abomination that makes desolate” with the first coming of Christ, not the Lord’s second coming (Dan. 9:24-27)!
 

InPlainSite Note: The difficulty is that the Abomination of Desolation spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 24, had already occurred about 200 years prior to Jesus mentioning it. (Jesus celebrated Hanukah, the Feast of Dedication, in John 10) However Jesus took that event and prophesied that it would happen again. He took a past event and spoke about it in the future tense. Most Bible prophesy interpreters believe that Jesus was referring to the antichrist, who’s actions are likely to mirror those of Antiochus Epiphanes in some way. Bolstering this opinion is the fact that not all that Daniel prophesied [Daniel 9:27] took place in 167 B.C…. Antiochus did not confirm a covenant with Israel for seven years See Understanding Prophecy and Typology

The Prophecy of Daniel’s Seventy Weeks

Let us, in this connection, briefly examine this fascinating prophecy. There is a three-fold thrust to the narrative.

First, it foretells the “Anointed” One’s advent, and what would be accomplished thereby. The Messiah would: finish transgression, bring an end to sins, make reconciliation for iniquity, usher in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and prophecy, be anointed as the most holy one, make firm a new covenant, and terminate sacrifices.

These things are associated with Christ’s redemptive work at Calvary—not his second coming. To suggest that Daniel’s prophecy contains a “long parenthesis,” the “church age” (between the 69th and 70th weeks), which was wholly unknown to the Old Testament prophets, is without any rational basis.

Second, the prophecy sets forth a chronological time-frame in which the messianic events would take place. From the time of Judah’s commission to leave Babylonian captivity (in 457 B.C.), some 486 1/2 years (set forth in three increments—with “days” signifying “years”) would pass, thus terminating in the very year of Jesus’ death (see the author’s article on Daniels Prophecy of the Seventy Weeks).

Finally, the terrible price for the Jews’ rejection of Jesus is graphically portrayed.

“As a result or consequence of the death of the Messiah one making desolate (i.e. the Roman prince Titus) appears ‘upon the wing of abominations’ (i.e. the pinnacle of the temple). By this language the complete destruction of the temple is signified” (Young, 679).

It is not without significance that the Jews themselves recognized that the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the fulfillment of Daniel’s prophecy. Josephus, the Jewish historian, stated that “Daniel also wrote concerning the Roman government, and that our country should be made desolate by them” (Antiquities, 10.11.7). This view of “Daniel’s seventy weeks,” commonly called the “traditional” view, “has been held with slight variation by most Biblical scholars until recent years” (Scott, 364).

Jesus’ Discussion of His Second Coming

Beginning in verses 35ff, the Lord turns his attention to the final day of history, the day of his ultimate “coming.” Heaven and earth will pass away, but the Savior’s words will remain inviolate.

Jesus shows that there had been a broad range of indicators—“all these things”—which, when observed, would allow the Christians to escape the horrible Roman invasion (33). Nevertheless, at the time of the second coming, no such signs would be provided; rather, the end of the world will occur in a dramatically unannounced fashion. Let us study some of the Lord’s arguments.

The Savior affirmed:

“But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not even the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only” (36).

First, observe the use of “but,” an adversative particle, which stresses a contrast between the previous material and that which follows. Professor Kik comments that this verse “gives immediate evidence of a change in subject matter” (101). In 4-34 the Lord had spoke of the “days” (plural) of tribulation associated with Jerusalem’s peril (19, 22, 29), but now it is “the day” (singular)—an expression commonly used of the final day of history (cf. 1 Cor. 3:13; 1 Thes. 5:4; 2 Tim. 1:12).

Second, observe that even Jesus himself did not know when “the day” of his coming (cf. 36) would be. Yet, he had given signs whereby others might “know” (33) that he was providentially “nigh” in the destruction of Jerusalem. Obviously the two events were not the same.

Is it not rather ironical that Christ, who gave these “signs,” did not know (while on earth) when his return would take place, but modern dispensationalists can read Matthew 24 and virtually pinpoint the time of the second coming! In 1992 Harold Camping, a syndicated television preacher, wrote:

“The results of this study indicate that the month of September of the year 1994 is to be the time for the end of history” (531).
 

InPlainSite Note: Jesus is able to tell the disciples the many signs that will signal the nearness of the second coming, yet according to the verse, He apparently does not know the exact hour it will happen. Is this not more than a little strange? See [Did Jesus Not Know the Hour of His Second Coming?]
 

Third, Christ cited an historical example which demonstrated that those of the pre-flood world were unaware of their impending doom “until the flood came, and took them all away.” The point being, “so shall be the coming of the Son of man” (39). There will be no specific, chronological warning!

Fourth, Jesus appealed to certain cultural circumstances to depict the sudden, unanticipated nature of his return. Two men would be working in the field; one would be taken, the other left (40). Two women will be grinding at the mill; one is taken, one is left (41). Then, in a parallel reference, two men are in bed; one is taken, the other is left” (Lk. 17:34).

One scholar has observed that these references contemplate different times of the day—early morning (grinding at the mill), mid-day (working in the field), and night (in bed), thus suggesting that when Christ returns, it will be day in some places, but night in others—day and night, at the same time (Collett, 277). This could not have reference to the destruction of Jerusalem, but must represent a “coming” of the Lord that will affect men globally.

Additionally, during Jerusalem’s calamity, it was not a matter of some taken and some left; all were taken! More than a million Jews were slaughtered and thousands of others were taken into foreign slavery (Josephus, Wars 6.9). Geldenhuys states that “not a single Jew was left alive in the city or its vicinity” (III.141).

Fifth, the Lord refers to a societal situation. The final day will be like the coming of a thief, who never warns or gives clues as to the time of his encroachment (42,43). The Christian thus is cautioned to “watch,” for in an hour “that ye think not the Son of man cometh” (44).

Again, the point is: The time of Jesus’ return cannot be anticipated. This clearly divorces the Lord’s second coming from those “signs” associated with the fall of Jerusalem.

Conclusion

As we conclude, we feel compelled to emphasize again:

Those who view Matthew 24 as a thematic unit, pertaining only to end-of-time things, are wrong in their view of this context. This is the error of dispensational premillennialism.

Those who would merge 24:4-34 with 35-51, asserting that the entire chapter refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, are also mistaken in their concept of this chapter.

Sources/Footnotes

Archer, Gleason (1982), The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Arndt, Wilbur & Gingrich, F.W. (1967), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago).

Barbieri, Louis (1983), “Matthew.” The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books).

Camping, Harold (1992), 1994? (New York:Vantage Press).

Collett, Sidney (n.d.), All About The Bible. London (London: Fleming H. Revell Co).

Edersheim, Alfred (1957), Sketches of Jewish Social Life in the Days of Christ (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

Eusebius (1955), Ecclesiastical History (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Foster, R.C. (1971), Studies in the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Baker).

Geldenhuys, J. Norval (1960), “Luke,” The Biblical Expositor, Carl F.H. Henry, ed. (Philadelphia: A.J. Holman Co.).

Herodotus (1928), History of Herodotus (New York: Tudor).

Kik, J. Marcellus (1948), Matthew Twenty-Four (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed).

King, Max (1986), The Cross and The Parousia of Christ (Warren, OH: Parkman Road Church of Christ).

Jackson, Wayne (1990), The A.D. 70 Theory – A Review of the Max King Doctrine (Stockton, CA: Courier Publications).

Josephus, Flavius (1957), The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Co).

Lindsey, Hal (1970), The Late Great Planet Earth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan).

Lindsey, Hal (1977), Eternity (January).

May, Cecil. “Matthew 24,” The Biblical Doctrine of Last Things, David Lipe, ed. (Magnolia, MS: Magnolia Bible College).

McClintock, John & Strong, James Cyclopedia of Biblical, Ecclesiastical, and Theological Literature (Grand Rapids: Baker), Vol. III.

Scofield, C.I. (1945), The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford Press).

Scott, J.B. (1975), “Seventy Weeks,” The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Encyclopedia, Merrill Tenney, ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), Vol. Five.

Young, Edward J. (1954), “Daniel,” The New Bible Commentary, Davis, Stills, Kevan, eds. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).

© 1998 by Christian Courier Publications. All rights reserved.

The Menace of Radical Preterism

Publish date: August 1, 1999

Author: Wayne Jackson [ChristianCourier.com]

Article description: A brief review of the heretical doctrine of Realized Eschatology.

The word “eschatology” derives from the Greek word, eschatos, meaning “last.” It has to do with the biblical doctrine of “last” or “end-of-time” things. The term embraces such matters as the return of Christ, the end of the world, the day of judgment, and the resurrection of the dead.

One philosophy of eschatology is known as “preterism.” Ther term “preter” issues from an original form meaning “past.” Preterism, therefore, is an interpretive ideology which views major portions of Bible prophecy, traditionally associated with the termination of earth’s history, as having been fulfilled already.

But the term “preterism” is flexible. Some scholars, for instance, have dated the book of Revelation in the late 60s A.D. They contend that virtually the whole of the Apocalypse, therefore, was fulfilled by A.D. 70 – when Judaism was destroyed by the invading Roman armies. A more moderate form of preterism moves the fulfillment of Revelation forward somewhat. These scholars hold that while Revelation was penned near the end of the first century, the major focus of the book is upon the fall of the Roman empire (A.D. 476); consequently they feel there is little beyond that date that is previewed in the final book of the New Testament.

While we do not agree with either of these concepts of the book of Revelation, we consider them to be relatively harmless. They represent ideas upon which good men can honestly disagree with no significant error being involved.

On the other hand, there is a form of preterism that is quite heretical.

This theory argues that all Bible prophecy has been fulfilled; nothing remains on the prophetic calendar.

This radical preterism was championed by James Stuart Russell (1816-95), a Congregational clergyman in England. Russell authored a book titled, The Parousia, (from a Greek word meaning “coming” or “presence”), which first appeared in 1878. Russell set forth the idea that the second coming of Christ, the judgment day, etc., are not future events at the end of the current dispensation. Rather, prophecies relating to these matters were fulfilled with Jerusalem’s fall in A.D. 70. There is, therefore, no future “second coming” of Christ. Moreover, there will be no resurrection of the human body. Also, the final judgment and the end of the world have occurred already – with the destruction of Jerusalem.

Advocates of this bizarre dogma claim that the preterist movement is growing wildly. It probably is expanding some – though likely not as prolificly as its apologists would like everyone to believe. Occasionally the sect will get a thrust when a prominent name becomes identified with it. For example, noted theologian R.C. Sproul has apparently thrown his hat into the preterist ring – at least to some degree. Recently he characterized J.S. Russell’s book as “one of the most important treatments on Biblical eschatology that is available to the church today” (quoted in The Christian News, June 7, 1999, p. 17).

Radical preterism (also known as “Realized Eschatology” or the “A.D. 70 Doctrine”) is so “off the wall” – biblically speaking – that one wonders how anyone ever falls for it. But they do. And, as exasperating as it is, the doctrine needs to be addressed from time to time. One writer, in reviewing the A.D. 70 heresy, recently quipped that dealing with preterism is like cleaning the kitty litter box; one hates to fool with it, but it has to be done. He can just be thankful that cats aren’t larger than they are.

The Basis for the Dogma

Preterists strive for consistency in their view of Bible prophecy. The goal is admirable. But when a series of propositions is linked, and they are grounded on the same faulty foundation, when one of them topples – like dominos in a line – they all fall. So it is with the A.D. 70 theory.

Here is the problem. In studying the New Testament material relative to the “coming” of Christ, preterists note that:

There are passages which seem to speak of the nearness of the Lord’s coming – from a first-century vantage point (cf. Jas. 5:8).

They observe that there are texts which indicate a “coming” in connection with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (cf. Mt. 24:30).

Combining these, they conclude that the Savior’s “second coming” must have transpired in A.D. 70.

Furthermore, since the Scriptures are clear as to the fact that the resurrection of the dead, the judgment day, and the end of the world will all occur on the day the Lord returns, the advocates of “realized eschatology” are forced to “spiritualize” these several happenings, contending that all will take place at the same time. In this “interpretive” process, a whole host of biblical terms must be redefined in order to make them fit the scheme.

And so, while preterists attempt to be consistent, it is nonetheless a sad reality that they are consistently wrong!

Prophetic Imminence

A major fallacy of the preterist mentality is a failure to recognize the elasticity of chronological jargon within the context of biblical prophecy. It is a rather common trait in prophetic language that an event, while literally in the remote future, may be described as near. The purpose in this sort of language is to emphasize the certainty of the prophecy’s fulfillment.

Obadiah, for instance, foretold the final day of earth’s history. Concerning that event, he said: “For the day of Jehovah is near upon all the nations. . . ” (v. 15). This cannot refer to some local judgment, for “all nations” are to be involved. And yet, the event is depicted as “near.”

There are numerous prophecies of this nature, including passages like James 5:8 – “the coming of the Lord is at hand.” James could not have been predicting the literally imminent return of the Savior, for such knowledge was not made available to the Lord’s penmen. Not even Jesus himself knew of the time of his return to earth (Mt. 24:36).

The Components Explained and Briefly Refuted

Let us give brief consideration to the four eschatological events that are supposed to have occurred in A.D. 70 – the Lord’s Second Coming, the resurrection of the dead, the day of judgment, and the end of the world.

Was there a sense in which Christ “came” to folks at various times and places? Yes, and no serious student of the Bible denies this. Jesus “came” on the day of Pentecost via the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (see Jn. 14:18). The coming was representative, not literal. The Lord warned the brethren in Ephesus that if they did not repent, he would “come” to them in judgment, and they would forfeit their identity as a faithful congregation (Rev. 2:5). In describing the horrible judgment to be inflicted upon rebellious Jerusalem, Jesus, employing imagery from the Old Testament, spoke of his “coming” in power and glory (Mt. 24:30). Again, this was a representative “coming” by means of the Roman forces (cf. Mt. 22:7). Verse 34 of Matthew 24 clearly indicates that this event was to occur before that first-century generation passed away. For further consideration of this point, see the essay on “{glossSub (“A Study of Matthew Twenty-four”, “Matthew 24”)}” in our “Archives”.

The Lord’s “second coming,” however, will be as visibly apparent as his ascension back into heaven was (Acts 1:11). Indeed, he will be “revealed” (2 Thes. 1:7), or “appear” to all (2 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 9:28).

It is a mistake of horrible proportions to confuse the symbolic “comings” of Christ with the “second” (cf. Heb. 9:28) coming. And this is what the preterists do.

It is utterly incredible that the preterists should deny the eventual resurrection of the human body – just as the Sadducees did twenty centuries ago (Acts 23:8). The entire 15th chapter of First Corinthians was written to counter this error: “How say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead [ones – plural]?” (15:12).

But those who subscribe to the notion of “realized eschatology” spiritualize the concept of the resurrection, alleging that such references are merely to the emergence of the church from an era of anti-Christian persecution. In other words, it is the “resurrection” of a cause, not a resurrection of people.

The theory is flawed in several particulars, but consider these two points:

The Scriptures speak of the “resurrection” as involving both the good and the evil, the just and the unjust (Dan. 12:2; Jn. 5:28-29; Acts 24:15). Where, in the preterist scheme of things, is the resurrection of “evil”? Was the “cause” of evil to emerge at the same time as the “cause” of truth?

As noted above, the resurrection contemplated in 1 Corinthians 15 has to do with the raising of “dead ones” (masculine, plural) – not an abstract “cause” (neuter, singular). Significantly, the bodily resurrection of Jesus is cited as a precursor to the general resurrection – in this very context (15:20,23).

Christ charged that those who deny the resurrection of the body are ignorant of both the Scriptures and the power of God (Mt. 22:29).

The Bible speaks of a coming “day of judgment” (Mt. 11:22). Preterists limit this to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. But the theory simply does not fit the facts. The devastation of A.D. 70 involved only the Jews. The final day of judgment will embrace the entire human family – past, present, and future (Acts 17:31). The citizens of ancient Nineveh will be present on the day of judgment (see Mt. 12:41), as will other pagan peoples. But these folks were not in Jerusalem in A.D. 70. How can clear passages of this nature be ignored?

Here is an interesting thought. When Paul defended his case before the Roman governor, Felix, he spoke of “the judgment to come,” and the ruler was “terrified” (Acts 24:25). Why would a Roman be “terrified” with reference to the impending destruction of Judaism – when he would be on the winning side, not the losing one?

According to the preterists, the “end of the world,” as this expression is employed in Bible prophecy, does not allude to the destruction of this planet. Rather, “world” has reference to the Jewish world, thus, the end of the Jewish age. This, they allege, occurred in A.D. 70.

But this view simply is not viable. Consider these two brief but potent points.

The responsibilities of the Great Commission – to teach and immerse lost souls – was commensurate with that era preceding the “end of the world” (Mt. 28:18-20). If the “end of the world” occurred in A.D. 70, then the Lord’s Commission is valid no longer. This conclusion, of course, is absurd.

In the Parable of the Tares, Jesus taught that at “the end of the world” the “tares” (i.e., evil ones) would be removed from his kingdom and burned (Mt. 13:39-40). Did that transpire with the destruction of Judaism? It did not. The notion that the “end of the world” is past already is false.

The dogma of “preterism” or “realized eschatology” is erroneous from beginning to end. For a more detailed consideration of this matter, see our book, The A.D. 70 Theory, available from “Courier Publications”.

A Common Method of Propagation

The doctrine of preterism is so radically unorthodox that its advocates realize that their efforts to win converts represent a formidable task. Consequently, they have developed a covert strategy that seeks to quietly spread their novel dogma until such a time when congregational take-overs can be effected. The distinctive traits of this discipling methodology are as follows.

It is alleged that this system represents an attractive, consistent method of interpretation. But there is no virtue in consistency, if one is consistently wrong!

Preterists criticize what they call “traditional” views of interpreting Bible prophecy. They suggest they have a new, exciting approach to the Scriptures – with a spiritual thrust. Of course the “new” is always intriguing to some.

The messengers of “realized eschatology” frequently are secretive in their approach. They select only the most promising candidates with whom to share their ideas. Eventually, then, the A.D. 70 theory will be woven subtly into classes, sermons, etc.

When ultimately confronted relative to their teachings and methods, they will argue that eschatological issues are merely a matter of opinion, and that divergent views – especially theirs – should be tolerated. This, of course, ignores plain biblical implications on these themes (cf. 2 Tim. 2:16-18; 2 Pet. 3:16). If church leaders fall for this ploy, more time is gained for the indoctrination of the entire congregation.

Conclusion

Wise church leaders will inform themselves relative to the theory of preteristic eschatology. If such ideas are discovered to be circulating within a local church, the proponents of such doctrines should be dealt with quickly and firmly. It is a serious matter.

© 1999 by Christian Courier Publications. All rights reserved.

Index to Articles on The Future

www.inplainsite.org