Preterism 3/10/2007 St. Paul
Intro
Good afternoon.
I'm here today to talk about something I don't talk about much -- prophecy.
I don't say much about it in public because I don't think I know much
about it.
Yes, it's interesting. And I have read a lot about it, as have you no
doubt.
But I don't feel qualified to speculate on how the yet-future prophecies
will be fulfilled. I look at how prophecy was actually fulfilled,
versus what I would have thought would happen if I'd read it without the
benefit of hindsight. And I realize that I would have never guessed how
those prophecies would be fulfilled.
So, like I said, I don't speculate too much about prophecy.
But Mr. Black suggested a particular teaching about prophecy as being
something that should be addressed. It's an interpretation of Bible
prophecy that has a name I wasn't even aware of.
The word that describes it is "preterism". p-r-e-t-e-r-i-s-m.
It comes from the Latin word "praeter", meaning "past".
(or "praeteritus")
And the idea of it is that most, or even all, of Bible prophecy is "past".
That it is already fulfilled.
SPS
So this afternoon I'm going to tell you about it.
About what the belief is, and why some people believe it.
And though I'm no expert at how prophecy will be fulfilled, we need to
know what's wrong with this idea. Because some time you are going to
run across it.
Body
As I said, I wasn't even aware of the word. I did a search of the Church's
literature, and it is only used once.
That is in a World News and Prophecy article by Mr. Gary Petty, entitled
"Signs of the End Times".
Preterism is not the belief of atheists who dis-believe the Bible.
On the contrary, it is the belief of Bible-believers. And they think
that you and I are ignorant if we are unaware of preterism.
I was talking to Pam about this subject on the way back from the Eau Claire
choir visit. She recalls that her Protestant minister took the preterist
position, but that word was not used. So it's an idea that you may be
familiar with, but didn't know that there was a word for it.
Mr. Black also mentioned that a former writer for the Plain Truth magazine
is now a preterist. His name is Keith Stump. You may remember his name
from the early nineties.
So I did a little looking on the internet for his name. And he is still
a Bible believer. But he has quite a different outlook.
I found this written by him on a preterist web site called
planetpreterist.com:
"Twice during the past month I was asked, in chance meetings around town
[Pasadena], about my views on recent events in Europe and the Middle East
'in light of Bible prophecy' ....
Twice I explained, at some length, that the question is meaningless,
since the prophecies (as I now believe) were fulfilled nearly two
millennia ago. And twice I looked into the face of stark, unreasoning
fear, as the questioners--for a brief moment, before composing themselves
-- entertained the terrifying prospect of not living in the "end times"
after all."
[ I think that the look that he got was probably one of shock, rather
than fear! ]
Mr Stump further goes on to challenge you and me specifically:
"Through conversations with ministers and members, I have learned that few
have any real idea of the biblical case for preterism. They think they've
heard all the arguments, but are, in fact, largely ignorant of them, as
revealed by their naive Spokesman-Club responses. I challenge everyone
reading this letter to spend ONE HOUR exploring websites like
preteristarchive.com and planetpreterist.com."
He feels that you and I would not even dare look at preterism. He goes on:
"Further, as I've been informed, many of these ministers,
through intimidation, insist that their congregations avoid looking
into preterist 'heresies', lest they fall prey to 'deception'."
Preterims is an alternative interpretation of the scriptures. And worth
being aware of. We will look at - with the ministry's initiation, in fact -
because the truth about the Scriptures is central to our beliefs.
I have outlined 4 points for today: what, when and why of Preterism,
then a comparison of it to the scriptures.
1) What is Preterism?
Again, it is the belief that Bible prophecy is already fulfilled.
When the Bible speaks of calamities of the end time, preterists identify
those calamities with the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD.
Obviously, parts of the Olivet prophecy (Mt 24:16-21) were fulfilled
in 70AD:
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out
of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in
those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the
sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, ...
The preterist will go further and say that all the end time predictions
of the New Testament apply to that time. That includes the prophecies of
the book of Revelation, and the prophecies of Daniel.
2) Why does Preterism exist?
There are things in the New Testament that are difficult to explain.
For instance, there are quite a few places where Jesus' words would have
easily made the early church believe that he would return in their lifetime.
You are aware of that.
Luke also records the Olivet prophecy, and adds this:
Luke 21:22
For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written
may be fulfilled.
"All things which are written" would include the prophecies of Daniel.
And Jesus had much to say to the "generation" of his day:
Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the
damnation of hell?
Matt. 24:34 - Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away
until all these things take place.
Matt 26:64
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.
(and Mar 8:38, Luk 11:50-51)
And there are a examples of the fact that Paul believed Jesus would
return in the first century:
1Thess 4:15
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are
alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them
which are asleep.
These are a sampling of the motives for believing in Preterism. I'll deal
with them in my 4th point.
And it has long seemed to me personally that the early Church would have
been quite sure that the Roman invasion of the late 60's signaled the
imminent return of Christ. I think that after the destruction of the
city and death of maybe a million Jews, Jesus' disciples must have been
sorely disappointed that he did not return.
A biblical pattern and parallel with the first Israel seemed to be occurring:
In 31AD Jesus was crucified on the very day of the Passover. He rose
from the dead on the day of the wave sheaf.
Exactly on the day of Pentecost the holy spirit was given.
Things were following the story of the Exodus and the creation of the
first Israel.
Israel then wandered for 40 years. And then entered the promised land.
Now, in the first century, just nearing 40 years after that second great
Passover, the Roman invasion would have made them think that Christ's
return as the conquering king was imminent.
So I think there was great anticipation in the Church at the catastophe
of 70AD. And great disappointment.
But the preterists conclude that it must been not a "disappointment" at all,
but in fact a fulfillment of those words and expectations.
3) When and where did Preterism come from?
The idea that there is no future time of calamity, no tribulation at the
end of the age, is quite an old one.
Preterists will claim that some early Catholic church fathers, like Eusebius,
were preterists. But they generally mean by this that the destruction
of Jerusalem in 70AD was predicted by Christ. Which of course it was.
We in the Church of God have always maintained that. But we have
maintained that that destruction was a "partial" fulfillment of the Olivet
prophecy.
Beyond the Olivet prophecy, the real preterist controversy has been over
the meaning of the book of Revelation.
Readers of the Bible have long seen a "Historical" interpretation of
Revelation. They have seen it as describing a system of apostasy and
persecution that would hold control over Europe for over twelve centuries.
This is the time period before and during the Protestant Reformation.
People who actually had access to the Bible concluded that there was
only one entity that fit all those characteristics of Revelation: the
papal dynasty of the Roman Catholic Church.
And so the Roman church, particulary in the time of the Reformation,
countered this understanding with an interpretation of Revelation that
made it fulfilled in the destruction of the Jews and Jerusalem. And the
establishment of the kingdom of God in the form of the Roman church.
One such Catholic interpretation was a commentary of some 900 pages called
"Investigation of the Hidden Sense of the Apocalypse", written by the
Spanish Jesuit Luis De Alcazar (Seville, 1554-1613).
Alcazar proposed that all Revelation applied to the era of pagan Rome
and the first six centuries of Christianity. According to Alcazar:
Rev 1-11 describes the rejection of the Jews and the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Romans.
Rev 12-19 were the overthrow of Roman paganism (the great harlot) and the
conversion of the empire to the church.
Rev 20 describes the final persecutions by Antichrist, who is identified
as Nero (54-68 A.D.), and judgment.
Rev 21-22 describe the triumph of the New Jerusalem, the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.cephasministry.com/preterism.html
In the more recent history preterism was popularized by James Stuart
Russell (no relation to Jehovah's Witness founder Charles Taze Russell).
Russell published the book "The Parousia" (1878).
(parousia is a Greek word for "coming" (~20x), also "presence" (2))
(some Preterists will make a big issue of that word, as thy have a
different meaning to attach to Christ's "coming")
Max King was another major influence in the development of Preterism with
his books The Spirit of Prophecy (1971) and
The Cross and the Parousia (1987).
Partial Preterism vs. Full Preterism.
Preterism is not a single Bible interpretation, but is divided into
two major interpretations: Partial Preterism and Full Preterism.
Partial Preterism:
Most Partial Preterists believe the term "Last Days" refers not to the
last days of planet Earth [or even the end of the age, as we would say],
but rather to the last days of the Mosaic
covenant which God had with national Israel until the year 70AD.
Their idea of the "last days," [of the OT covenant] however, is different
from the "last day," which they consider still future and
entails the last coming of Jesus, the Resurrection, the Final Judgment,
and the creation of a literal New Heavens and New Earth.
So partial preterists are not too different from our own understanding,
except that they do not believe in a time of calamity just before Christ's
second coming.
They see the calamities of the Olivet Prophecy and the book of Revelation
as all having been fulfilled in 70AD.
If only that were true, I think you would agree. We pray for the return
of Christ, and look forward to a wonderful restoration of all things.
We certainly don't pray for worldwide calamity and for persecution. But
we do point to such things as indicators that his return is near.
Partial preterists just don't believe in any future fulfillment of
those prophecies of calamity.
Full Preterism:
Full Preterism is vastly different different it its conclusions.
Full Preterists believe absolutely all prophecy was fulfilled with the
destruction of Jerusalem, including the resurrection of the dead. And
including Jesus' Second Coming, or his "presence" or "Parousia".
To Full Preterists the resurrection of the dead began in 70AD and did not
entail the raising of the physical body, but rather the resurrection of
the soul from the "place of the dead". The righteous dead obtained a
spiritual body for use in the heavenly realm, and the unrighteous dead
were cast into the Lake of Fire.
Such Full Preterists believe this judgment is ongoing and takes effect
upon the death of each individual. The New Heavens and the New Earth are
also equated with the New Covenant and the fulfillment of the Law in 70AD
and are to be viewed in the same manner by which a Christian is considered
a "new creation" upon his or her conversion.
As you would expect, there is great disagreement between these two
camps of preterism.
Those who believe that the return of Christ is still future, the Partial
Preterists, may call the Full Preterists "Hyper-Preterists" - meaning that
Full Preterist take the idea of fulfillment too far.
And Full Preterists may call themselves "Consistent Preterists", meaning
that they feel that they have taken the idea that 70AD fulfilled prophecy
and extended it to its logical conclusion. They will call Partial
Preterism "Hypo-Preterism" -- meaning that it's under-done.
4) Does Preterism, or does it not, square with the scriptures?
The Olivet Prophecy and Duality.
Jesus' Mt of Olives prophecy is recorded in Matt 24, Luke 21 and Mark 13.
It is well recognized that much of Jesus' Olivet Prophecy was fulfilled
in 70AD. A good account of that is "Has Jesus Christ's Olivet Prophecy
Been Fulfilled?" by Bruce Gore (GN Sept/Oct 1999)
Mt 24:3
And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him
privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall
be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world [age]?
Preterists would have the "age" be the old covenant.
Forty years after the calling of the people of Israel, Israel triumphed
over the Canaanites.
But Preterists would have the Christian triumph be a destruction of the
Jews. A destruction of the Old Testament law.
Even among Partial Preterists there is a fundamental wrong attitude of
anti-semitism in that. And worse, a fundamental attitude of
anti-nomianism. Which is hatred of the law of God.
Preterists will take such statements of Paul as (Rom 7:6) "But now we are
delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; " in an
anti-nomian way. Their doctrine follows a typical twist of what Paul
calls the "carnal mind" which is "not subject to the law of God".
They ignore the importance of the Passover and Pentecost as the beginning
of the new covenant, and see too much in the destruction of Jerusalem
and the temple.
Which importance is ironic -- as the destruction of Jerusalem is not even
recorded in the scriptures. The book of Acts ends in the early 60's.
Full Preterists would have Christ's "coming" (parousia) be "presence" - as
in coming only spiritually.
And so the end of the age is to them also the end of the Old Testament.
But Jesus' coming itself is spiritualized.
Turn, please to 2 Peter to recall why these views of the destruction of
Jerusalem is, I think, fundamentally wrong:
2 Peter 3:3-7
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers,
walking after their own lusts,
[This is written before 70AD, and the "scoffers" are not Bible believers,
as Preterists are. But notice what Christ's coming and the end of the
age is:]
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell
asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the
creation.
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the
heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the
water:
6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in
store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of
ungodly men.
Christ comes as judge against all ungodly people. And it is a worldwide
event. Not the destruction of the Jewish nation.
But let's go back to the Preterist view of the Olivet prophecy. Was it
fulfilled in 70AD or not?
Parts of it were fulfilled to a large degree in 70. As I read above.
But consider several others that were only partially or not at all fulfilled:
Matt 24:14,21-22,24,27,29,30-31
14: "this gospel will be preached in all the world" -- it is a real
stretch to say that was done by 70.
16-20 were largely true in 70
21 "great tribulation" "or ever shall be" doesn't even measure up to the
WWII Jewish holocaust
22 "except those days be shortened, no flesh would be saved" - a stretch
to believe that even the death of so many Jews threatened "all flesh"
24 "great signs and wonders"
27 coming of Christ as lightning shining from the east to the west
29 heavenly signs
30 all tribes of the earth mourn seeing the Son of man coming with power
and great glory.
31 sound of a trumpet and gathering his elect from one end of heaven to
another
Luke adds another significant thing:
Lk 21:24 Jerusalem trodden down of the Gentiles until the "times of the
Gentiles" are fulfilled (Dan. 12:7) That doesn't sound like a triumph
It is referring to Dan 12:7 and a scattering of the "holy people".
It is a confusing mixture of things fulfilled and not fulfilled.
This is apparently deliberate, as it has dual application.
It is the dual nature of prophecy that Partial Preterists do not understand
or do not believe.
See the booklet "The Book of Revelation Unveiled", the section
"Duality in Bible Prophecy".
"Prophetic statements sometimes apply to more than one fulfillment, a
principle we could call "duality." A prime example of duality is Christ's
first coming to atone for our sins and His second coming to rule as
King of Kings.
Such dual themes are common in Bible prophecy. Jesus specifically alluded
to the dual application of some prophecies in Matthew 17:11-12. Asked
about the prophecy of "Elijah," who would precede the coming of the
Messiah (Malachi 4:5), Jesus responded: "Indeed, Elijah is coming first
and will restore all things. But I say to you that Elijah has come
already ..." (Matthew 17:11-12)."
"Another prophecy with dual application is Jesus' Olivet prophecy ...
Many conditions described in this prophecy existed in the days leading
up to the Romans' siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70. But Christ
makes it clear that similar conditions would prevail shortly before His
return.
And I appreciate this summary in the booklet about prophecy in general:
"We must carefully examine the context of prophecies to understand
their meaning and discern whether the prophecy seems incomplete after
its first fulfillment. It is equally important to avoid reading duality
into passages that do not support such interpretation. We should take
great care to properly discern whether duality is a factor in any
particular prophecy.'
It is forgiveable, then, that Partial Preterists want to simplify, and
apply all of the Olivet prophecy to 70AD.
The book of Revelation, and the Testimony of John.
The Olivet Prophecy has an obvious at least partial fulfillment in 70AD.
But the book of Revelation is another story.
If the Preterist idea is true - that all prophecy of calamitous end times
is already fulfilled - they must include the book of Revelation.
And that means that the prophecies of Revelation must have been written
before 70AD. This is critical to the whole theory of Preterism.
In other words, if Revelation was fulfilled in 70AD, it must have been
written before 70AD. So much of preterist literature deals with the date
of composition of the book of Revelation.
If you pick up any commentary, or Halley's handbook, you will find
Revelation dated in the 90's AD.
There are several reasons for this - mainly the words of the Irenaeus
(circa 180 AD): "For it was seen, not a long time ago, but almost in our
own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian". (A.D. 81-96)
Preterists will argue that the persecutions of Revelation occurred under
the emporer Nero (54-68).
The arguments are fairly strong on both sides, historically. So I would
have to say that history leaves the question inconclusive.
But there are two scriptural reasons against the preterist early view of
Revelation: 1) its author - the apostle John and 2) the prophecy itself,
In a sermonette a couple weeks ago I mentioned the internal evidences
of the late 1st century composition of the gospel of John:
a) No Olivet prophecy in John - much of its subject matter was past
There was no need for John to record its warnings.
b) Peter's death is known to John's readers. John 21:18-19
c) The book of John shows distance and separation between Christianity
and Judaism, which didn't happen until after 70AD
d) John's urgent battle against the gnostic heresy in his gospel, his
epistles, and in the book of Revelation
And internally, in Revelation, consider:
a) John is banished to Patmos, not killed. Under Nero, Peter and Paul
were killed. But John was not. He was banished to Patmos, which was
typical of the less-intense persecution of the emporer Domitian in
the 90's.
b) In Gal 2 Paul refers to James, Peter and John as the "pillars" in
Jerusalem. But preterists would have us believe that John moved up
to Paul's churches in Asia Minor while Paul was in prison, and before
the destuction of Jerusalem. That Paul wrote to Timothy but never
mentions the apostle John who would have been there.
c) And that in Revelation John writes to 7 of Paul and Timothy's
churches in Asia without reference to them.
In Rev. 2:4, for example, John criticizes Ephesus for having "left
your first love"
Paul had been there in ~55 (Acts 20), and now we would have to believe
that John writes this just ~10 years later.
And consider Rev 3:10. Philadelphia, in Asia minor, is to be kept
from "the hour of temptation, which will come upon all the earth, to
try them that dwell upon the earth". What a strange thing to
be saying to Greek Christians in Asia if he is referring to the
Preterist understanding that those trying times are to come on
the Jews of Jerusalem.
The traditional dating of Revelation to the 90's is not certain. But
certainly seems to me to completely out of place for the 60's. And if
it is written after the destruction of Jerusalem, that leaves no room
for the Preterist idea that its prophecies are already fulfilled.
And then read the rest of Revelation, and try to make it apply to the
siege and destruction of Jerusalem. It has to be made almost meaningless
to change all the words of the prophecy to allegories of what happened
to the city of Jerusalem.
Words of John
The Gospel of John says very little of a prophetic nature.
But he does speak of "the last day", contrary to the Full Preterist view
that 70AD was the coming of Christ, or his "presence".
John 5:28-29
28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in
the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of
life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
He is definitely not speaking of some "spiritual", invisible event that
had begun 20 years before.
The Epistles of John are also well known to be written late in the 1st
century as they battle the gnostic heretics of that time. John speaks out
directly and clearly against them, as they battled him openly.
And yet we can see clearly that Jesus' return was yet future: (contrary
to Full Preterism)
1 John 2:28
And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall appear,
we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his coming.
3:2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear
what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be
like him; for we shall see him as he is.
Preterist Motive: "in this generation"
As I mentioned in point #2, (why Preterism exists), it seems to me that
the major motive of preterists is to find a clear and easy answer to what
some would call a Biblical error. That Jesus said his prophecies would
be fulfilled in the generation of his listeners -- but that he was wrong.
Matt 24:34 (Mk 13:30, Lk 21:32)... this generation will not pass till
these things be fulfilled.
Many time statements promise the events are "at hand" and they would
happen "quickly" and "soon" (Revelation 1:1,3; 2:16; 3:11;
22:6,7,10,12,20).
The Partial Preterists' easy answer to this problem is to say that the
destruction of Jerusalem fulfilled all prophecy of calamities in the
end times.
But in fact they create more problems of Biblical interpretation than
they solve. They must move the book of Revelation ahead by 30 years.
But Jesus' words about "a generation" can be understood in a couple
of other ways.
1) He may have meant that these events will not pass from one generation
to another. Once the prophesied conditions exist, all will be fulfilled
including the return of Jesus Christ within the lifetime of one generation.
2) But it could be that this "faithless and perverse generation" includes all
the world from Christ's day to ours.
In the 60's AD Paul writes:
Phil 2:15 That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God,
without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation [generation,
RSV,NKJV], among whom ye shine as lights in the world;
This is applying the Deut 32 description of that original faithless
generation to the people living around Christians in the Greek city of
Philippi.
It would seem that, at least in Paul's mind, as Christians we all live in
the midst of that crooked and perverse generation. Not just Jewish
Christians of the early 1st century.
And so Partial Preterists wait for the return of Christ, but do not expect
a time of trouble and calamity just before his return.
Full Preterism vs. the Scriptures
Full Preterists, however, distort the scriptures beyond all recognition.
Their notion of fulfilling "all" prophecy includes the return of Christ
as well.
They believe that Christ's "presence" that came to the world in 70AD was
a spiritual presence.
They believe that the kingdom of God is already here - in the form of
the Christian church.
This is a severely allegorical interpretation. The scriptures, as you
well know, are quite clear about the nature of Christ's return.
Acts 1:11
Men of Galilee, why do you stand gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus,
who was taken up from you into heaven, will so come in like manner as
you saw Him go into heaven.
Such clear descriptions of Christ's coming are numerous, as you know.
Conclusion
So Preterism is a big subject - it is the subject of prophecy as a
whole. It reaches into many details that I didn't get into.
It not something that should take you by surprise. You should know what
it is.
What we have seen briefly is 1) what it is 2) why it is 3) when and where it
comes from and 4) how it compares to the scriptures.
Any Preterists that were here today would not, I'm sure, be satisfied that
I have covered it completely or fairly. I will again give them credit.
Preterism is not the doctrine of ignorant people. Nor of Bible disbelievers.
But also, I hope you agree, is it a theory that does not easily fit
the scriptures.