Since I started this blog back in July of 2008, I’ve had lots of correspondence from people who endorse the Preterist view.  Preterists basically believe that most, if not all, of Bible prophecy was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.  The view strongly relies on the support of liberal scholarship, and agrees with that perspective known as “Replacement Theology.”  Preterists believe that the church is the “true Israel.”  And thus Christians who look for the future restoration of Abraham’s natural descendants are branded as misguided and erroneous –  sometimes even subversive.

   But when one hears these views espoused, one really has to wonder whether or not proponents of Preterism have seriously studied their Old Testaments.  For even after the fulfillment of the curses of Deut. 28 (which Preterists say happened in A.D. 70), a restoration is promised, during which the Lord will re-gather His scattered people and bring them into the land of their fathers (Deut. 30: 1-5).  This will be accompanied by the regeneration of the remnant (Deut. 30: 6) and judgments upon the Gentiles (see Deut. 30: 7).  According to the Old Testament prophets, the Gentile judgments are inextricably tied to the outcome of the Day of the Lord (see Zephaniah 3: 8; Micah 5: 15; Zech. 14: 3).

   Nobody who studies the Old Testament according to its grammatical, lexical, and obvious sense, will fail to see that Israel’s predicted blessings will be realized at the Lord’s second coming. 

   Even prophecies which speak of the New Covenant look forward to a restoration of the literal city of Jerusalem (Jer. 31: 38-40).  It is simply impossible to discount the many prophecies which speak of Israel’s ultimate salvation and restoration, without wilfully ignoring the entire meta-narrative of the Old Testament.  And the New Testament doesn’t trump that, either.  For Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Romans 15: 8).  And Paul says that the “gifts and calling of God are without change of mind” (Romans 11: 29).

  One of the reasons I am a Dispensationalist, is that I believe in the literal, historical fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ.  The prophecies regarding Christ’s first advent were all fulfilled in what spiritualizers would probably consider a ridiculously literal fashion.  And yet past realization forms the foundation and precedent for future fulfillment.  Even Preterists utilize this working principle when they (wrongly) cite Old Testament passages in support of their allegorical reading of Matthew 24.

   But the prophets speak in literal terms.  Consider, for example, the New Testament fulfillment of Isaiah 53: 4, in which the prophet said: “Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.”  Well, says the allegorizer, this must be restricted to something spiritual.  No, says the New Testament!  It involves physical healing of the sick (see Matt. 8: 16-17).  We are not suggesting that the prophecy doesn’t also include spiritual healing (that is obvious from a literal reading of Isaiah).  However, the New Testament record declares that the “fulfillment” of Isaiah 53: 4 was literal and historical in nature.  

  Now, since the Old Testament makes no distinction between the first and second advents of Christ, how are unfulfilled Messianic texts to be interpreted?  They must not be carelessly relegated to Christ’s first advent, as some of the church fathers used to do.  For if the Messiah’s work was totally fulfilled with His first advent, what need was there for a second coming?  Neither should we relegate second advent prophecies to any A.D. 70 ‘judgment coming.’  For according to Preterists, that was not a personal coming of Christ.  Yet the Old Testament Messianic prophecies deal with a literal, historical Jesus.  Will Preterists be so bold as to claim that the Old Testament never refers to the second advent?  If that is the case, then what Scriptures was Paul using when he taught Christ’s second coming?  Ah, thou art beginning to see my point, young man!

   The simple fact is, that the Old Testament predicts both advents of Christ, and the New Testament makes the distinction between the two, which allows us to go back to the O.T. and see which prophecies were fulfilled, and which remain future.  Lest we be lost in confusion, all Messianic prophecies are to be interpreted according to the same “normative” hermeneutic.  And once this principle is followed, it becomes clear that Israel will be saved and restored at Christ’s second advent.  Paul says so (see Romans 11: 25-27).

  Of course, I don’t have any personal complaint against those who endorse the Preterist view.  I actually have friends who are Preterists! Nor do I have any personal problem with those who stand against Dispensational theology as a matter of principle  –  so long as no fines or anathemas are levied upon those (like myself) who respectfully disagree with them.  My main complaint is against that straitened dogmatism which seeks to nullify the promises of God, and wipe Israel off the prophetic board.  It is largely because of such views that this site exists.  As long as Preterism remains an active theology on the internet, my business here is to point out the glaring possibility that perhaps —  oh, just perhaps!  —  prophecy ain’t really like they thought it was.  Maranatha!