In past articles, I’ve dealt extensively with the so-called “timing texts” often adduced by Hyper-Preterists in support of their view that Jesus Christ returned in A.D. 70. I want to make clear my position on the doctrine of imminency. It is no act of surrender to say that when God said that something was “near,” or “at hand,” then it was truly imminent!
However, there are two foundational issues which Preterists miss when correctly viewing the concept of timing. Firstly, they fail to examine from whose perspective the consummation was imminent. Secondly, they do not recognize, as an important exegetical principle, that phrases like “soon,” “near,” and “at hand” cannot be converted to past fulfillment without changing the meaning of the terms employed. All too often, the Preterist jumps to a conclusion which is not directly warranted by the text, and ends up substituting his authority for that of the inspired Word.
Failure to recognize that in many instances, imminency involves God’s plan and purpose, and not man’s perception of things, prevents a correct analysis of the timing elements found in the New Testament. If this imminency relates to the temporal sphere alone, then it is reasonable (in many cases) to say that something might have already happened. But the words delivered to the apostles of the Lamb are the words of God. They represent God’s thoughts, rather than man’s (2 Peter 1: 21).
Of course, it is safe to say, that in a good majority of cases, imminency does pertain to the temporal realm. There was certainly a sense in which were things were rapidly nearing their consummation in the first century (Romans 13: 11; 1 Cor. 10: 11).
But to claim, in light of this imminency, that the events are now behind us, strikes me as an unwarranted trifling with Scripture. After all, Preterists act like the only way out of the difficulty is to say that something already happened. But is this the only theological solution? An in-depth study of these issues has assured me there are other options more in keeping with consistent exposition of the Word.
The main trouble with the Preterist interpretation is that it employs an exegetical double-standard. It takes phrases such as “soon,” “near” and “at hand,” in a pseudo-literal sense, and after converting these statements to past fulfillment, proceeds to spiritualize and/or change the meaning of large portions of Scripture. This is a form of a priori logic, in which the conclusions are “prior” to the gathering of the evidence. Obviously, such a method is not in keeping with the laws of exegesis. If there can be found a more reasonable method which relies on uniform principles of interpretation, will we accept it?
When the consensus is taken in, it is clear that a consistent literal approach does away with the problems created by the Preterist point of view. Such a method allows us to take the timing statements in a literal sense, while also keeping the plain and natural meaning of the governing referent before us. This method will lead to one or two results. It will either force us to deny the validity of the Bible; or it will lead us to adopt an Apotelesmatic system of interpretation.
The Apotelesmatic view holds that consummation of the eschaton was indeed imminent during the first century. However, its fulfillment was subsequently postponed. Rather than relying on random conclusions, the Apostlesmatic approach finds evidence that the first-century coming of Christ was dependent on Jewish national repentance (Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21). Because the Jews did not repent, their city was destroyed, and the second coming relegated to a future time.
Such a conclusion is easy to understand, and solves the difficulties created by the imminency factor. It is also highly commended, inasmuch as it honors the authority of the New Testament canon, and sees that the teachings contained therein are as fully applicable today as they were in the first century.
This method departs radically from the Preterist interpretation, which often leaves one wondering whether the great majority of the Word of God is now out of date. The danger of such a view is that spurious replacement Gospels may be substituted for the “one faith” that Jesus Christ and His hand-picked apostles laid down in the New Testament. In the end, the interpreter is found in possession of more objective truth than the New Testament itself. However, the Apotelesmatic approach obviates this concern, affirming the currency of the canon, as well as the revealed teachings of the Bible — plus nothing, minus nothing.
In past months, I’ve written a number of articles dealing with the Apotelesmatic system of interpretation. These articles can be found by clicking here. The particular method of interpretation I employ is not new at all, but was systematized by E.W. Bullinger in his 1911 work The Foundations of Dispensational Truth. While I would disagree with many of Dr. Bullinger’s conclusions, I believe that his leading principles of interpretation are accurate; at least they are systematic, and show a marked adavancement over the Preterist method.
If anyone should have questions concerning issues of timing, audience relevence, and other concepts upon which doctrines of Preterism are built, they may contact me personally at bsimmons@basicisp.net. As always, let us be honest in our investigations, and Berean in our approach.
