| Preterists Or Predators? |
There's a very trendy "new" teaching going around. A book by a long dead J. Stuart Russell (1816-1895) , entitled THE PAROUSIA, first published in 1878, was reprinted in 1983 and 1999. It has reignited a fire that long ago flickered out.
Russell set forth the idea that the second coming of Christ, the judgment day, and the resurrection of the saints were all past events, fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. There is, therefore, no future "second coming" of Christ. The final judgment and the end of the world have occurred already.
This is the philosophy of "preterism". Hundreds of copies of this book are being handed out at conferences every year. Why is this book receiving such a widespread acceptance now when it was barely noticed in the 19th century?
Russell's 1878 book was an attempted resurgence itself. Preterism was first advanced in 1604 by Jesuit Luis de Alcasar to destroy the Reformed Protestant teaching that the papacy was Mystery Babylon, the Great Whore and the historical Antichrist.
That wouldn't have happened had the Catholic church itself not been abusing the book of Revelation by claiming they were God's kingdom on Earth and that we were in the Millennium. Error begets error.
The Jesuits felt that Protestantism was winning the battle over Roman Catholicism by depicting Rome as the Great Harlot Church, Mystery Babylon and the historical antichrist. So they deliberately worked to counteract the Protestant Reformed teaching by propounding the preterist approach to the Apocalypse.
Preterism is largely a reactionary movement I suppose, in response to all the date setting that the turn of the Millennium brought on.
This movement has to resort to allegorical interpretation to force scriptures to fit their preconceived theology. The resurrection becomes a resurrection of Christianity out of the the ashes of the old Mosaic Covenant. We (the Church) become Israel. All prophecies relating to Israel are for us. Jesus' return becomes invisible, much like the Seventh Day Adventists' return of Jesus in 1914. The judgment of the whole world becomes merely metaphorical language used to describe the localized judgment of Jerusalem. The Jews are forever cast aside.
There is great violence done to history too. Nero becomes the antichrist, even though he killed himself 2 years prior to the Roman invasion of Jerusalem in 70AD, and never even visited Jerusalem, let alone sat in the temple.
I can't even begin to imagine how they've explained some of the other prophecies that supposedly have already been fulfilled.
When was Damascus taken away from being a city and turned into a ruinous heap? ...Isaiah 17, Jeremiah 49:23-27
When were the 100 LB hailstones falling from the sky? Rev 16:21
When did a third of the population die?... Rev 9:18
When did this happen?
As one would imagine, there are serious inconsistencies with this view.
"Another hermeneutical shortcoming of preterism relates to the limiting of the promised coming of Christ in 1:7 to Judea. What does a localized judgment hundreds of miles away have to do with the seven churches in Asia? John uses two long chapters in addressing those churches regarding the implications of the coming of Christ for them. For instance, the promise to shield the Philadelphian church from judgment (3:10-11) is meaningless if that judgment occurs far beyond the borders of that city." - Robert L. Thomas
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?
If the resurrection was merely the resurrection of Christianity out of Judaism, then what of Acts 24:15.
Paul here is admitting the Pharisees and himself believe in the same resurrection. The resurrection Pharisees believed in could hardly have been the resurrection of the Church out of Judaism and hence that couldn't be what Paul taught either.
Pharisee's resurrection:
Paul's resurrection:
And how exactly is the resurrection of the unjust a description of the resurrection of the Church out of Judaism. Unless of course we make the unjust a reference to Israel. But then God resurrecting the just and the unjust would mean he resurrected the Church and Judaism. See how complicated this gets. Even their replacement theology is contradictory.
When Did The Church Die
If the church was born on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2 and was raised from the grave of Judaism in AD 70, when did the church die? Before the church can be raised from the dead, it must first die. When did it die? Where in Bible (or secular) history do we read of the church dying? The truth is the church was not raised from the casket of Judaism in AD 70, or at any other time, for that matter.
The Nature Of The Resurrection
In John 11, Jesus returned to Bethany upon the death of his good friend Lazarus. He said this to Lazarus' grieving sister Martha in John 11:23 "Your brother will rise again." How did Martha understand these words of Jesus? Was she affected with the AD 70 doctrine? Absolutely not! She understood exactly what Jesus meant when he told her, "Your brother will rise again." Verse 24 says, "Martha said to him, I know that he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."
Note carefully, Martha understood Jesus to mean that Lazarus would be raised in the resurrection at the last day. She had no knowledge of a resurrected dead Church from the grave of Judaism. All she knew and understood was that her dead brother, Lazarus, would "rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Well, if Jesus taught what J. Stuart Russell and his sympathizers believe about the resurrection and the destruction of Jerusalem, this would have been an ideal time to correct Martha's ignorance.
Is God through with the Jews?
Jesus foretells a time when all of Israel will acknowledge him.
Jesus appearing to destroy Jerusalem in 70AD violates this prophecy. The Jews were not saying this. If they had been saying it in 70AD, wouldn't it have been odd for Jesus to react by destroying them, when if they had said it before his crucifixion, he would have given them the kingdom. If anything the "your house is left unto you desolate" would refer to 70AD and the "Ye shall not see me henceforth, till" is referring to a future coming which is being held back conditionally.
Of course this would fly in the face of preterist replacement theology and therefore must be ignored, and following verses as well:
Sounds like a reconciliation to me, and it's in accord with what's written in Romans and the word's of Jesus himself.
But to be good preterists, we must force Israel to refer to spiritual Israel. That way we can have most of the Old Testament addressed to the Church.
But when did God ever hide his face from the Church? When was the Church scattered among the nations?
We were sent out to preach among the nations, but that certainly isn't the same as being scattered. Preterists must really wrest the scriptures to make them fit their preconcieved theology.
Let's look at some historical inconsistencies as well
The Romans Came from the West, not from the East of Jerusalem.
Prior to 70 AD, we also do not see the great apostasy which Thessalonians chapter 2 tells us of that must occur before Jesus returns. Instead Christianity grew and blossomed until it eventually became the official religion of the Roman empire. Instead of a falling away we see Christianity rapidly expanding.
In addition, if Christ returned in 70 A.D. we should not expect, based upon Matthew 10:22-23 and other New Testament precedent, Christian persecution to continue.
How disappointing it must have been for Christians to be waiting until 70 A.D. for the return of Christ and rest from their persecutions only to have them continue.
Can we even imagine those saints standing for the faith and undergoing persecution and martyrdom in the first few centuries and doing so in total ignorance of the fact they had already been resurrected.
If Paul looked to A. D. 70 as an agent of relief from the groanings and the temptations of the flesh (Rom. 7:25), then why do we still have such - despite the supposed resurrection.
What of war?
If we're living in the new heavens and the new earth and there remain no more prophecies to be fulfilled, then why do the nations still make war?
Zechariah 12-14 parallells Olivet discourse and Revelation which preterists say was fulfilled in 70AD.
Here, Zechariah DOES NOT foretell a complete desolation of Jerusalem. However, in Book VII, Chapter I, Section 1 of The Wars of Jews, Josephus records that Titus completely destroyed the city of Jerusalem, except for the towers. Also, the Jews were completely killed or deported from the city in AD 70, so this prophecy cannot apply to the desolation that occurred at that time.
Notice, the Lord fights against those nations. He doesn't join with them to destroy Jerusalem. The preterists have it backwards.
Why the preterists admit to a literal fulfillment of Old Testament scriptures, and yet force an allegorical fulfillment of New Testament prophecies is beyond me.
In 2 Peter 3:6 the Day of Judgment is compared to the flood of Noah's day. Are we to interpret the flood as the Hyper-Preterist hermeneutic would instruct us to? Was it real water that flooded the whole earth, or was the water symbolic of something? The Hyper-Preterist hermeneutic would constrain us to interpret 2 Peter 3 as symbolic, because it is a passage involving judgment. But because we recognize the flood as a literal event, we also recognize Peter's comparison, which speaks of the earth and its works being burned up. Having a proper hermeneutic of interpretation is vital in understanding Scripture, so that we might honor God by handling His inspired Word aright.
The Lord destroyed the "Old World" with water. "Real, wet water." Saving eight persons. The Lord says that he will destroy this "World" with fire. "REAL, burning fire."
He ascended in a literal physical body, visibly, in front of witnesses. Now he's supposed to have returned invisibly, how is that in like manner?
"The doctrine of the Resurrection, too, was lame (ekwleue) among them: for some of them had no strong belief that there is any resurrection of bodies, having still on them the disease of Grecian foolishness. For indeed all these things were the progeny of the madness which belongs to Heathen Philosophy, and she was the mother of all mischief. Hence, likewise, they had become divided; in this respect also having learned of the philosophers. For these latter were no less at mutual variance, always, through love of rule and vain glory contradicting one another's opinions, and bent upon making some new discovery in addition to all that was before. And the cause of this was, their having begun to trust themselves to reasonings" (Chrysostom, First Epistle Of St. Paul The Apostle, To The Corinthians, Argument, 2).
The Dating Of The Book Of Revelation
We will not, however, incur the risk of pronouncing positively as to the name of Antichrist; for if it were necessary that his name should be distinctly revealed in this present time, it would have been announced by him who beheld the apocalyptic vision. For that was seen no very long time since, but almost in our day, towards the end of Domitian's reign. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book V., Chapter XXX.)
Irenaeus' statement here forms the foundation for dating the book of Revelation since Irenaeus' recounts that the apocalyptic vision of John was seen "towards the end of Domitian's reign," which extended from 81-96 AD. That means the book of Revelation was written well after 70AD.
What's it all mean? It means that all the preterist's arguments are pointless if the book of Revelation was written after 70AD. Then they cannot possibly claim it's prophecies refer to that time. Preterism sinks or swims on the dating of this book. So in typical evasive fashion, they say the "that" in Irenaeus' statement refers to John and not the vision or else they say Irenaeus statement is hopelessly ambiguous.
The only ambiguity lies in the preterist's self delusion. Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, had been a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. He would have been acquainted with the circumstances of John's banishment to the isle of Patmos, the time of it, and the person by whom it had been decreed.
But let's grant them their premise. If John wrote Revelation early (A.D. 64-66) then it is likely that Paul's two letters to Timothy, who was in Ephesus at the time, would overlap with John's writing of Revelation and his letter to the church at Ephesus (Rev. 2:1-7). It would also mean that, Paul likely wrote 2 Timothy after John wrote to the church. The problem is that the error that Christ points out to the Ephesians in Revelation should have surfaced in Paul's epistles if they were written around the same time. However, these problems are not evident in Paul's writings."
Also the church of Laodicea would not have had time to develop into the church described in Revelation 3:14-22 if the early date is the true one. An earthquake devastated that city in A.D. 60 and history tells us that it took them 25 years to rebuild.
And Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna said that no church existed in Smyrna during the ministry of Paul. Since Paul died around A.D. 66-67, that would mean there was no church in existence at Smyrna at the time when the early preterist daters insist John wrote to them.
It was not till near the close of the first century that the first day of the week began to be called 'the Lord's day,' yet it was on 'the Lord's day' that John was in the Spirit, and saw the opening vision of the Apocalypse (Rev. 1:10).
It was not till near the close of the first century that there was a presiding elder, an angel, in each of the Churches. Previous to this the elders of a Church were always classed together, but each of the seven Churches of Asia seems to have had a presiding officer, or elder, when the Apocalypse was written.
Although the Gnostic errors had begun to show themselves in the time of Paul, but they had not been matured and organised under heresiarchs before the close of the first century; yet we hear of the Nicolaitanes, a sect of Gnostics, in two of the messages to the Churches of Asia (Rev. 2:6,15).
The churches addressed in Revelation all have properties of second generation churches, not new one's that had just been established. All this evidence strongly favors a late date. The only reason Preterists date the book of Revelation as early as they do, despite the internal evidence, is because their theory absolutely depends on it.
What is the appeal of preterism?
I think that's part of it. They speak evil of the truth to draw people after them.
But I also think it's a symptom of our modern society. Positive thinking is all the rage. People want to hear smooth things, they don't want doom and gloom. Preterism is a religion. It is a house of cards based on no other foundation then that of human desire. With it's message of no future judgement and that all is well and nothing is going to happen, it is very pleasing to the ear.
Also it's belief that the Kingdom of God is already here and all we have to do is claim it, appeals to human pride, that we can establish the kingdom ourselves. That's the same thinking the Jews had when they tried to overthrow the Romans after rejecting Jesus.
Ramifications
Let's allow preterism to come to it's logical end.
The error of making the resurrection refer to the resurrection of man's spirit or to the resurrection of Israel is an attack on the resurrection of Christ himself, for if Christ's resurrection is a true paradigm of ours, then his and ours must be identical. The believer's bodily resurrection is tied to the resurrection of Christ, whose resurrection is the down payment of ours.
His tomb was empty. Why was his tomb empty if the resurrection wasn't a physical resurrection. He's the firstborn, if we're not raised in the same manner as he is then how can he be called the firstborn. Our resurrection would be too different.
The fact that there were still holes in the side of Christ and imprints of nails in his hands testifies that the body that was crucified was the same body that was resurrected (Jn. 20:25, 27).
If we spiritualize the future physical resurrection of the believer, we are in fact spiritualizing the historic resurrection of Christ, no matter how much preterists protest to the contrary.
And if we deny the physical resurrection of Christ's flesh, then we deny his accomplishment on the cross.
It is important to understand that the preterist movement is a Christological error as well as a prophetic error. The fall of just one "incarnation-domino" will lead to the fall of a second domino, etc. No Second Coming in the flesh means no resurrection of the flesh and no resurrection of the flesh means there was no incarnation.
Watch the dominoes fall. We have here a "dispensable Christology" as well as a "dispensable eschatology."
No More Lord's Supper
Other preterists argue for the discontinuation of the Lord's Supper. Why? Because Christians are to partake of the Supper "till He come" (1 Cor. 11:26), and he came in 70 AD
They are simply following their theology to its logical conclusion. Let's continue in this vein:
No More Marriage
Jesus said in Matt. 22:30, "For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven."
According to the AD 70 doctrine we have been in the resurrection for 1,930 years. Therefore, I suppose that we should not be marrying. I guess this means that the Lord's teaching about marriage, divorce, and remarriage is not applicable today, since we are in the resurrection.
No More Denying Ungodliness
If 2:13 is a reference to a.d. 70, as preterist generally believe, then the "present age" in 2:12 would have ended when 2:13 was fulfilled. Therefore, the total admonition of 2:12 was temporary and applicable only to Christians up until a.d. 70. This would mean that the instruction "to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age" would not directly apply to the current age, but to the past age which ended in a.d. 70
No More Watching
Full preterism is very dangerous in that it can lead to what Michael Macon calls "lazy virgin syndrome." What need is there to keep one's lamp filled with oil if the bridegroom has already come?
Despite warning after warning in the New Testament to watch:
Seeing all the inconsistencies in the preterist viewpoint, one might wonder how one can stick to it
Isn't it interesting how in these last days, with events unfolding so rapidly, in a time we were warned would abound in false teaching and the love of many would grow cold, someone is telling us to sleep.