A friend sent me a copy of the September-October issue of the Christian Jew Foundation newspaper, a publication emphasizing Bible prophecy. He did so because of an article dealing with preterism. I appreciate the fact that the author, Gary Hedrick, was willing to deal with this important issue. Most futurists either ignore or misrepresent the position.

For those of you who are not familiar with the debate over futurism and preterism, definitions are in order. Futurists believe that the majority of New Testament prophetic passages are yet to be fulfilled. A preterist maintains that if a time text is attached to a prophecy, then the fulfillment is governed by the time text. Words like "near," "shortly," "soon," "quickly," "a little while," "at hand" are critical guides in determining the time frame of a given prophecy. If these words mean what they mean elsewhere in the New Testament, then a majority of New Testament prophecies have already been fulfilled, thus the fulfillment is in the past (the definition of preterism). Hedrick, a dispensationalist, does not interpret the time indicators literally even though he insists that dispensationalists are the only ones who practice a literal hermeneutic.

In addition to dispensationalists, amillennialists, who are also futurists,1 generally follow the same pattern on the time texts by squeezing them into a preconceived futurist mold. Vernard Eller, writing for Christianity Today, is representative of this method. He concludes that if the texts are taken literally "then they are all false claims, and all these writers were just plain wrong: they said something was going to happen 'very soon,' but it still hasn't happened almost 2,000 years later."2 Instead of interpreting the time texts the way they are interpreted elsewhere in the New Testament, Eller strips them of any concrete meaning.

It may be that these different writers were meaning to say, "For all we know, the time is short," or "Although we have absolutely no 'knowledge,' we ought always to assume that the time is short (and be ready to go on assuming that as long as necessary)." This would be a proper way of describing and fostering perpetual readiness: "Precisely because I don't know, I had better operate under the continual assumption that the time is short."

Similarly, some events are such that in their very nature they display the character of "soonness," no matter when they may be scheduled to occur. They are so "big" that their own moment cannot contain them; they bulge over even into the present. A little child could lead us into understanding how "Grandma is coming" is a "soon" event whatever the calendar indication might be.

The suggestions above would indicate that the "time is short" expectation is to be understood as a subjective description rather than an objective claim; the statement refers to the stance of the subject (the believer) rather than to the factuality of the object (the historical time scale).

This is typical futurist gobbledygook that sounds more like Eastern mysticism and turn-of-the century liberalism than biblical exegesis. Nowhere in Scripture are these time words used in the way Eller hopes to interpret them. Apply Eller's "subjective description" to other time sensitive events: Jesus' "time is near" (Matt. 26:18; cf. John 7:6, 8), the "festival of Booths was near" (John 7:2), "the Passover of the Jews was near" (John 11:55). Every reader of these passages knows exactly what they mean, even a little child. Try telling your daughter that she will be going to visit her best friend "soon" when what you really mean is "we ought always to assume that the time is short even though it might be next year when we go, therefore always be in a perpetual state of readiness." Interpreters like Eller who relativize the time texts want us to believe that we can live in some non-historical "eternal now" where time is relativized. This is gnosticism pure and simple. Gnosticism is an ancient heresy that has taken hold in today's church. It is the tendency

to replace the historic facts of Christianity with philosophical ideas. Gnosticism is the tendency to de-historicize and de-physicalize the Christian religion. Gnosticism transforms history into ideology and facts into philosophy. Gnosticism tends to see religion as man's reflections about God and reality, instead of as God's revelation of Himself and His Word to man. As a tendency Gnosticism has always plagued the Church, and it is alive and well today, openly in "liberalism," and in a more concealed fashion in "evangelicalism." . . . Similarly, the New Testament writings frequently speak of certain events as drawing near, as "at hand," as coming "soon," or "on this generation." All of these time-markers used to be taken seriously, and were understood to reveal events that were going to take place in the first century, soon after Jesus' ascension: a conversion of many people, a falling away of many into apostasy, a great persecution at the hands of Jews, apostates, and Romans, and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. When we turn to 20th century evangelical writings, however, and especially those of Calvinists, we find that these timemarkers have been somehow eternalized. God is always "near"; the events are always "at hand"; "this generation" is always the generation of judgment; etc. The events "near at hand" are also simultaneously "far off," and thus predictions about first century events can be transferred to the events of the end of human history in the future.3

The irony here is that Eller, an amillennialist, sounds so much like a dispensationalist on the time texts. Futurists have a huge dilemma on their hands. If they admit the time texts are accurate time indicators, then their futurism must be abandoned. If they assert that the time texts should be relativized, then the integrity of the Bible is called into question and prophecy becomes undependable.

The following is an edited version of the letter I sent to Gary Hedrick in response to his extended remarks on preterism generally and my book Last Days Madness (LDM) in particular. It's evident by his article that he has not read very much of LDM or other contemporary works by preterist authors (e.g., Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., and R.C. Sproul). Because of Hedrick's failure to deal with the substantive arguments set forth in LDM, the astute reader will find some repetition in my response. This should prove helpful for those who are looking for a succinct statement of prophetic reasoning. Keep in mind that the following is a direct response to Gary Hedrick, therefore it is written in the second person.

First, the literalist/symbolic argument. As you know (and admit) not everything in the Bible is to be interpreted literally. Even a stalwart dispensationalist like Hal Lindsey admits that "Premillennialists interpret literally and allegorically. The issue is to let the text dictate when to interpret allegorically instead of our theological presuppositions."4 To claim that preterists do not interpret the Bible literally is a gross misrepresentation and oversimplification of the sophistication and complexity of biblical hermeneutics. Like dispensationalists, we interpret the majority of texts literally and some texts "spiritually" because we believe, following solid hermeneutical principles, that at times the Bible demands, for the lack of a better description, a "spiritual interpretation." I could cite numerous examples. In fact, I could cite numerous examples from dispensational writers to support this easily provable and accepted claim.

Jesus calls His body a temple (John 2:21). His opponents understood Him literally (Matt. 26:61). We're not sure what His disciples thought. To be "born again" refers to a spiritual rebirth (3:3), not a re-entry into the womb, something Nicodemus, "a teacher in Israel," should have understood (3:10). As you know, a reincarnationist takes Jesus very literally on this point. Then there's the discussion of "living water" that the woman at the well thought was "literal" water (4:15). And what do we do with Jesus' statement that He is "the bread that came down out of heaven" (6:41)? In what way did Jesus "come down"? Was He physically present in the wilderness? Did the Israelites see Him in bodily form? Sounds literal to me. Jesus hints at His physical ascension in 6:62. We know that Jesus ascended bodily before the eyes of His disciples (Acts 1:11). Then why isn't His "coming down" in 6:51 similarly literal since they appear in the same chapter? How do you answer the transubstantiationist when Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day. For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink" (6:53-55)? The Jews took Jesus' words literally. They asked, "How can this man give us His flesh to eat?" (6:52). In fact, Jesus' disciples called it a "difficult statement" (6:60). They thought Jesus was speaking literally. Jesus tells His disciples, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life" (6:63).

Based on these examples alone, the literal/spiritual issue is not as cut and dry as you claim. Every interpreter struggles with the tension. Prophecy is no different. I could go through the entire book of Revelation and challenge you on the literalism claim. Here's just one example. The Bible says, "This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven" (Acts 1:11). In Revelation 19 Jesus is said to be riding a "white horse" when He returns. He is also "clothed with a robe dipped in blood." In addition, a literal sword is coming out of His mouth. John Walvoord writes, "This passage contains one of the most graphic pictures of the second coming of Christ to be found anywhere in Scripture."5 How can this be? Jesus is to return "just the same way" that He was taken up. Did Jesus go up to heaven riding a horse wearing a robe dipped in blood and with a sword coming out of His mouth? Dr. Walvoord does not attempt to reconcile the apparent differences in the passages by appealing to literalism, and neither does any other dispensational commentary I have in my library. Of course, the passages can be reconciled if all aspects of one of them are not interpreted literally. Few commentators would interpret every element of Revelation 19 literally and still maintain that Acts 1:11 and Revelation 19:11-16 are describing the same event.

None of this means that we have a license to spiritualize in order to make a passage fit a pre-conceived eschatological system. You ask a very good question: "Where do we draw the line?" While the question is good, it's not the right one. Let me give you an example.

Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud, and is about to come to Egypt; the idols will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them (Isa. 19:1).

What is the "literal" interpretation of this passage? Did Jehovah ride a literal cloud into Egypt so that He was literally seen ("His presence") by the Egyptians? This language is not much different from any number of New Testament eschatological passages depicting Jesus coming "as lightning" or "on the clouds of heaven." And yet every Bible commentary I checked-dispensational included-did not interpret this passage "literally," that is, as the bodily/physical coming of Jehovah to Egypt. Here are two examples:

"Judgment was coming against Egypt from the Lord. God is pictured as riding on a swift cloud" (John Martin, The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty).
"Isaiah pictures the coming Egyptian civil war between the competing Ethiopian and Libyan dynasties as resulting from the intervention of the LORD" (Ed Hindson, Liberty Bible Commentary).
Neither author claims that the coming is "literal," that Jehovah "literally" rode a cloud to Egypt. Martin says "God is pictured." This verse describes, like many more like it, a judgment coming of Jehovah that does not require a bodily/physical presence of Jehovah.

What if I took the same passage and put it into a New Testament context so that it read this way: "Behold, [Jesus] is riding on a swift cloud, and is about to come to Egypt; the idols will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them." You and I know that a majority of dispensationalists would interpret this passage "literally." No questions asked.

How are the threatened comings of Jesus in Revelation 2:5, 16, and 3:3 explained in light of a literal-only hermeneutic? I'll quote Walvoord again: "The Ephesian Christians were also sharply warned that if they did not heed exhortation, they could expect sudden judgment and removal of the candlestick. As [Henry] Alford comments, this is 'not Christ's final coming, but His coming in special judgment is here indicated.'"6 Three times Revelation describes Christ's "coming," and Walvoord says they do not refer to the physical-every-eye-will-see-Him-yet-in-the-future coming of Jesus. I realize that the Greek word erchomai not parousia is used in these passages. Of course, this does not solve the problem since erchomai is also used in Matthew 24:30 to describe "the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven"! How should we understand Revelation 3:20 following the literal-only hermeneutic?

One last point needs to be made. Charles Ryrie's claim that "The prophecies in the Old Testament concerning the first coming of Christ . . . were all fulfilled literally," and that "there is no non-literal fulfillment of these prophecies in the New Testament," cannot be supported by an appeal to the actual texts. For example, in Zechariah 13:7 we are given the following messianic prophecy: "Strike the Shepherd that the sheep may be scattered; and I will turn My hand against the little ones."7 This was most certainly fulfilled except that Jesus was a carpenter, not a shepherd. The scattered sheep are His disciples (Matt. 26:31). Matthew 2:18 quotes Jeremiah 31:15 after the slaughter of the infants in Matthew 2:16. In what literal way was long-dead Rachel weeping for her children? The mothers whose babies were slaughtered were the ones weeping. What is the relationship between Ramah and Bethlehem where the slaughter took place? Was this prophecy fulfilled? Yes. But can we say it was fulfilled literally, using the common definition of the word? A further question is in order: Would those who had first read the prophecy in Jeremiah associate the prophecy with the death of infants at the time of the birth of the Messiah? I don't think so.

The NT is our guide in understanding what non-literal messianic passages were fulfilled in Jesus (Luke 24:27, 44). You write, "With the benefit of hindsight, we now see that the first advent of the Messiah was a prophetic truth that was meant to be taken literally." The same can be said for determining what prophecies were not to be taken literally. Since we know that Jesus said He would return within a generation, that this would take place before the last disciple died (Matt. 16:27-28 and John 21:22), therefore His coming in judgment is not to be understood literally. His coming in judgment in A.D. 70 is literal in the same way that Jehovah came to judge Egypt (Isa. 19:1).

Second, sound biblical interpretation is neither literal nor spiritual. Sound biblical interpretation begins with a comparative study of texts based on what Milton Terry describes in his highly regarded Biblical Hermeneutics as the "grammatico-historical"8 method. Anyone familiar with Terry knows that he is a favorite of dispensational scholars. Robert Thomas quotes him favorably in his critique of "progressive dispensationalism."9 What Thomas and others fail to note is that Terry was a preterist. This is evident in his Biblical Hermeneutics and Biblical Apocalyptics. The arguments of Milton Terry that Thomas uses to refute "progressive dispensationalism" also apply to his own brand of dispensationalism. I find it ironic that Zondervan, one of the biggest publishers of dispensational literature (e.g., Hal Lindsey's Late Great Planet Earth and numerous prophecy books by John Walvoord) reprinted Biblical Hermeneutics and that it is quoted so favorably by dispensational writers. Terry's exposition on "The Gospel Apocalypse" (Matt. 24) is fully preteristic (438-53). A fuller exposition can be found in his Biblical Apocalyptics as well as a preterist commentary on Revelation.

Let me try to explain the application of Terry's method. In Matthew 24:34, Jesus says "this generation shall not pass away until all these things take place." The Greek word genea cannot be translated "race" (genos: e.g., "chosen race" [1 Pet. 2:9]). Genea means "generation." How do we know what "this generation" means? By comparing the phrase with every other use of "this generation" in the rest of the Bible. You admit that "this generation" in Matthew 23:36 refers to the first-century Jews who heard Jesus. The same is true for every other occurrence of "this generation" in the New Testament. "This generation" occurs fifteen times in the NT, three times in reference to the Olivet discourse (Matt. 24:34; Luke 21:32; Mark 13:30). The other twelve times "this generation" refers to the people to whom Jesus is speaking. See for yourself. It is only in the Olivet Discourse, you maintain, that "this generation" refers to a future generation. I'm sorry, but this is not sound exegesis. You can't claim to interpret the Bible literally and hold this position. I'm much more literal on this passage than you are. The Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. If you want to know what a word or phrase means, then go to the Bible. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that twelve times it means one thing and only once it means something else. Notice the second person plural ("you") used by Jesus throughout the Olivet Discourse. Again, I'm more literal than you are. If Jesus had a future generation in mind, He would have said "they" and "that generation" not "you" and "this."

I have done a verse by verse exposition of Matthew 24-25 in LDM. My methodology is simple: I take Jesus at His word when He says "this generation would not pass away until all these things take place" because I saw how He used "this generation" in other contexts. I soon learned that all the events and signs described by Jesus could easily have been fulfilled prior to and including the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 by comparing Scripture with Scripture. Taking a literal approach to "this generation," the passage requires a pre-A.D. 70 fulfillment.

You even admit "that certain aspects of our Lord's prophecy in Matthew 24 were fulfilled in AD 70. The appearance of false Messiahs, religious deception, the flight of Jewish people into the hills, and the desecration of the Temple-these are all things that occurred in AD 70." I would also add earthquakes (Acts 16:26), famines (11:28), preaching the gospel of the kingdom in the "inhabited earth" (Gr: oikoumene not kosmos in 24:14; see Luke 2:1) as a witness to all the nations (Col. 1:6; 23; Rom. 16:25-26), and everything else because of a literal interpretation of "this generation."

Notice Matthew 24:30: "But immediately after the tribulation of those days...." An interpreter cannot maintain "that certain aspects of our Lord's prophecy in Matthew 24 were fulfilled in AD 70" and some are yet to be fulfilled because the events following verse 29 occur "immediately after." It's an all or nothing package because of verse 34. If you want to portray the partial preterist position accurately, then compare Scripture with Scripture. How does the Bible use similar phraseology in its parts? This is the interpretive key to understand prophecy.

Third, the mourning of the "nations." You write that "'All the nations of the earth' did not mourn in AD 70 (24:30). Quite the contrary, Josephus reports that the Romans were delighted about their hard-fought conquest of Israel." The text actually reads, "All the tribes of the land will mourn." The Greek word for "nations," as you know, is ethnos. Ethnos is not used in 24:30. The Greek word for "tribe" is phule. Matthew uses it twice, once in 24:30 and once in 19:28: "judging the twelve tribes." The Greek word ges can be translated "earth," "land," "soil," or "ground." Because "tribes" is used, translating ges as "land [of Israel]" is appropriate. This fits very well with a first-century, pre-A.D. 70 fulfillment. In fact, on page 14 in the "Bible Question Box" section of the September-October issue of the Christian Jew Foundation there is a discussion of whether the Hebrew word 'erets "should be translated 'the earth' or 'the land.'" You or your editors conclude that the "context would seem to favor the latter." I agree.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




NOTES

1. Jay Adams is a noted exception. See his The Time is at Hand (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1970).

2. Vernard Eller, "Stop the Dating Game," Christianity Today (October 25, 1999), 79. Robert Thomas, a dispensationalist, follows the same line of argument. A literal fulfillment "would require the events to have taken place close to John's lifetime" (Revelation 1-7 [Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1992], 55).

3. James B. Jordan, "Gnosticism Versus History." From a forthcoming book.

4. Hal Lindsey, The Road to Holocaust (New York: Bantam House, 1989), 65. Emphasis in original.

5. John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ: A Commentary (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1966), 274.

6. Walvoord, Revelation, 57.

7. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism Today (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1965), 88.

8. Milton Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, n.d.), 205.

9. Robert L. Thomas, "The Hermeneutics of Progressive Dispensationalism," in The Master's Perspective on Contemporary Issues (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1998), 187-203.

Planetpreterist.com

Copyright © by Planet Preterist - (541 Reads)