Archive for apotelesmatic interpretation
Heaven And Earth Might Have Passed Away!
Matthew 5: 17-18: “Think not that I am come to loosen down (Gr. kataluo) the law and the prophets. I am not come to throw down, but to fill up. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth MAY PASS, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all MAY TAKE PLACE.”
If we look at Christ’s words in the original Greek text, we’ll find that He is making a conditional statement. This is verified by use of the particle ‘an,’ which always modifies the action of the verb, making it contingent on some condition express or implied.
Young’s Literal Translation gives a more faithful rendering than that of the AV:
| 17. `Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill; 18. for, verily I say to you, till that the heaven and the earth may pass away, one iota or one tittle may not pass away from the law, till that all may come to pass. |
Not one jot or tittle would pass from the law, until certain things might have happened.
–The heaven and earth MIGHT have passed away.
–All things MIGHT have taken place.
According to E.W. Bullinger’s “Critical Lexicon and Concordance To The English and Greek New Testament,” the word “kataluo” means “to loosen down, to dissolve, i.e., to disunite the parts of anything, spoken of buildings to throw down, to put an end to” (pg. 220). The verb occurs 17 times in the N.T., and is rendered ”dissolve,” “destroy,” “throw down,” “overthrow,” “lodge,” “be guest,” and “come to nought.” The scope and context of a given passage will determine its precise meaning.
It Matthew 5: 17, ”kataluo” clearly bears the primary sense. Christ didn’t want to loosen down, or dismantle, the law and the prophets. Which is why He offered the whole Messianic package to Israel (Romans 15: 8). Unfortunately, Israel never accepted their Messiah, and so the package was broken up, and salvation sent to the Gentiles (Acts 28: 28).
Instead of all things being fulfilled in A.D. 70, the temple was destroyed, and the Messianic promises that would accompany Christ’s coming in glory were postponed to a future time. This is because the hope of Israel is conditional on NATIONAL REPENTANCE (Hosea 5: 15; Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21).
During the first century, a special window of grace was given to make good the fulfillment of all things that were written. The whole package was held out to Israel until this window was closed. During this period of opportunity, Christ was “STANDING at the door,” waiting for Israel’s repentance (James 5: 9; Rev. 3: 20; cf. Acts 7: 56). The saints were told that they could hasten the day of God! (2 Peter 3: 11-12).
But since the nation didn’t repent, fulfillment never materialized. The parousia was postponed, and the “hope of Israel” put into abeyance. The Dispensation of the Mystery (Eph. 3: 9) was interposed between Israel’s “rejection” and their “renewal,” to fill up the gap created by the breaking short of the Pentecostal Dispensation.
So what does that mean? It means that once the time-frame for fulfillment of the condition ran out, there was no reason why certain jots and tittles of the law should not pass away.
We are not suggesting that any prophecy fell to the ground. The package that Christ originally offered was simply dismantled. The promised threats were executed upon the covenant nation for their unbelief; but the promises of glory were not fulfilled, because they involve the PAROUSIA of Christ. Because certain jots and tittles passed from the law in A.D. 70, the fulfillment of Israel’s blessings is still future!
Old Testament Timing-Texts
Contrary to Preterist belief, the Old Testament contains many statements which represent an event as “near at hand,” or scheduled to take place “soon.” Parallel New Testament statements would convince many that, when the words were spoken or written, guaranteed fulfillment was right around the corner. However, a careful look at the Old Testament concept of prophetic imminence leads us to believe that God often postpones events which He predicts must take place shortly (see, e.g., Genesis 2: 17; cf. 5: 5; 1 Kings 21: 27-29; 2 Kings 20: 1-6; Jeremiah 18: 7-10; Jonah 3: 4; cf. 3: 10).
The principle holds good especially when unconditional promises related to the Abrahamic covenant are offered during a ”probationary period” associated with the conditional (two-sided) Mosaic covenant. When such is the case, all offers become contingent upon the fulfillment of conditions contained in the subsidiary covenant.
Keeping in mind that in God’s concept of time, a day is as a thousand years (2 Peter 3: 8), all timing texts will be seen to work according to a principle which we laid down several months ago, and which we summed up as follows: “By way of authority, all imminency-texts are referable to God’s standard of time. By way of application, they may refer to any epoch of human history; albeit, removal of the application can never nullify the authority.”
To help Christians in their studies, we are now providing a list of every timing text in the Old Testament. These texts have been gathered through repeated readings of the Old Testament, and not by any other source. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first time all these texts have been brought together under one head.
We send forth this offering with the hopes that our endeavors may be of value to others. To further assist the reader, each passage has been dated according to the chronological system of Dr. E.W. Bullinger, further details of which may be found in Appendix 50 of the “Companion Bible.”
*********
(Deut. 32: 35) ”To me belongeth vengeance and recompense; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste.” [B.C. 1452].
(Psalm 37: 1) “Fret not thyself because of evildoers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity. For they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.” [c. B.C. 950].
(Psalm 37: 10) “For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be. Yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.” [c. B.C. 950].
(Isaiah 10: 25) “For yet a very little while, and the indignation shall cease, and mine anger in their destruction.” [B.C. 631-630].
(Isaiah 13: 5) “Howl, ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty.” [B.C. 649-588].
(Isaiah 29: 17) “Is it not yet a very little while, and Lebanon shall be turned into a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be esteemed as a forest?“ [B.C. 649-588].
(Isaiah 46: 13) “I bring near my righteousness; it shall not be far off, and my salvation shall not tarry: and I will place salvation in Zion for Israel my glory.” [B.C. 649-588].
(Isaiah 56: 1) “Thus saith the Lord, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.” [B.C. 603-588].
(Jeremiah 48: 16) “The calamity of Moab is near to come, and his affliction hasteth fast.” [B.C. 496].
(Jeremiah 51: 3) “For thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel; The daughter of Babylon is like a threshingfloor, it is time to thresh her: yet a little while, and the time of her harvest shall come.” [c. B.C. 496].
(Lamentations 4: 18) “They hunt our steps, that we cannot go in our streets: our end is near, our days are fulfilled: for our end is come.” [c. B.C. 477].
(Ezekiel 7: 12) “The time is come, the day draweth near: let not the buyer rejoice, nor the seller mourn: for wrath is upon all the multitude thereof.” [B.C. 484].
(Ezekiel 30: 3) “For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen.” [B.C. 479].
(Ezekiel 36: 8] “But ye, O mountains of Israel, ye shall shoot forth your branches and yield your fruit to My people of Israel; for they are at hand to come.” [B.C. 477].
(Hosea 1: 4) “And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.” [B.C. 489-411].
(Joel 1: 15) “Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come.” [B.C. 489-411].
(Joel 2: 1) “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in My holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is night at hand.” [B.C. 488-477].
(Joel 3: 14) “Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision: for the day of the Lord is near in the valley of decision.” [B.C. 488-477].
(Obadiah 15) “For the day of the Lord is near upon all the heathen: as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.” [B.C. 482 or 472].
(Zephaniah 1: 7) “Hold thy peace at the presence of the Lord God: for the day of the Lord is at hand: for the Lord hath prepared a sacrifice, He hath bid His guests.” [B.C. 518].
(Zephaniah 1: 14) “The great day of the Lord is near, it is near, and hasteth greatly, even the voice of the day of the Lord: the mighty man shall cry there bitterly.” [B.C. 518].
(Haggai 2: 6) “For thus saith the Lord of Hosts; yet once, it is a little while, and I will shake the heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and the dry land.” [B.C. 410].
Dr. Randall Price– On The Postponement of Daniel’s 70th Week
The justification for a delay in the fulfillment of the 70th week is drawn from the structural divisions of the 70 weeks, Jesus’ placement of the events described in verse 27 in an eschatological context, and the adoption of the arrangement of the 70th week as a paradigm for the judgment section of the Book of Revelation.
It should be also noted that the extension of the 70 years of Jeremiah’s prophecy to 70 weeks of years is an example of postonement. The restoration Jeremiah promised after 70 years (of exile) was not realized because the spiritual condition of the nation had not changed (see Daniel 9: 5-14). Gabriel reveals to Daniel that though the 70-year exile would end as promised, the promise of restoration would not be fulfilled until after the 70th week.
Though a partial Judean restoration was achieved on a physical level (the rebuilding of the city and temple), it could not be effected on a spiritual level (the New Covenant) because the nation failed to recognize and accept their Messiah. Ultimate restoration awaits national repentance toward the Messiah (Acts 3: 19-21), which will not be realized until the conclusion of the 70th week (Matt. 24: 29-30; Romans 11: 25-27).
Israel’s “Lo-Ammi” Periods
Some of the foremost difficulties encountered by Bible students lie in the field of chronology. Higher criticism would tell us of inconsistencies in the Divine record itself; and though such difficulties can be (and have been) surmounted, it is too often with a sense of embarassment that they are explained away.
Take, for instance, the statement in 1 Kings 6: 1, that Solomon began to build his temple in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt. This is well and good. But when we turn to Paul’s statement in Acts 13: 17-21, we come up with a figure of 573 years (counting, of course, the reign of king David, and the first three years of Solomon’s reign).
Now here is a discrepancy of 93 years; and it is for this reason that Bible students come to a standstill. Most chronologists accept the account in 1 Kings 6: 1, and leave Paul’s statement to fend for itself. Or, they say that Paul was “only speaking generally.” However, what they fail to see is that both statements are literally true. The figures are given, however, according to two different reckonings.
The calculation in 1 Kings 6: 1 is not an “Anno Mundi” figure, but what we may call (for the sake of convenience) an “Anno Dei” figure. Whereas Paul’s calculation is actually the correct “Anno Mundi” reckoning. What accounts for the difference?
Due to a forced “linear perception” of prophetic and chronological fulfillment (“once the ball starts rolling it never stops”) , students fail to see that whenever Israel was counted “Lo-Ammi” (“not my people”) by God, their national history years were omitted from the lifetime of the world. This creates gaps, or lacunae, in Bible chronology, which must be filled in.
The figure given in 1 Kings 6 is not an Anno Mundi calculation, but an Anno Dei one. By taking it as Anno Mundi, confusion is created in the Biblical record, and havoc is made in regard to the correct date of events.
The 93-year discrepancy between 1 Kings 6 and the account given by Paul in Acts 13 can easily be explained when we turn to the Book of Judges. There we shall find five distinct periods during which Israel was “given up” and sold into the hands of their enemies.
After the death of Joshua, it is recorded that the children of Israel ”did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim and the groves” (Judges 3: 7). Therefore, the Lord sold them into the hand of Cushan-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia, for the space of eight years (Judges 3: 8). This was the first “Lo-Ammi” period, which ended when Othniel, the son of Kenaz, began to judge the nation. Under his judgeship the land had rest for forty years (Judges 3: 11).
The second ”Lo-Ammi” period commenced when the children of Israel were sold into the hands of Eglon, the king of Moab, for eighteen years (Judges 3: 14). The servitude was ended by Ehud the son of Gera, whom God raised up to judge Israel (Judges 3: 15). Ehud delivered the nation out of the hands of Moab, and the land had rest for eighty years (Judges 3: 30).
The third “Lo-Ammi” period came about when Israel was sold into the hand of Jabin the king of Canaan, who oppressed them for twenty years (Judges 4: 3). The nation was then rescued by Deborah and Barak (Judges 4: 4-10); and after the defeat of Sisera, the captain of Jabin’s army, the land had rest for forty years (Judges 5: 31).
The fourth “Lo-Ammi” period began when Israel was delivered into the hands of the Midianites, and it lasted for seven years (Judges 6: 1). This “Lo-Ammi” period was ended by the judgeship of Gideon, who delivered the nation from its enemies. Then the land had rest for forty years (Judges 8: 28).
The fifth “Lo-Ammi” period occurred when the Lord delivered Israel into the hand of the Philistines for forty years (Judges 13: 1). Although Samson gave the land no rest, he judged Israel for twenty years (Judges 15: 20).
Here we must note, that the Book of Judges lists another captivity which is sometimes wrongly considered a “Lo-Ammi” period. This is found in Judges 10: 7-9, where it is recorded that the Philistines and the children of Ammon vexed the children of Israel for eighteen years. Yet this “oppression” was local and beyond Jordan, and did not affect the national status. Therefore, it is not a “Lo-Ammi” period. [For more information, see Dr. Bullinger's note on 1 Kings 6: 1, Companion Bible, pg. 456].
The important thing to keep in mind is this: that during each of these “captivities,” Israel’s national history was omitted from the lifetime of the world. This can be easily seen when we add the number of years of the various “Lo-Ammi” periods.
1. Mesopotamia/ 8 years
2. Moab/ 18 years
3. Canaan/ 20 years
4. Midian/ 7 years
5. Philistia/ 40 years
TOTAL = 93 years
Thus it is seen that the numeric figure given in 1 Kings 6: 1 agrees with that of Paul – but only when we take into account the two different modes of reckoning. Paul was working from an “Anno Mundi” scheme. But the figure in 1 Kings 6: 1 ignores the 93 years of national servitude when the nation became ”Lo-Ammi.” This tells us, of course, that the figure was computed according to an ”Anno Dei” reckoning.
Of course, we are not to assume that the captivities recorded in the Book of Judges comprise Israel’s only “Lo-Ammi” periods. There are other such periods in Israel’s national history, which include: Athaliah’s six years of usurpation; the gap of thirteen years between the reigns of Amaziah and Uzziah; and the seventy years of Babylonian captivity. These periods must all be taken into account if we would come to a proper understanding of Biblical chronology.
The most important “Lo-Ammi” period — at least to ourselves — is that which began in Acts 28: 28, when the nation of Israel was formally set aside, and their “hope” (the PAROUSIA) put in abeyance. It was then that the parenthetical Dispensation of the Mystery (Eph. 3: 9) began.
Unless the reader understands how these “Lo-Ammi” periods work, he/she will be apt to stumble into errors like Preterism, which teaches that Christ actually returned in A.D. 70. But when Acts 28: 28 is rightly seen as the commencement of Israel’s longest and greatest “Lo-Ammi” period (see Hosea 3: 4-5), all the pieces fall into order, and consistency takes the place of confusion.
Difficult Questions Answered
Q: Okay, I’m trying to put the basic idea of what happened in the first century into a more simple explantaion so I can understand it better. I’m going to try and type out how I think it works but it’s complicated.
So, Jesus came around to establish His kingdom. Now is that an earthly or heavenly one? Then he was crucified. Was that going to happen whether they accepted him or not because they could have after He died? John the Baptist was supposed to be Elijah but they didn’t accept him either. So, had the Jewish nation accepted him later on due to the preaching of the apostles, he would have come back around 70AD? But they didn’t because they formally rejected Him in 62AD?
So when Revelation says that the time is near and what not, is it referring to the time before the nation rejected Jesus? So was revelation then written before the Jews rejected Jesus? The most likely date I’ve seen spoken about is about 64/65 but does pushing it back 2 or 3 years conflict with anything?
A: Those are some good questions. Well, here is the matter as I see it. Humanly speaking, Christ came to offer the kingdom to Israel. Divinely speaking, He came to die for the sins of the world. The kingdom He offered is that mentioned in Daniel 2: 44, which will break in pieces all other kingdoms (worldly governments) and fill the entire earth. This could not have had respect to the church. The church is a “mystery” which was hidden in God. Therefore, it is not the subject of Old Testament prophecy. It was not revealed until well into the Acts period.
When John the Baptist said, “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand,” he meant the kingdom of Messiah on earth. It is this same kingdom which our Lord taught His disciples to pray for in Matt. 6: 10: “The kingdom come, thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven.”
If the Jews had accepted John the Baptist’s mission, the hearts of the children would have been turned to the fathers (and vice versa), and the kingdom established in the first century, after Messiah’s crucifixion and exaltation at the right hand of God. All the prophecies would have occurred within the 40 year time-frame. Nero probably would have destroyed the temple, and his successor (Antichrist) would have made a covenant with the Jews lasting 7 years (Dan. 9: 26). The prophecies concerning the great tribulation would then have been fulfilled in the first century, and Messiah would have returned in A.D. 70 (or sooner).
When in Revelation we read, “The time is at hand,” we must see it as having reference to the then-impending dispensational crisis. Yes, I do believe the book was written about A.D. 60-62, before the Jews formally rejected the kingdom in Acts 28. This dating is based on internal evidence of the book itself, whereas other views rely on tradition. I feel it is the correct view.
Q: “Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand” (Phil. 4: 5).
Paul was in Rome when he wrote this, so why would he say the Lord is near if the Jews had already rejected Him in Acts 28? The rejection seems to have happened early on in Rome and Paul’s trial is already underway. I can’t find a good argument to say that this took place during his stay in prison in that other place before the Jews’ rejection. Paul wouldn’t have been facing the threat of execution before he got to Rome. Also, near doesn’t seem to be able to be used as close by since it’s usually translated as soon or at hand.
A: In this passage, “at hand” is being used in a spatial sense. It could not have been used in a temporal sense, for the second coming was no longer imminent when Paul wrote. My view is supported by Paul’s later prison epistles, in which he advises the younger women to marry and bear children (1 Tim. 5: 14)– something he had previously advised against, for the time was short (see 1 Cor. 7: 29). The parousia is not mentioned in Paul’s prison epistles, for after Acts 28 it was postponed. The hope in this dispensation is not the hope of Israel (the parousia) but the hope of the church (see Phil. 3: 14; Titus 2: 14).
Why Matthew 24: 14 Wasn’t Fulfilled In The First Century
As readers are aware, Hyper-Preterism’s key assertion is that Christ “returned” in A.D. 70. In order to bolster this claim, numerous threads of proof are followed, all of which place an emphasis on first-century fulfillment of the eschaton. One of the most common teachings brought forward in an attempt to “fix” their doctrines, is the allegation that the Great Commission was fulfilled prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.
From what source do Hyper-Preterists derive this concept? They base it upon a reading of Colossians 1: 23, in which Paul declares that the Gospel was “preached to every creature which is under heaven.” So, say the Hyper-Preterists, that is the fulfillment of Matthew 24: 14:
“And this Gospel of the Kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
After all, if the Gospel was preached to every creature under heaven at the particular time when Paul wrote his epistle (A.D. 62-63), then the “end” must have already occurred!
Granting the H.P. position on the fulfillment of the commission is correct, still the Bible gives no indication of how long the preaching would continue before the end arrived. However, Hyper-Preterists can answer this by pointing to Matt. 24: 34, alleging that the first century generation saw all those things — including the second advent of Christ.
It is important that readers understand the Hyper-Preterist position, and why it is essential to conduct a thorough Scriptural investigation, to see if their claims are correct. My position is that they are not, and that the Hyper-Preterist interpretation is based on a misunderstanding of the texts.
However, it takes a great deal of patience to point out the many blindspots in their theology. This cannot be done in one or two articles, but requires a great deal of time and labor, not to mention a rigorous course of Bible study.
As it stands, Hyper-Preterists are missing two foundational truths. Firstly, Paul never preached “THIS Gospel of the Kingdom.” Secondly, Colossians 1: 23 is not a fulfillment of what Christians commonly call the “Great Commission.” A detailed study of Matthew 28 will bring this to light. Let us, however, look at the evidence in more detail, and we’ll see that Hyper-Preterist contentions are wrong.
To begin with, we’ll go back to Matthew 24: 14. Christ said that before the end would come, this Gospel of the Kingdom would be preached in all the world, for a witness to all nations.
Now, it is clear that when Christ said “THIS GOSPEL,” He meant a Gospel with which His hearers were already familiar – the particular Gospel He had just been preaching for 3 1/2 years. He could not have meant “Paul’s Gospel,” which that apostle received in Arabia seven years after Christ’s ascension. Our Lord’s original audience would never have understood it in that sense.
It should be noted that the word “Gospel” simply means “good news.” It is clear that the news may vary, and yet still be “good.” Here we must anticipate the argument that “there is only one Gospel.” In a sense, that is true. But while the term “Gospel” always refers to the redemptive work wrought by the Seed of the woman (Gen. 3: 15), it has particular aspects which must be carefully identified, if we would come to a right apprehension of the verses under consideration. These aspects of the Gospel are to be preached according to the Dispensations to which they respectively belong.
There is, first of all, the “Everlasting Gospel,” which was proclaimed after the fall (by Enoch and Noah), and will be preached again during the tribulation, previous to the pouring out of the vials of wrath (Rev. 14: 6-7). It is associated with impending judgment.
The “Gospel of the Kingdom” involves that particular phase of “good news” which was delivered by John the Baptist, and later by Christ. Its message is the imminent setting up of the Kingdom (Matt. 3: 2; 4: 17; 10: 7).
There is also the “Gospel of God,” which tells of the good news of God’s grace toward sinners (Acts 20: 24; Romans 1: 1). It is this Gospel which fills up the pages of Acts, and the earlier epistles.
Finally, there is the Gospel of the glory of Christ, or “Glorious Gospel,” which speaks of Christ’s exaltation as Head over all things to His church (see Eph. 1: 22). It is the desire of Satan to blind the minds of Christians to this Gospel (2 Cor. 4: 3-4), that they may lose the blessed assurance of their perfect standing in Christ.
So, as we see, the Gospel has different aspects and phases, which must be “rightly divided.” When we fail to do this, confusion ensues, and the result is the misinterpretation of texts which speak of varying aspects of the “good news” of Christ’s redemptive work.
Now, it is a fact that Paul is never recorded as preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom. In fact, the term “Gospel of the Kingdom” is never used in the book of Acts, or in any of the epistles. It is primarily Jewish in its character. Those who were sent by Christ to preach the Gospel of the Kingdom were Jews endowed with remarkable spiritual gifts. They were ambassadors sent to herald the approach of the coming kingdom.
Chronologically speaking, the Gospel of the Kingdom falls into the period which started with John the Baptist’s ministry and ended with the crucifixion of our Lord. As we learn, however, it will be taken up again before the time of the “end.” It has nothing to do with Paul’s preaching.
We know that the nation rejected Jesus Christ as Messiah, just as they had rejected His herald John. Because Christ was crucified, He removed His throne to heaven. What should have logically followed His crucifixion was the judgment of the nation. However, before His death He prayed: “Father forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23: 34).
The Book of Acts records the answer to that prayer. Judgment was postponed, and grace proclaimed, beginning at Jerusalem. Throughout that entire period covered by Acts, the apostles preached the Gospel. However, they did not preach the Gospel of the Kingdom. They were preaching the Gospel of The Grace of God. This Gospel could not be preached until the facts on which it was based — the crucixion, resurrection, and exaltation of Christ — had come to pass.
Hyper-Preterists miss this important distinction. And they also miss the fact that Paul emphatically claimed that he received his Gospel, not from man, but by Divine revelation (Galatians 1: 12). Now, it is certain that if he was preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom, he would have needed no special revelation. In fact, he would have been required to learn the Gospel from the apostles themselves.
However, Paul’s commission shows that he was working independently of the authority of the twelve. Instead of sitting at Peter’s and John’s feet, he was called to Arabia to receive a brand-new revelation — or rather, a more glorious aspect of the Gospel of God, particularly fitted to the calling of the Gentiles. It appears that the early stages of Paul’s ministry was conducted with almost no interaction with the church at Jerusalem.
Of course, Paul went to Jerusalem to tell the apostles what he was preaching (Gal. 2: 2). However, concerning his visit he writes: “But of these who seemed to be somewhat (whatsoever they were it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person): for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me” (Galatians 2: 6).
This leads us to believe that the content of Paul’s Gospel, while having for its subject the redemptive work of Christ, differed from that of the twelve. Therefore, Paul could not have been preaching “this Gospel of the Kingdom.” Since there isn’t a single verse that proves he was, the Hyper-Preterist’s connection between Col. 1: 23 and Matthew 24: 14 is invalidated.
It is obvious that the fulfillment of events regarding the “last days” was broken in Acts 28, after the Jews formally rejected the offer of the kingdom made by the Holy Spirit during the Book of Acts — just as they had rejected God the Father and God the Son. The Book of Acts ends abruptly with Paul’s solemn pronouncement of judicial blindness, and the announcement that salvation would be sent to the Gentiles (Acts 28: 25-28). At this point the Jews were set aside, and the present Dispensation began. The last seven years of the age are now held in reserve, while the Mystery fills up the present interval between Israel’s “rejection” and their “renewal.”
True, there was a certain progress toward fulfillment in the first century. But it never reached its crisis, for the Jews failed to meet the essential condition of Jesus Christ’s return, which was national repentance (Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21; Hosea 5: 15). The preaching of “this Gospel of the Kingdom,” which would have filled up the last seven years of the age, was therefore postponed in Acts 28: 28.
Conclusion: After examining all the evidence, it is clear that Colossians 1: 23 is not a fulfillment of Matthew 24: 14. The two verses speak of different Gospels preached during different time frames. One has to do with the soon setting up of the kingdom, while the other involves the message of God’s grace to sinners during the present interval between the first and second advents. The two texts are as far removed in subject as they are in scope. And the one will have its accomplishment as surely as the other, when the time for its fulfillment shall have arrived.
Is Preterism A Solution For Atheism?
While recently surfing the internet, I came across (for the third time) a statement to the effect that Preterism is actually an antidote for atheism. Because this argument is being propagated by many who are doubtless well-intentioned, I felt it necessary to write a few words against that notion, and to show people what Preterism really is. It is not an “antidote for atheism,” as some say, but is an evasion which people use to avoid becoming atheists!
The atheist reminds us that Christ said His coming was “soon.” And it is claimed that Christ cannot be trusted, as He never returned during the lifetime of those to whom He spoke. The Preterist replies that He actually did return, but in a figurative or allegorical manner — that is, in a manner different from that indicated by the Sacred text.
While the atheist takes the timing texts literally, as also the governing context which tells what would happen “shortly,” the Preterist insists on a pseudo-literal rendering of the time texts, while reserving the right to change the meaning of the textual referent. In other words, he modifies the evidence in order to justify his preconceived conclusion that Christ came back. After deciding that Christ DID return in the first century, he forces all the evidence to support his thesis.
Now, the Preterists routinely criticize futurists for doing the exact same thing, yet in a reverse order – keeping the context literal, and yet modifying the meaning of the time-texts. The Preterist would have them keep the time-texts literal, and yet modify the controlling context. The result? The two systems cancel each other out. Neither one is a solution. Both are logically bankrupt.
In a certain sense, the atheist is moving in the right direction. He realizes that all the evidence must be interpreteted according to uniform exegetical standards. Yet he is not taking all the evidence into consideration, and that is where he misses the mark.
Like the Preterist, the atheist does not see that the “soon” coming of Christ was conditional on Jewish national repentance (Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21; Hosea 5: 15). There is no need not to take the time-texts literally. However, there is a need to acknowledge that the imminent return was subservient to the repentance of the covenant nation.
During the entire book of Acts, the Gospel was always preached to the Jews first. It was not until they formally rejected the Gospel that the nation was set aside, and the Dispensation of the Mystery began (see Eph. 3: 9). This dispensational break can be seen in Acts 28: 28, which forms the great watershed between the imminent coming of Christ and the present parenthetical period.
Prior to the culmination of national rejection, as recorded in Acts 28, Paul could truly say that he was bound for the “hope of Israel” (Acts 28: 20). The hope of Israel is the parousia, which holds a prominent place in the pre-Acts 28 writings. But once Israel had been set aside, Paul declared himself “the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles” (Eph. 3: 1) — indicating that the hope of Israel had been put off. Confirming this is the fact that there is no reference to the parousia in any of the post-Acts 28 epistles.
Because Preterists nor atheists care to gather all the facts, both fail to come to a right apprehension of the truth concerning Christ’s possible first-century return. Both systems are based on a superficial examination of the evidence.
The atheist concludes that Christ didn’t return, because what He said would happen didn’t happen. Therefore (says he) Christ doesn’t exist.
The Preterist counters this by saying that Christ came back when He said He would, but that His coming was fulfilled in a sense totally different from what a reading of the text would suggest. The atheist is asked to accept this “solution” of the difficulty. But the atheist seldom buys into the argument for the simple reason that he/she wants to believe Christ is a myth. Whereas the Preterist seldom listens to the atheist, for the reason that he wants to believe Christ returned on schedule.
The answer to both parties is that Christ WAS about to return in the first century. However, His return was contingent on the repentance of the Jewish nation.
The Jews never repented in the first century. Therefore, Christ never returned. Contrary to Hyper-Preterist assertions, this does not make our Lord a false prophet, because He clearly stated: “Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord“ (Matt. 23: 39).
A simple question will settle all: Did the Jews repent in the first century? If not, then they didn’t “see” Him in A.D. 70 — either literally or figuratively. To say (as the Preterists do) that Jerusalem was destroyed because of Jewish unrepentance, and at the same time assert that it was a fulfillment of the Lord’s coming, when “every eye saw Him” (Rev. 1: 7), is reasoning hardly geared to convince a gradeschool student, much less an atheist.
My position is that the destruction of Jerusalem was a punishment levied on the nation for refusal to say “Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord,” – and that, as such, it was not any kind of “coming.” It marked the end of the 40-year period of probation under the Mosaic charter, when the hope of Israel could have been attained through national obedience.
Far from being an eschatological crisis, the destruction of Jerusalem is a Divine object-lesson which demonstrates the inability of fallen man to obtain blessings under the law. Because the nation didn’t meet the essential condition of Christ’s return during the probationary period allotted them, it never took place in A.D. 70.
As illustrative of my point, suppose I promise my friend to visit him next month. It is assumed, of course, my promise will hold good. However, if the condition is that he prepare a room for me, and he fails to do so within a month’s time, then the visit must be postponed to a later period. In failing to arrive, this doesn’t mean that I broke my promise, for I have every intention of visiting him. It only means that my visit is no longer imminent in the sense that it was before my friend’s failure to make ready for me became manifest.
Now, that may be a lame analogy. However, I believe it shows how Christ could consistently declare that His coming was “soon,” and yet not return in the lifetime of those to whom He first spoke.
Only when we have this information in hand will we properly interpret the time-texts contained in the New Testament. Because Preterists and atheists are both missing a vital piece of the puzzle, neither can see the full range of implications suggested by these texts.
Our conclusion, then, is that Preterism is not a solution or antitode for atheism. Both systems are wrong. Only when uniform principles of exegesis are employed, and all the evidence is examined, will anyone be able to tackle the atheist’s assertion that the Bible is a hoax.
Manufactured solutions do not help. Nor do popish appeals to “tradition.” If anywhere, the answer will be found in the Word of God. And if the word of God speaks clearly, then the evidence needs only to be gathered with a careful hand, and consistently applied in order to demonstrate that Preterism and atheism are equally illogical.
