Archive for Destruction of Jerusalem
E.W. Bullinger And The Rapture
One of E.W. Bullinger’s greatest attributes was the ease with which he amended his views in light of his acquisition of fresh truth. He once said: “If anyone would know what I believe upon a subject, he must find out what I believe now.” Never claiming to have all the answers, Bullinger worked over a period of many years to produce a system of theology that is still airtight against the arguments of rationalism, Higher Criticism, and Replacement Theology. During the closing years of his ministry, he grappled with the doctrines of Preterism; and his researches in this field produced the monumental work, “The Lord Hath Spoken: Foundations of Dispensational Truth” (1913). Although hastily written, the amount of scholarship poured into this work is amazing.
But because Bullinger modified his views on the rapture, many Dispensationalists steer away from his books, thinking that perhaps he capitulated on his stance toward pre-tribulationism. Well, this is not the case at all! While Bullinger revised his views concerning the timing of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15, he never wavered from his belief that the church would not enter into the tribulation. In fact, Bullinger did more than any other writer to retain the distinction between the church and Israel. This comes into play more explicitly in his later writings, in which he draws a Dispensational frontier at Acts 28.
Bullinger believed that the Book of Acts describes the transition from the kingdom to the church. In his scheme the church of the “one body” actually begins after Acts 28. The Acts Dispensation chronicles the final offer of the kingdom to the children of Israel upon the one condition of national repentance (see Acts 3: 19-21). When Israel rejected this offer in Acts 28, the nation was temporarily set aside by God as unuseable, and salvation sent to the Gentiles. A new body began to be formed at this juncture, designated by Paul as “one new man” (Eph. 2: 15). According to Bullinger, this is where the church age officially begins.
Although I do not agree with Bullinger’s teaching concerning the commencement of the Christian church, I tend to agree that the Book of Acts is transitional in nature, and that the present parenthetical Dispensation begins after Acts 28: 28. However, in my understanding the ‘pure parenthesis‘ does not officially begin until A.D. 70, when the “people of the prince” sacked Jerusalem (Dan. 9: 26). The period between this desolation of the city and the sanctuary and the advent of the “prince” himself, is filled up by the present Dispensation of Grace. Not that grace didn’t have a place before A.D. 70. But that from A.D. 30-70 the Israel question was being settled — ”Let the children first be filled“ (Mark 7: 27). The Gentile economy did not come into full swing until Israel lost its dispensational advantage over the Gentiles. This was in A.D. 70.
Clarence Larkin seemed to hint as much when he wrote: “This Dispensation [i.e., the church age] is a parenthetical Dispensation thrown in between the ‘Dispersion’ of Israel, and their ‘Restoration’ to their own land. The purpose of this Dispensation is to gather out a ‘People for His Name,’ called the church, composed of both Jew and Gentile” (Dispensational Truth, 1920 edition, pg. 39).
If Larkin saw the parenthesis of the present age as connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then it quite possible that he derived his views from Bullinger. Even modern scholars such as Randall Price, have marked on their prophecy charts the significance of A.D. 70 in God’s purpose to call out the church (see Jerusalem In Prophecy, pg. 234, 239, 257). Larkin, however, does mention that the Dispensation of Grace extends from the Cross (A.D. 30) to the Crown (Second Coming of Christ). Perhaps he saw the 40 years between the Cross and the destruction of Jerusalem as transitional in nature. We’ll probably never know.
Anyhow, because Thessalonians and Corinthians were written prior to the Acts 28 council, Bullinger construed that the rapture of saints described therein must be tied to Israel’s kingdom blessings (which were forfeited and postponed in Acts 28), rather than to the church age proper. I would, again, disagree with him on this point. However, far from denying the pre-trib rapture, Bullinger saw Paul’s later revelation of the “ex-anastasis” and “calling on high” (see Phil. 3: 11, 14) as entirely pre-tribulational in nature.
In the Companion Bible, he writes:
“The term ‘resurrection of the dead’ (anastasis nekron) is of frequent occurrence (Matt. 22: 31; Acts 17: 32; 23: 6; 1 Cor. 15: 12, 13, 21, 42; Heb. 6: 2, etc.), and includes the resurrection to life, of the just, and the resurrection to judgment, of the unjust (John 5: 29; Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2). Resurrection from the dead (ek nekron) implies the resurrection of some, the former of these two classes, the others being left behind. See Luke 20: 35; Acts 4: 2. Paul had no doubt of attaining to this, as as may be seen from 1 Thessalonians 4: 15-17, written some ten years before. The exanastasis must therefore mean a further selection of some before the anastasis of 1 Thess. 4: 14, and Paul was not yet sure of attaining to this. Perhaps he had the assurance when he wrote 2 Tim. 4: 7. It is noteworthy that there is no reference to any living ones being caught up, or any parousia of the Lord, as in 1 Thess. 4: 15, 16.” (note on Philippians 3: 11, Companion Bible, pg. 1778).
In his later books, Bullinger seemed to relegate the rapture of 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians 15 to the close of Daniel’s 70th week. But since he held that Acts 28: 28 commenced a new economy, he saw in Philippians 3: 14 the church’s charter for a pre-tribulational up-calling. As he came to this view gradually, his books must be diligently studied in order to see exactly how his understanding of the rapture evolved.
In later years, theologians such as A.E. Knoch corrected Bullinger on some of his views. Whereas others took the more unique elements of Bullinger’s theology and ran them out into what is now known as “Acts 28 Dispensationalism.” Interestingly, however, all of Bullinger’s works are still in print today; and though he exercises little influence in modern Dispensational circles, his contributions to Biblical and exegetical scholarship are never downplayed. It is hoped that in future months his work will be seriously studied afresh by all who love the “sure word of prophecy” (2 Peter 1: 19) and look for that “blessed hope” (Titus 2: 13).
Rev. E.W. Bullinger, D.D.– The Cause of The “Present Distress”
Departure from the teaching of the Pauline epistles was the beginning of apostasy in the church — the commencement of the dark ages. The Reformation was an awakening to a sense of this disobedience, but it was only “in part,” and the condition of the Protestant Evangelical Churches today exhibits as sad a condition, from another point of view, as the church before the Reformation, and needs another Reformation, as great, though of another kind and in a different direction.
To see the root causes of this confusion we shall have to go back to the beginning, and see what Paul’s ministry really was, and was intended to be. It is recorded in Acts 13-28. It is not taken up until after the record of Peter’s ministry is closed.
Paul (Acts 13-28) proclaims to Jews and Gentiles alike, perfection, apart from all ordinances, in union with Christ, in Whom dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. He preaches Christ as Head of the body, the church. He declares “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20: 27). He “fully preaches the word of God” (Col. 1: 25, margin). Paul’s ministry completes the testimony which thus, in connection with the parable of the great supper, ends in grace; while the ministry of Peter and the twelve, in connection with the parable of the dinner, ends in judgment; see Matt. 22: 7, where we have these significant words: “He sent forth His armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.”
This refers to the destruction of Jerusalem, while the third ministry (begun by Paul) to the Gentiles is carried on after that destruction, during the National rejection, and while Jerusalem lies desolate. No words could more distinctly express the present Dispensation of Grace to the Gentiles given to the apostle Paul.
After speaking of the Parable of the Great Supper, the Lord first lays down the great truth that those who receive Him must be prepared to give up all connected with Judaism (Luke 14: 26-27), as exemplified by Paul in Phil. 3, where all that he once counted as “gain,” he counted as dross and loss for Christ’s sake.
This is followed by three solemn illustrations as to this coming change in the dispensation, ending with the words (v. 35), “he that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” They are the “Tower,” the “King,” and the “Salt.” These are given after the rejection of Israel had been spoken of in verse 24. Three solemn warnings are conveyed by these as to the folly of claiming apostolic commission and authority when not possessing apostolic power: the warning which Christendom did not heed, and the error into which it has fallen.
THE BUILDING OF THE TOWER (Luke 14: 28-30)
The Lord gave authority and power to His apostles to gather a people to His great supper (Luke 9: 1; Mark 16: 15-18; Luke 24: 47-49; Acts 2: 38 & 15: 14). This was connected first of all with Jerusalem (Acts 1: 4) and with Himself as King of Israel and Lord of all. This authority and power ceased with the apostles to whom they were given, and they never were and never could be transmitted by them to others.
The apostles exercised this authority and power. They baptized; and, by laying on of hands, they conferred miraculous gifts; but they could not transmit to those recipients the authority and power to give those gifts and signs to others. And when the ministry of the kingdom ended, Paul’s ministry of the “gospel of the grace of God” was to be continued and carried on among Jews and Gentiles alike, calling out the members of Christ’s spiritual Body until that body should be complete.
By this illustration of the “Tower” the Lord warns us not to claim this apostolic authority, unless we have the power to complete the work by the laying on of hands, and the bestowal of miraculous gifts, which were the insuperable signs of that power and that authority.
In other words, we are not to begin to “build,” unless we are able to finish.
Instead of this, men soon began to build the church upon the foundation of the kingdom; they began to build this tower, and they went to war with the great enemy. They assumed to act in “apostolic succession,” but were destitute of its authority and power. The result of the attempt to build this tower is another Babel (Gen. 11), and it will soon end in another Babylon (Rev. 17). That which claims to be the continuation of the ministry committed to the twelve apostles becomes “Babylon, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth.”
The Lord Jesus sent forth His apostles to proclaim the Kingdom of God, with power and authority over all devils (Luke 9: 1). This was the proof that the kingdom of God was come to Israel (Luke 11: 20). The Lord warns men not to proclaim the King and the kingdom unless they have the power to cast out Satan, the great king who is opposed to them. If they have not this power, their true course is to act as ambassadors, seeking the peace of those who are afar off.
The parable teaches plainly the change in the character of the gospel as sent to the Gentiles by Paul from its character as addressed by Peter and the Twelve to Israel. To Israel it proclaimed the Lord Jesus as the King, by His apostles as the heralds of His authority and power; but now to the Gentiles, afar off, the ministers of the Gospel are ambassadors of Christ, desiring His enemies to be reconciled to God.
Those, therefore, who in any sense lay claim to the figment of “Apostolic Succession,” and those also who, while they reject it, yet ignorantly assume the continuation of the apostolic ministry (after the authority, and power, and sign-gifts have alike ceased), are trying to build this Tower, but are unable to finish it. Nay, worse, far worse than this, this building results in another tower of Babel – for confusion is the meaning of its name, and confusion is what we see everywhere around us. They are unable to cope with the great king with whom they contend: they “forsake” not those things that they have (v. 33), and they cannot be, the Lord Jesus Christ says, “My disciples.” They may pretend to be the Apostles’ successors, but are not Christ’s disciples.
The great lesson for us lies in the fact that the apostasy of Christendom began in the departure from the teaching committed to Paul concerning “The Mystery,” or the great secret concerning the Church of God as Body of Christ, “the pillar and ground” of all Church truth.
ORDINANCES ARE THE TEST!
Paul’s “teaching” declares that Christ is made the Head of the Church, which is His Body, and that true believers are the “members” of Christ,” indwelt by “one Spirit,” wherewith, by the “one baptism,” they have been baptized by the “one Lord” in to the “one Body” (Eph. 4); and that these members of Christ are sanctified in Christ; and are called by God into fellowship with His Son; that they are one Spirit with Him, and are “the temple of the living God.”
For these, “Christ hath abolished in His flesh, the law of commandments contained in ordinances.” Col. 2 gives us their true standing. They are “complete in Him” (v. 10). hence, their circumcision is that which is “made without hands,” being “the circumcision of Christ” (v. 11); and if their circumcision is effected without hands, then, of necessity their baptism must be of the same character. Their baptism is Christ’s burial (v. 12): for them, ordinances are “blotted out” and “taken out of the way” (v. 14), and they are asked Why, if they died with Christ from the rudiments (i.e., religious ordinances) of the world, Why are they “subject to ordinances after the commandments and doctrines of men?” (v. 20, 21). Thank God, there are those who thus know their completeness and perfection in Christ.
But there are thousands who have not this wondrous knowledge. The eyes of their understanding are not enlightened (Eph. 1: 8). They are led by those who claim to be successors of the Apostles, and who claim to continue — not Paul’s ministry, but that of the Twelve!
And what was
“THE TEACHING OF THE TWELVE APOSTLES?”
In 1883 there was published, under this title, a MS., then recently discovered in the library of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, at Constantinople. The date of the MS. was June 13th, 1056: but all scholars are agreed that it is a copy of a work which was originally written in the last quarter of the first century. Its existence had long been known, for it had been quoted by the Sub-Apostolic Fathers, Barnabas (A.D. 71), and Hermas (A.D. 100), and by Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 192). Eusebius (H.E. iii. 2), A.D. 330-340, mentions it as well known in his day, and classes it among the “controverted books” of the Canon.
The work consists entirely of moral precepts, and rules as to prayer, fasting, baptism, and the Eucharist, and ends with a solemn reference to the coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the dead.
We cannot, of course, believe that this was the actual teaching of the Twelve. But this is what it had degenerated into before the close of the first century. We can well understand why all Sacramentarians should hail the appearance of this ancient writing: and, instead of seeing in it the corruption of Christianity, and the commencement of the Apostasy, should welcome it, and make it the ground of their “teaching.” But it shows a lack of discernment indeed for others to speak of this Didache, or “Teaching of the Twelve,” with approbation, and to see in it a model for the present day, instead of a departure from Primitive Christianity.
Alas! The teaching of Paul was soon apostasized from! and even the teaching of the Twelve “was corrupted“! That corrupted teaching may be summed up in two words,
MORALITY AND ORDINANCES.
Is not this exactly what we see around us on every hand today? Holding fast to these two, the other two have been abandoned and practically lost, viz., (1) the coming of the Lord, and (2) resurrection as the hope of the church!
This was the cause, the beginning, of the apostasy of Christendom: this it was that led up to and brought on “the dark ages:” and this is the secret cause of “the present distress of the churches.”
The ministry of Paul is rejected, and the ministry of the Twelve is still carried on by those who, though destitute of the Apostles’ authority and power, impose on their hearers “the commandments and doctrines of men,” and put them in subjection to “ordinances:” and, worse than that, they add “commandments… touch not, taste not, handle not“!
Christianity, today, has woefully degenerated. Ordinances have become more and more positive in their character; preaching is being everywhere set aside, while even morality itself is becoming more and more negative. For the most part it consists in abstinence from this or that; and in vows and pledges and badges. It is “touch NOT, taste NOT, handle NOT:” but “all are to perish with the using“; and all are characteristic of the ministry which is now being everywhere exercised.
Q & A On Matthew 23: 39
QUESTION:
Once Israel accepts Jesus as the messiah, why are they still judged with everyone else? I was looking to see if any preterists had any kind of good arguments against Matt 23:39 and I can’t find any but I did come across one confusing thing.
“Second, it also ignores the fact that Israel’s salvation would come at the time of Israel’s judgment. See Isaiah 2-4; 64-66; Zechariah 12-14, etc.. In other words, Israel would be saved by judgment, not from judgment. She would be saved by eschatological transformation, not national restoration. Toussaint suggests that Zechariah 12-14 must speak of the time of Israel’s repentance and conversion. He emphasizes the fountain opened for taking away Israel’s sins, insisting that this must refer to her repentance and conversion. However, chapter 13 describes the judgment that would fall on her. It was a judgment that would destroy “two thirds of the people’ (13:8f). Further, chapter 14 very clearly posits the destruction of Jerusalem in the Day of the Lord.”
This confuses me. The rest of the site, http://donpreston.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=304&Itemid=61 is just full of a lot of arguments I’ve heard you go over all ready and aren’t all that convincing. They actually try to make it that when Jesus says “You shall not see me again until you say “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord” true because the destruction of Jerusalem was near a feast day when they quote that.
Also, what’s the point of having Jerusalem destroyed if it’s not when Jesus comes back?
ANSWER:
Hi Tim,
Good to hear from you. I believe that Israel will be judged as a nation during Daniel’s 70th week. This period is the “dispensation of judgment.” The last 3 1/2 years of this period is the Great Tribulation. It is at this time that 2/3 of the nation will be purged. But when the national purging is through, those who remain will be holy (Isaiah 4: 3-4) because they will have accepted Christ as the Messiah. So their judgment will be to determine placement in the Millennial kingdom. Of course, there will be a “first-fruits” gathering before the Tribulation actually begins. In my view, these are the wise virgins (a.k.a. 144,000) who are raptured in the middle of the 70th week.
I’m not sure what Don Preston is trying to say. Matthew 23: 39 is definitely about national repentance. Notice how Christ says first, that their house will be left desolate. THEN He says, “Ye shall not see Me until,” etc. Preterists act like Christ was saying: “Ye shall not see Me henceforth until ye say, etc. But behold, your house is left desolate.” In that case, it wouldn’t matter if they repented or not, because desolation would have been the final predicted outcome. But Christ mentions desolation FIRST, and THEN holds out a hope of His return, which will only be accomplished when the nation accepts Him as Messiah. The order of those two statements is very important IMO.
As for the destruction of the city, we should keep in mind that there are two desolations mentioned in Daniel 9: 26-27. The first is the desolation of the city and sanctuary by the people of the prince (which took place in A.D. 70). The second is the defilement of the temple by the prince himself (the “desolator“). These take place at different times. Luke 21 deals mainly with the desolation of the city and sanctuary, while Matt. 24/Mark 13 deals with the defilement of the temple by Antichrist. The city will be desolated during this time, as a process of Israel’s judgment. The desolations will be ended when the desolator is destroyed (Dan. 9: 27; 2 Thess. 2: 8).
Who Are The “Holy People” Of Daniel 12: 7?
In the present endtime controversy, there are a large number of views regarding the “Great Tribulation.” Daniel 12 seems to be a key pivot on which much of the debate (at least insofar as the Old Testament ties in with Matthew 24) seems to turn. In Daniel 12: 7, Daniel heard the man clothed in linen say to one of the men by the bank of the river Hiddekel, that “when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.” OK. The first question is, who is “he?” Then we ask, who are the “holy people?”
Unless we answer these two questions properly, we’ll be far at sea when it comes to getting at the timing of the Great Tribulation. I think it’s safe to say that the “he” is Antichrist, for the context involves the 1,290 days — or last half of Daniel’s 70th week, during which the beast (i.e., Antichrist) shall have power (see Rev. 13: 5). If this position is correct, then the “holy people” can be none other than the saints which are persecuted by Antichrist during the tribulation.
Now, Preterists would tell us that the Great Tribulation happened in A.D. 67-70, and that the “holy people” were the Jews, which were “scattered” when the temple was destroyed. But there are several difficulties in this view. First, everyone knows that the Jews retained their national existence long after A.D. 70. They even had enough “power” to foment another major rebellion under Bar-Cochebas in A.D. 135. So I cannot see in what sense their power was scattered in A.D. 70.
It also occurs to me that whatever power the Jews possessed had long been forfeited to Rome. Israel was subject to Roman rule when the temple was destroyed; and so in order to give Daniel 12 an A.D. 70 application, qualifications must be placed on the meaning of the word “power;” and this is unfeasible.
However, there is a graver concern. It is blatantly unscriptural to call the apostate and rebellious Jews of the first century the “holy people.” This, I think, is the crux of the whole issue. Preterists fail to see the Dispensational change which occurred on the Day of Pentecost.
When the church was conceived on Pentecost, the earthly Israel was made of none effect, and the heavenly came into play. No longer would circumcision according to the flesh, or the keeping of the letter of the law, avail. As Jesus Christ told the Jews: “It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing” (John 6: 63). This looked forward to the coming Dispensational change, which took place in A.D. 30.
To say that the natural Jews who remained uncircumcised in heart and unrenewed by the power of the Holy Spirit were the “holy people” is to adopt a curious twist of reasoning which contradicts the very words of our Savior. If the Preterist thesis is correct, then Christ’s words are not true, and “the flesh profiteth something.”
Far from being the case, though, we mustn’t forget that after A.D. 30 it could be truly said that: “He is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God” (Romans 2: 22-23).
Now, mark well that I am not endorsing any kind of “Replacement Theology.” What I am saying is that Israel has two aspects. There is the natural, which is as the dust of the earth (Genesis 13: 16); and the spiritual, which is as the stars of heaven (Genesis 15: 5). During the Mosaic economy the natural had predominance — but not to the exclusion of the spiritual. So in this present Dispensation, the spiritual has predominance — but not to the exclusion of the natural (see Romans 11: 1-12).
The promises of future blessing were made to Abraham, who (loosely speaking) was a “spiritual Jew,” but also a “natural Jew.” He was not only circumcised in the flesh, but also in the inward man. Now, to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. Christ is the Seed of Abraham (Gal. 3: 16), Who unifies the two aspects of Israel.
Therefore, the promises will be fulfilled when the Heir returns, and the two seedlines of Israel — both natural and spiritual — converge once more. This is not Replacement Theology, but an affirmation that all of God’s promises will be fulfilled to the letter. What we have, then, in this Dispensation is a converse of what took place during the Mosaic Dispensation. We have an enforcement of spiritual principles and regulations, which correspond to the natural things of the Mosaic economy.
The Dispensational change that took place on the Day of Pentecost mustn’t be overlooked. Prior to the resurrection and ascension of Christ it could truly be said that the natural Jews were the “holy people.” However, when the promise of the Holy Spirit was given from above, and the apostles sent forth to preach the glad tidings of God’s grace, God’s principles of administration changed. No longer were the natural Jews reckoned as “holy people.” The only “holy people” that God recognizes during this Dispensation are those who have been sanctified by the blood of Christ, and washed in the spiritual waters of regeneration (Titus 3: 5).
This was the very principle that obtained during the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; and so it is incorrect to say that the rebellious (and in many cases apostate) Jews were the “holy people” whose power was scattered. I believe that the “holy people” will constitute Israel — but Israel during the last 7 years of the age, after the 144,000 saved Israelites are presented to God as a first-fruits offering of national repentance. Then will the signs and miracles re-commence, and the purging (i.e., refinement) of the nation be effected during that period of Great Tribulation.
Antichrist will scatter the power of the holy people when he slays the two witnesses in the middle of the Daniel’s 70th week (Rev. 11: 7), and then wars against the saints during the remaining 3 1/2 years of the age. This will be the true fulfillment of Daniel 12: 7. And in connection with this “time of trouble,” there will be a resurrection of many from the dust of the ground (Dan. 12: 1-2).
Now, it is clear that none of these things happened in A.D. 67-70. There is no evidence that 144,000 Israelites were saved and sealed before the investment of Jerusalem. Nor did the Emperor Nero (whom Preterists label the Antichrist) function until the temple was destroyed [Note: he actually committed suicide in A.D. 68]. Neither was there a resurrection; and to say that there was is to tamper with the Sacred text.
No, friends. The Preterist interpretation of Daniel 12 certainly doesn’t fit the bill. But only recognize the “he” of Dan. 12: 7 as Antichrist, and the scattering of the holy people as the persecution of the saints during the last half of Daniel’s 70th week, and all the facts will harmonize.
Dr. J. Randall Price– “Be Not Deceived”
There has been considerable discussion as to whether these verses [Matthew 24: 1-14], as well as the whole of the Olivet Discourse, was fulfilled in the past or is yet to be fulfilled in the future. Historicists have held that most of these events (except the advent of Christ) have been fulfilled in the past, though Preterists contend all events (including the advent of Christ) were specifically fulfilled in A.D. 70. The disciples had also presumed a connection between the destruction of the Temple and the messianic advent. Jesus’ Olivet Discourse was given to correct this misunderstanding, otherwise the disciples might be subject to deception as a result of the events that would take place in their generation, since Jesus would not bodily return to restore Israel and begin the messianic kingdom following the Roman’s razing of the Temple. Therefore, Jesus began His discourse with the warning, “Be on your guard lest anyone deceive you” (verse 4). Preterists, failing to understand this warning, have been led astray in their interpretation, being forced to spiritualize prophecy in an attempt to force a first-century fulfillment. Therefore, what the disciples saw as connected events, Jesus explained were chronological and sequential, but would not all occur within the same time frame.
http://www.worldofthebible.com/Bible%20Studies/Matthew%2024.1-14.pdf
“A Little While, And Ye Shall See Me”
Among the numerous proof-texts put forth by Hyper-Preterists, John 16: 16 is generally not mentioned. Although one will often hear them tout the phrase “in a little while,” it is usually in connection with Heb. 10: 37. Of course, Hebrews was written sometime prior to Paul’s first imprisonment, and bears the unmistakeable stamp of the intermediate Acts Dispensation, which ended with Israel’s formal rejection of the offer of the Kingdom (Acts 28: 25-27) made by those who heard Jesus Christ (Heb. 2: 3) and bore witness to His words with “signs and miracles” following (Heb. 2: 4; Mark 16: 20).
But while we might say much about Paul’s epistle to the Hebrews, we are more interested now in looking at some of the timing-indicators used by Christ in John’s Gospel. In particular is the following verse: “A little while, and ye shall not see Me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father” (John 16: 16). A simple reading of the verse by anyone will reveal at once the grave problems of interpretation attending the Hyper-Preterist view.
Since this is among the final words Christ gave to His disciples before His crucifixion, it is essential we know what the phrase “in a little while” means, and not be led away by the fancies of our own imagination. Hyper-Preterists who are unware of the difficulties tell us that in the former clause “in a little while” means a few days, but that in the latter clause, it means an extended period of forty years.
Now this is quite contradictory, and it is for this reason that John 16: 16 is seldom quoted by Hyper-Preterists. But it comforts us to know that the discrepancy does not arise from the text itself, but the minds of those who do not accept the plain literal statements of Scripture as authoritative.
My understanding of the text is that the phrase “in a little while” points to Christ’s ascension, and that in both clauses it denotes a period of time nearly identical. For it really was “a little while” after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection that He ascended up to heaven. And ten days later, when Peter delivered His addresses to the nation of Israel, affirming that Christ was risen, it was stipulated that Christ was ready to return and fulfill ALL THINGS written by the prophets (Acts 3: 19-26). Therefore, His promise “in a little while, ye shall see Me” must have held good upon His ascension into heaven. There is nothing in the text to indicate that “in a little while” means forty days in one instance, and forty years in another! If that is the case, then words are useless for the purposes of revelation.
Well, if you are a Preterist you say that Christ never returned “in a little while;” but that He returned in A.D. 70. But how do you know? The text says “in a little while,” not “in a long while.” All we have to indicate the timing of the Lord’s return is the simple phrase “in a little while.” I believe that translates into “a very short period of time,” no matter what language you speak.
Of course, I agree that Christ never returned in a little while. But neither did He return at the destruction of Jerusalem! There was one essential condition of Christ’s return which we must keep in mind; and that was Jewish national repentance. In Christ’s last public discourse He closed the account-books against the Jewish nation by saying: “Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23: 39).
This statement is, for all practical purposes, identical to that of Hosea 5: 15: “I will go and return unto my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek My face: in their affliction they will seek Me early“ This verse is remarkable, inasmuch as it contains an unmistakable reference to Jesus Christ Who ascended up to heaven after His people rejected Him. Who else could the prophet be speaking of? It was due to this very rejection of His own people that the Roman armies came against Jerusalem and burned up their city, as foretold in the parable of the Marriage Supper (Matt. 22: 7). Therefore, that event can have nothing to do with the fulfillment of Matthew 23: 39 or Hosea 5: 15.
Yes, Christ returned and ascended back to the Father. Then He endued His disciples with the power of the Holy Spirit, that they might bear witness to Him beginning in the very land where He was rejected and crucified (Acts 1: 8; cf. 2: 39; 3: 25-26).
But Peter, after making public proclamation of Christ as the crucified, resurrected, and risen Messiah, said: “Repent ye therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, that times of refreshing may be sent from the Presence of the Lord; and He shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive, until the times of restitution of all things which God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began” (Acts 3: 19-21).
This verse is the perfect key to unlocking John 16: 16, as well as Matthew 23: 39 and Hosea 5: 15. Read all these verses together, and then you will see what Christ meant when He said, “in a litte while ye shall see Me again.” It was a bona fide offer to return at once, if His people would only repent, confess their sins, and accept Him as that Prophet that Moses said should come (Deut. 18: 18-19).
Remember, He spoke the words “in a little while“ privately after He had already pronounced judgment upon the nation, and laid down the requirement for repentance; so all the texts must harmonize. It was truly “in a little while” that He should return. But as His people rejected the message of the kingdom once more, the city was destroyed and the second advent put off to a future time.
Had the leaders of the nation repented, the 70th week of Daniel would have run its course, Antichrist have risen, the Great Tribulation have followed, and Israel’s salvation been consummated with the return of the Messiah from heaven, and the destruction of the heathen nations (Isaiah 59: 18-20; Zeph. 3: 8, 15; Zech. 12: 7-14; 14: 1-5). Christ clearly references the Great Tribulation in John 16: 20-22, indicating exactly what He meant should be accomplished in connection with His return. It was none other than the new birth of the nation. Compare with Isaiah 66: 7-9.
Christ had to be ready to return upon His ascension into heaven– if His people would only repent. Remember when Stephen was arraigned before the Sanhedrin (Acts 7). That was a crucial turning-point. Upon making his defence to the leaders of the Jewish nation, they rejected His message concerning Jesus Christ. But he, looking steadfastly up to heaven, saw Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God” (Acts 7: 55-56).
Pay attention closely. Stephen saw Christ standing, as if in expectation that His people would accept Him; and ready to return the moment they did. The Holy Ghost was working powerfully that day (Acts 7: 51); yet the leaders again rejected Christ, and Stephen was stoned as a blasphemer (Acts 7: 57-60). This happened in A.D. 35. If the parousia had been a scheduled event, not to take place for another thirty-five years, then why was Jesus seen standing at the right hand of God, as if ready to return in fulfillment of Matthew 26: 64? Oh, how near to Israel His coming was that day! But in rejecting the Lamb of God, they put it away from them once more.
But do you say that Jesus Christ’s offer of returning “in a little while” was not a sincere offer? Then think again. The epistle of James was written around A.D. 45 (according to the best sources). In that epistle, James told Jewish believers, “Behold, the Judge standeth before the door” (James 5: 9). Why would Christ be standing before the door if He had no intention of returning at once, and making good His promise of “in a little while ye shall see me?”
Likewise, in Peter’s second epistle (written around A.D. 60) the apostle affirmed that “holy conversation and godliness” would hasten the coming of the Day of God! (2 Peter 3: 11-12). Yes, these Jewish believers of the Diaspora (see 2 Peter 3: 1; cf. 1 Peter 1: 1) were told that they could hasten the coming of Christ! Peter’s sincerity on this score was an echo of Christ’s own.
When Christ said, “In a little while ye shall see Me,” He meant that He was willing to return right away. Yet there was a condition appended to His return which was never met. And therefore, Christ’s coming never materialized in the first century. With the breakup of Israel’s national structure, the promises concerning the parousia were postponed, and now remain in abeyance; though we are now seeing signs that the end of the age has again drawn nigh.
But perhaps you’ll say to me, that it was God’s Sovereign purpose that Israel should reject Him, and that therefore Christ’s offer to return at once was not a bona fide offer. My answer: While the events that came to pass were certainly brought about according to God’s pre-arranged plan, this does not negate human responsibility. Making God the “efficient cause” of Israel’s rejection is a miserable theology which turns Christ’s Messianic work into a stage-play and a show. It was to “reconcile” the world that Christ died for sins. If God were the efficient cause of sin, then there had been no need for “reconciliation,” for all things would be according to God’s will. But “sin” is contrary to God’s will.
My stance is that Christ’s offer to return at once and redeem Israel was a sincere offer, and conditional upon the repentance of the nation. This alone would justify Christ’s statement of “in a little while ye shall see Me.” This phrase could not mean “forty years,” but a short period of time which would follow His ascension into heaven. These facts explain the urgency of first-century expectations regarding the parousia, and also point out the fallacies of the Hyper-Preterist argument, which claims that Jesus really did come according to His promise, when everyone knows He didn’t.
Rev. E.W. Bullinger, D.D.– The Three Commissions
(from The Companion Bible, 1922)
It will be seen from Appendix 166 that there were three separate Commissions given to the Eleven Apostles, at different times, on distinctly specified occasions and in varying words.
The first is recorded in Luke 24:47. This was given in Jerusalem on the evening of the day of the resurrection. It was given, not to the Eleven only, but also to “them that were with them.” (verse 33). The commission was the continuation of His own ministry and that of John the Baptist (Matthew 22:1 – 10). They were all to proclaim “repentance and remission of sins“. The New Covenant had been made, in virtue of which this message of pardon could be declared. (Matthew 26:26 – 29. Mark 14:22 – 25. Luke 22:14 – 23. Acts 3:19), first in Jerusalem, and then to all nations. This was done by Peter (Acts 2:38; 3:19, etc.).
The second is recorded in Mark 16:15 – 18, and was given when the Lord appeared to the Eleven as they sat at meat; and it was carried out by “them that heard Him“, as foretold in Matthew 22:4-7, and fulfilled in Mark 16:20, as confirmed in Hebrews 2:3, 4. The Acts of the Apostles is the inspired history of the fulfillment of this commission, so far as it is necessary for our instruction. It was given for the personal ministry of the Apostles, to be fulfilled by them before the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem.
The third is recorded in Matthew 28:19, 20, and was given on a mountain in Galilee (Appendix 169). It was the proclamation of the King, Who had left Jerusalem, according to the Parable (Luke 19:12), until He returns in power to set up His kingdom (26:64). It is the summons to the Gentile nations to submit to the Lord Jesus, as the king of Israel, according to Psalm 2:10 – 12. It is the proclamation of “the Gospel of the Kingdom” (Appendix 140. II) for a witness to all nations, immediately before the end of the age (Matthew 24:14. Revelation 14:6). It is still wholly future in its application, and proclaims the judgment on the Gentiles for the final deliverance of Israel, according to Psalm 2:9, when verse 6 shall be fulfilled.
