JESUS DID NOT RETURN IN A. D. 70
A recent item in our Presbyterian journal states that folks of the Reformed persuasion have begun regarding the partial preterist view with favor. One might expect this since both groups tend to see prophetic scriptures as nonliteral.
If we place Matthew 24 alongside Luke 21, we see that both begin with the subject of the future destruction of the temple. Both accounts end with the same event, the visible coming of the Son of Man. At the end of Luke's account he says "your redemption is drawing near" but Matthew calls it the gathering of the "elect." Mark says some of the elect will come from heaven, and some from the earth. Who are these elect if not the ones that "through Jesus God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep"? I Thess. 4:14
If Revelation has been wholly fulfilled, then Satan is no longer active in the world because of the five fold lock in Revelation 20:1-3. But human experience testifies to the present truth of 1 Peter 5:8 (KJV) "Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour."
Preterism does not solve the problem of evil. Jesus said the field is the world. He said, "Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers." Matthew 13:40-41 (ESV) But evil still exists in this world and lawbreakers abound. Jesus' coming is still future.
Jesus taught us to pray, "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." God intends to remove evil from this earth. It will not happen until Jesus returns. God's plan is that the people whom He ransomed will be "a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth." Rev. 5:10 (ESV) This is not happening now, proving that preterism is an illusion.
Preterism is highly unreasonable as to visibility of the rapture. When Jesus came the first time in a relatively secret coming, non Christian historians noted His presence. His second coming is not to be secret, but "every eye shall see Him." And yet if He already came in the first century, how can one reasonably explain that there is no written record of the event.
Matthew wrote, "Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Matt. 24:30 This is the opposite of a secret rapture. It could not have been hidden. No event in history will be as open and manifest and shocking to mankind as the coming of Jesus for the Church.
I Thessalonians 4:16, 17 tells us that the rapture will occur at the parousia of Jesus. 1 Corinthians 15 tells us that at the parousia of Jesus, the bodies of Christians will becme immortal. Matthew 24 is specifically about the parousia of Jesus. That is the time of the rapture.
Since the parousia is the time of the resurrection of the saints, it is also the time when Israel will turn to the Lord. Paul suggested this when he wrote, Romans 11:15 (ESV) "For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?" Zechariah also mentioned it when he wrote, Zech. 12:10 (ESV) "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and pleas for mercy, so that, when they look on me, on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a firstborn." Israel did not turn to Jesus in A.D.70. It should be obvious that Israel has not yet turned to the Lord.
This book shows how full preterism is not consistent with what the Bible says. Alleged fulfillments do not fit Bible predictions and depend on spiritualization of the words of scripture. The preterist tries to fit a round peg into a square hole, and so he deforms the truth of scripture.
The theory is properly called a heresy although it is understandable why some people accept it. Preterist arguments are used by Jewish antimissionary writers to try to prove that Jesus was a false prophet. They say that Jesus did not do what the Messiah is supposed to do.
People accept preterism because the Bible presents the rapture as impending. They reason that if God didn't mean it, why did He say it? "Near," "at hand," "soon," etc. must mean what we understand them to mean. But God has told us specifically that He does not look at time the way we do. "He said, "My thoughts are not your thoughts." The terms He uses are intended to keep us alert, to live always in the consciousness that He is near. He did not tell us when Jesus will return, and it is unwise to set dates.
One reason people tend to believe some form of preterism is that Luke 21 clearly refers to A. D. 70 when Roman armies overthrew Jerusalem. Yet Luke's account, like Matthew 24, also extends to events that have not happened. The "times of the Gentiles" have not yet been completed for Jerusalem. They must be completed before Jesus will return.
A. D 70 cannot be the time of the Great Tribulation because Jesus said that "immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened ... and they shall see the son of man coming in the clouds ...." This suggests that the parousia of Jesus was to come immediately after the tribulation. How can the partial preterist say it is still future? If the rapture is still future, the Great Tribulation cannot be past.
Jesus said in Matthew 24:21 (ESV)"For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be." Hank Hanegraff says this is hyperbole. This shows he takes literally only the scriptures that fit his interpretive scheme.
Preterists claim that Matthew 24 is now completely fulfilled. They spiritualize to make history agree with the prophecy. This is an error. If only part of a prophecy is evidently fulfilled, do not spiritualize the rest of it to fit it in the past. A prophecy may have some parts already fulfilled, but the rest of it lies in the future. Listen to what the Spirit advises: "The vision is yet for an appointed time, but at the end it shall speak, and not lie; though it tarry, wait for it; because it will surely come, it will not tarry." Hab. 2:3 God said, "Wait for it."
If Matthew 24 is fulfilled, then we must now be in the Milennium. We can see that is not so. The preterist solves that problem by saying we must not take literally such predictions but we must spiritualize them.
Preterism says Revelation has been fulfilled. John wrote in Rev. 16:20 (ESV) "And every island fled away, and no mountains were to be found." If preterism is true, there are now no mountains on the earth.
The tendency to spiritualize loses precious truth. For example, a man may claim the story of Jesus walking on water is not to be taken literally but intended to tell us of the high esteem toward Jesus felt by His followers. A man may claim the story of Jesus raised from the dead is intended to tell us of the persistence of His moral teaching. That is what spiritualising can do for us. It is a weakness in amillennial and preterist doctrine. These examples may seem extreme, but the point is valid.
Matthew 24 says that Jesus will return "on the clouds of heaven." One teacher says repeatedly on the radio that these clouds are not to be taken literally. But why not? In Acts 1 when Jesus ascended we are told that "a cloud took Him out of their sight." If He is to return "in the same way as you saw Him go," why are the clouds in Matthew 24 nonliteral?
Preterists and amillennialists say the term "thousand years" in Revelation 20 should be taken as nonliteral. The number is found in the Bible over five hundred times. I do not find a single instance where it cannot be literal. It is used six times in chapter 20. In this way God emphasizes a doctrine that is important.
Normal speech usually contains some nonliteral terms. This happens in the Bible. But when must terms be taken as nonliteral? Someone wrote, "In order to be considered symbolic, the language in question must possess (a) some degree of absurdity when taken literally and (b) some degree of clarity when taken symbolically." That may not solve the problem. My employer pointed out that a virgin birth among humans is absurd. How many human babies do you know of who were conceived without sperm?
Since God is Author of Scripture, we must rely on His Holy Spirit to discern what He intends. If a student of the Bible is inclined to take a verse non-literally, he should examine his reasons for so choosing. It may be an unwarranted assumption, an unbiblical prejudice, or plain unbelief.
Why does the preterist or the amilennialist want to take some terms as nonliteral? It is a bias that is subjective and not logically required.
If a person has decided that Calvinism is correct, he will spiritualize Ezekiel's description of a future temple. If a person has accepted dispensationalism, he will disregard scriptures that logically require a posttribulation rapture. If one seeks truth, one must put aside his biases and listen carefully to the Scripture.
Preterism is blind toward Israel. James Russell wrote that Jesus' "mission as King of Israel is fulfilled; the covenant nation no longer exists." This sounds like Roman Catholic doctrine. The theologians of the Reformation never succeeded in completely escaping Catholic errors.
The Bible tells us that Israel will be regathered before she is converted. Ezek. 36:24-26 We are also told the temple will be standing when Jesus returns. Malachi 3:1-4.
Scripture says, "For the children of Israel shall abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim: Afterward shall the children of Israel return, and seek the LORD their God, and David their king; and shall fear the LORD and his goodness in the latter days." Hosea 3:4, 5 We lose truth here if we spiritualize.
Most preterists would take literally the warnings in Deuteronomy 29 and 30 that say God would scatter Israel from their land for disobedience, but the promises of regathering are taken as nonliteral. This is inconsistent.
In Matthew 23:39 Jesus implied that when He returns, Jerusalem will have turned to the Lord. Did that happen in the first century? Has it happened yet?
From Hebrews 1:2 we surmise that we are in the last days. It has been so for two thousand years. Today most Jews do not even believe in God. In the most recent national election, only twenty-five percent of American Jews voted for the candidate who claims to believe the Bible. Israel is not yet seeking the Lord their God.
Hank Hanegraaff, the Bible Answer Man, likes to ridicule those who take Bible prophecy literally and accuses us of "wooden literalism." He denies that he is a partial preterist yet he says the Great Tribulation ocurred in the first century. That is preterist opinion. Since Matthew 24:21 says there can be only one such time, Hank's idea means it will not happen in the future. Jesus said He will return at the parousia, "immediately after the tribulation," and yet Hank says the Tribulation is past and the rapture is still future. I heard Hank recently admit that full preterism is heresy.
More recently I heard Hank say that everything that Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse has already come to pass. So now he embraces that which he recently called heresy. He is confused.
For instance, when he sees O. T. language in the N. T., he treats it like a recycling of O. T. ideas, not realizing that the new gives fullfilment to that which the old only suggested. He said recently that Revelation deals with the destruction of Tyre. That is not true. John deals with what is future, using expressions and events familiar to his readers from the past to describe that which lay ahead.
He likes to say of those of us who disagree with him that we do not know the Old Testament. This is an assumption and it is unfair. He finds in the O. T. some language that resembles language in a prophetic N. T. passage. and he assumes they cannot refer to the same event.
I notice that Jews trying to keep Jesus out of the text of Isaiah 53 take terms there in a nonliteral sense.
It is striking fact that many Old Testament prophecies were understood literally by New Testament writers. Isaiah said a virgin would bear a child, and N. T. writers take that literally. David wrote that the soul of Messiah would not be left in Sheol and Peter claimed that Jesus rose from the dead. Wooden literalism!
Harold Camping reads the name Jerusalem in Luke 21 and he says Jerusalem means the Church. So this verse means God is telling Christians to get out of the churches. Is this not heresy?
Dr. R. C. Sproul wrote a book on the subject and he accepts a partial preterist position. He lists scriptures that seem to support that position, but he apparently does not know how to explain them.
Dr. Bob Finley of Christian Aid Mission that does a wonderful work, shares preterist ideas. He sees no Bible prediction of a future conversion of Israel as a nation.
I wish it were not necessary to contradict MY Christian brothers. The basis for my disagreement is the Scripture.
It was given for teaching, for reproof, and for correction. Using it for these purposes is displaying Christian love.
Why does God permit heresy to appear among Christian leaders, some doing valuable work? It is that "they which are approved may be made manifest among you." I Cor. 11:19 It makes possible a just decision in the day of judgment relating to personal faithfulness.
Daniel wrote "some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them and to purge them and to make them white, even to the time of the end." 11:35
The main claims of preterists are examined and refuted in this book, point by point. Here are some examples.
Preterists teach that the rapture happened in AD 70 and the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled at that time. But Jesus said, "And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh." But instead of redemption, that time brought destruction and death. This prophecy properly refers to the future.
The last chapter of Revelation contains Jesus' words, "I come quickly" three times, and in verse 6, "things which must shortly be done," and in verse 10,"the time is at hand." This is used by preterists to prove a first century return.
A difficulty with this is that we don't know God's definition of the terms shortly, at hand, and so forth. These terms are not precise in that they don't specify a number of minutes, months, or millennia. We also read "that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2 Peter 3:8 The One who inhabits eternity does not see time as we do.
God promised to send Elijah before the great and terrible day of the Lord. Did Elijah come before A. D. 70? This cannot have been fulfilled by John the Baptist because after John was killed, Jesus said Elijah's work lay yet ahead. Matthew 17:11
Revelation 5:10 says the saints will reign on the earth. That obviously isn't happening today. Jesus promised His apostles that they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes. Has that happened?
Jesus said that when He comes, all the nations will be gathered and will be separated, some for His kingdom and some for eternal fire. Matthew 25:32, 41 Did that already happen?
If Jesus came in A. D. 70, why do early church creeds not know it? The Didache at the end of the first century expresses belief in a future, not past, coming of Jesus.
Preterists say the expression "end of the age" refers only to the end of the Jewish age. Jesus promised His disciples, "I am with you always, to the end of the age." Is He with us only until A. D. 70?
Jesus said in Matthew 24:21 that the Great Tribulation will be worse than any before or after. But the war in the 1940's killed six million Jews, many more than in the first century.
Preterists say a first century return of Jesus is required by Matt. 26:64. Jesus said to the high priest, "But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven." But here Jesus is saying that Caiaphas will appear for judgment at the Great White Throne of Revelation 20.
To be protected from errors like preterism, one must know the Bible well. Matthew 24 and parallel passages in Mark and Luke, called the Olivet Discourse, are the place to begin because the information there, coming directly from the Lord Jesus, maps out the future without excessive symbolism.
In my book, "The Rapture Examined," it is clearly proven that Matthew 24 refers to the rapture of the Church, the elect. When one places Matthew 24 in parallel with Luke 21, it becomes clear that the rapture of the Church must lie in the future, not in the past.
Sometimes a portion of Scripture has more than one application. See my book A Clearer View of the Rapture. So Luke 21 does refer to events of A. D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed, yet the prophecy extends into the future. Luke 21, unlike Matthew 24 and Mark 13, does not use the term "great tribulation" because the Holy Spirit intends us to understand that the destruction of Jerusalem is not the Great Tribulation. Luke was focusing on the first century ruin of Jerusalem. Matthew described events yet future.
Luke wrote, "And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Today in the twenty-first century, Jerusalem is STILL BEING TRODDEN DOWN BY THE GENTILES. Then Luke wrote: "then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and great glory." The parousia of Jesus MUST come after the "times of the Gentiles" are fulfilled. That is yet future.
Even John Calvin knew that A. D. 70 was not the Great Tribulation. He wrote, "Certain interpreters wrongly take the tribulation of those days as the ruin of Jerusalem; in fact this is a universal gathering-up ... of all the evils of which Christ had already spoken."
Notice this: "Behold, the day of the LORD cometh, and thy spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city. Then shall the LORD go forth, and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the mountain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south." This did not happen in A. D. 70. The Holy Spirit is not wrong here. This is yet future.
Preterists quote Jesus' words that "This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." The preterist thinks this removes all doubt.
A careful student would ask if the word genea can be translated in other ways. The KJV translates it "nation" in Phil. 2:15. It is translated "age" in Phil. 3:5. It is true that the Greek word genea may be translated sometimes as generation. But Jesus did not speak in Greek. He spoke in Aramaic, and the word used there in Aramaic versions cannot be translated as generation. It means kind, race, or family.
If anyone insists that "generation" is a proper translation of genea in this verse, Jesus said, "No sign will be given to this generation." Mark 8:12 Since in MAtthew 24:15 Jesus did give a sign, Obviously Matthew 24 cannot be for that generation.
Preterists seek support for their position with another verse. Matthew 10:23 "But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." But look at the context. Jesus was sending out the Twelve on a preaching trip. He said the trip will not be long. Jesus will gather them together again before they finish because there are things to do before He goes to the cross. But this has nothing to do with His second coming.
Preterists seek support with this. Matthew 16:28 "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." If the preterist interpretation is correct, then these disciples will die after they experience the rapture at the parousia of Jesus. Obviously this cannot happen. John is one who saw in vision on Patmos Jesus coming in His kingdom. Peter tells what he saw on the Mt. of Transfiguration. These do not prove the rapture is past.
Preterists support their view by insisting that Revelation was written before A. D. 70. They point out that John in his vision at 11:1 measured the temple. That must mean the temple was still standing. But in Ezekiel 40 a man was measuring the temple, and who will argue that Ezekiel's temple was standing at that time?
Most scholars recognize a date of about A. D. 95 for writing the book of Revelation. Support for it goes back to A. D. 150. The first clear reference to the time of Nero is in A. D. 550 in a Syriac copy of the New Testament.
But even if the early date for writing Revelation were true, it doesn't change the fact that the preterist model does not fit facts of history. So the preterist must avoid a literal method of interpretation. He must spiritualize in order to force a fit.
If Jesus returned in A. D. 70. why did the Church not notice it? The Didache, written around the beginning of the second century, expected that the Great Tribulation and the appearance of the antichrist were still in the future.
It is not possible for Jesus' second coming to be not noticed. "Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."
Preterists say Jesus returned around A. D. 70. Malachi 3 said of His return, "And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the LORD an offering in righteousness. 4Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the LORD, as in the days of old." Is it true that in A. D. 70 the offering of Judah and Jerusalem was pleasing to the Lord? Obviously it is not so.
The preterist claim is that Satan was bound at the cross. Rev. 20:2 says he cannot deceive the nations and we are now living in the Millennium. This contradicts Ephesians 6:12 which explains that we wrestle against spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies. It also contradicts the daily newspaper.
They say it was a "partial binding." But look at the text.
An angel SEIZED the dragon. He BOUND him. He THREW him into the pit. He SHUT it. He SEALED it over him. These five action verbs show that this was not a partial binding.
Since there are many verses that are clearly misapplied by preterists, I cannot include all of them here. If the reader would like to bring one or more of them to my attention, I would be happy to consider them.
There are books that try to present all views on a subject. There is a place for that approach. But I have chosen to concentrate on the original, the text of the Bible. One learns to recognise the counterfit by studying the genuine.
This book was published by Vantage Press, runs 50 pages, and is available for $7 from John E. Young, 6 Robert St., Rockaway, NJ 07866
There is also a one chapter discussion of the preterist error in my book, "Revelation: A Clearer View," available from WinePress Publishing.
| Site Tools |
|
|
|
|
|
Verse of the Day |
|
|
