Archive for Figurative or Literal?
The Coming In Clouds: Literal or Figurative?
“And then shall appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (Matthew 24: 30).
Most Christians are agreed that the above passage details Jesus Christ’s glorious second advent, when He will appear to the salvation of Israel. Preterists, however, have sounded a note of dissent, asserting that the passage refers to a figurative ‘coming‘ which took place in A.D. 70. As part and parcel of their interpretive scheme, Preterists claim that the “cloud coming” language is entirely ‘metaphorical.’ Barring the question of whether there is a single metaphor in the entire passage (note: what Preterists label ‘metaphor’ is most often the figure ‘hypocatastasis‘), it remains to be seen whether or not the Preteristic contention is true.
In order to bolster their view that the cloud-coming language is symbolic, Preterists point to a number of Old Testament passages, in an attempt to show that such language was used of local judgments that have already been fulfilled. In Isaiah 19: 1 it is used to describe the judgment of Egypt; and in Psalm 18: 9-11 almost identical imagery is employed to depict David’s deliverance from the hand of Saul. Preterists are wont to claim that because such passages were already fulfilled in history, an A.D. 70 view of Matthew 24 is not as unreasonable as most Christians suppose.
And yet the Preteristic reasoning breaks down woefully when we examine the very passages they use to support their theory. For if the truth be told, neither Isaiah 19: 1 nor Psalm 18: 9-11 refers to any judgment unto destruction – which is what the Preterists affirm Matthew 24: 30 teaches. When taken in their entire context, it is evident that both passages speak of a judgment to salvation. Egypt will be smitten, but healed (Isaiah 19: 22); and David, as we recall, was delivered from Saul; he was not destroyed! Another passage in Habakkuk (see Hab. 3: 3-15), sometimes cited by Preterists as proof of allegorical interpretation, explicitly teaches the national deliverance of Israel (Hab. 3: 12-13). So even if such passages were symbolic, they would teach the exact opposite of what Preterists hold. They can in no sense be used to teach a destruction of the Jewish nation in A.D. 70.
That said, we must now ask the question: what does the cloud-coming language of Matthew 24: 30 actually mean? Well, it is interesting that we may take the same approach that Preterists take, and have recourse to the analogia fidei. Since “Scripture interprets Scripture,” we may best narrow down the meaning of these disputed passages by looking at passages where language affords us a maximum of certainty, and a minimum of speculation.
In my studies of the inspired Word, I have found that when relating to any ‘adventual‘ theme, clouds are always associated with the personal visitation of Deity. This was the case when Jehovah came down to Mount Sinai at the giving of the law. We read that there were “thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the Mount, and the voice of a trumpet exceeding loud” (Exodus 19: 16; cf. Deut. 4: 11). The whole passage must be studied, as language remarkably similar is used in Matthew 24: 27-30. Why this correspondence is ignored by many students of prophecy, is beyond our ability to explain. It defies explanation.
In Exodus 24: 15-16, an actual cloud is again associated with the personal advent of Jehovah. And one must not forget that the cloud over the tabernacle in the wilderness was a sign of the Lord’s personal presence (see Exodus 40: 34-38). The prophet Ezekiel is also recorded to have been visited by Jehovah, Who appeared out of the midst of a visible cloud (see Ezekiel 1: 4, 26-28). None of these passages are taken in any sense other than the literal. Why? Because no other meaning is possible.
With all these facts and evidences before us, literality must at least be confessed as a possibility. At any rate, such interpretation as the literal is not based on man’s ideas of what may or should be, but on established Biblical precedence. To sweep away the weight of evidence, as Preterists do, is to demonstrate an interpretive bias which will not hold up under careful scrutiny.
Evidence carefully garnered from the New Testament likewise supports our conclusion that Matthew 24: 30 is to be interpreted literally. It can hardly be denied that the apostles had an experiential basis for understanding Christ’s language in a literal sense. When on the Mount of Transfiguration, it is recorded that a cloud covered Peter, James, and John; and that Jehovah Elohim spoke out of the cloud (Matthew 17: 5; Mark 9: 7; Luke 9: 34). Since Peter, James, and John were the very disciples addressed by Christ on the Mount of Olives (see Mark 13: 3), it is highly probable that they understood Christ’s words in the literal sense. In fact, there is not the slightest evidence that they believed otherwise!
While this article is not meant to be an exhaustive study of the cloud-coming passages, my hope is that it helps to establish one thing: that the benefit of the doubt must be given to Futurists, who claim that Matthew 24: 30 relates to a future historical reality; and not to Preterists who teach a symbolical “judgment coming” in A.D. 70. In fact, if Preterism is true, we are left wondering whether the judgment itself was literal or figurative! But when the evidence is fairly looked at, one cannot help feeling that the Dispensational understanding of Matthew 24: 30 is based on a firm foundation of Biblical truth, and a right understanding of what the ‘coming in clouds‘ actually denotes. It is none other than the personal return of Jesus Christ to earth. In our opinion, this closes the case against Preterism.
Review Of Fred DeRuvo’s “Interpreting The Bible Literally Is Not As Confusing As It Sounds”
I recently had the pleasure of reading Fred DeRuvo’s new book entitled “Interpreting the Bible Literally Is Not As Confusing As It Sounds.” DeRuvo is a prolific Dispensational author with whom I did a podcast a few weeks back. He sent me copies of two of his books (one of which I’ve reviewed so far), and the .PDF of a third which is about to hit the press.
What makes DeRuvo’s work interesting is its down-to-earth approach — not to mention the author’s knack of taking complicated theological issues and making them easy to understand. In his book on literal interpretation, DeRuvo gives what I consider a fine presentation on the literal hermeneutic, which is really the foundation and “sine qua non” of any Dispensational theology.
DeRuvo starts off by examining the true definition of “literal,” in contradistinction to that mere ‘letterism’ which seeks to exclude figures of speech. The author shows that in many cases, we cannot understand language except we allow for use of figures. Such usage, however, does not override the literal truths which the Holy Spirit seeks to convey.
Like myself, DeRuvo is no relativist. He believes that through a proper understanding of the literal hermeneutic, Christians will arrive at the objective truths of God’s word. But let no reader suppose that the author is a shallow dogmatist.
DeRuvo writes:
“The important question is whether we can know the truth with certainty in the midst of all the various opinions regarding these doctrines. In most areas, the answer is yes, we can know the truth. In other areas, there is wiggle room” (pg. 42).
On subjects like the Abrahamic covenant, the Olivet Discourse, and the vital necessity of being “born again” (John 3: 3), DeRuvo believes that Dispensationalism, in its employment of a literal hermeneutic, arrives at the absolute truth of God’s word. Nevertheless, as he points out, Dispensationalism is often seen as an “enemy” by those who do not read the Bible according to its plain and natural sense.
DeRuvo observes:
“There exists a general belief that Dispensationalism negatively impacts the truth of God’s word. In fact, the charge of heresy is not uncommon to hear. This is due to the fact that people simply do not understand the true meaning of Dispensationalism, nor its use of the literal hermeneutic in the study of God’s word” (pg. 101).
Frankly, I couldn’t agree more. As DeRuvo points out, Replacement Theology is based on Roman Catholic hermeneutics which are traceable to the Origenistic school of thought. The Protestant Reformation only set the stage, however, for a return to apostolic teaching, and the application of a consistent literal method of interpretation. As it stands, Dispensationalism gives the most accurate presentation of Christian theology.
For those who wish to “get the goods” on the literal method, DeRuvo’s book is essential. It is purchaseable at Amazon; or one can get it directly through DeRuvo’s website. We thank the author for giving us the opportunity to read this monumental work, and look forward to reviewing more of his books, three of which of (as I understand it) are soon to be published.
Letters To The Editor: Post-Millennialist David Brown’s Denial Of The Physical Resurrection
(from The Quarterly Journal Of Prophecy, Vol. II, 1850)
Mr. Brown writes:
“Will you have the goodness to point out to me the page of paragraph, in which you find your warrant for saying that ‘I deny the applicability of Isaiah 25: 8 to the resurrection at all;’ and that I ‘eject the resurrection from the passage altogether’?”
“No doubt I see more in the prophecy than you do. Over and above the corporeal resurrection to which Paul refers, I see ‘life from the dead’ in every other sense in which Christ has purchased it, and makes it His people’s. You see nothing of the sort. You see just corporeal resurrection, and no more. Be it so, and let you be right and me wrong in my views. But what right have you to say that I deny the applicability of the prophecy to the resurrection at all? I defy any honest reader of my words to pick that sentiment out of them from beginning to end.”
Pre-Millennialist Responds:
“Now mark the course of my argument. It is this. The passage – Isaiah 25: 6-12 – is admitted to be a description of the millennial glory. But an event is announced of introducing that glory, of which event this brief description is given – ‘He will swallow up death in victory‘ (verse 8).
”Now the question is — what is the nature of the event thus described? You affirm that it is spiritual resurrection exclusively. Your words are these: ‘The ONE DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE OBJECT of the whole prediction is to announce the Gospel Church as shedding its varied blessings on all lands‘ (First Edition, pg. 206).
We affirm, on the contrary, that the apostle (1 Cor. 15: 54) has expressly said nay to this proposition, and declares the literal resurrection to be the direct and primary — in fact THE meaning of the words. [...] You do not eject it from the bare words, – of course, you cannot do that. But you do, as it very humbly appears to me, throw it out of the passage, – i.e., you cast it out of the scene which is there described. The Holy Spirit has given it a place there, and a very marked place. You give it no place at all [...].”
“Of course, you will see that I regard your treatment of other passages as similar – e.g., that (in Isaiah 65) about the new heavens and the new earth. For in the face of the quotation and definition of the passage given by Peter (2 Peter 3), you eject the literal sense here also from the passage – eject it in the sense just explained. No doubt, you must admit a literal sense here, too, to be in the words. But the literal has no place whatever (according to you) in the passage where it extends. That passage describes the millennium. But the Millennium is over, ere (on your view) there can be a literal new heavens and new earth.
“Your principles of interpretation seem to me fraught with the utmost peril to a sound theology. They are so unfixed, that you may make anything, or everything, or nothing, of any passage of the word. Sometimes the literal is the primary and direct object of prophecy; and at other times, the spiritual occupies the position. And the one of the other is selected, in each case, according to the necessities of a certain pre-conceived system. This is just the old Aristotelian method of dealing with God’s nature. And in what does it land its votaries? Why, in a ‘physics’ of man’s constructing, not in God’s.”
**************
Note the “Preteristic replay” in modern times.
J.L. Vaughn writes:
“I have yet to see a generally agreed definition of “orthodox preterism.” Without a definition, there is no such thing. The last twenty years has demonstrated that the so-called “orthodox preterists” are steadily becoming full.
“In 1993, Kenneth Gentry wrote that the resurrection of Dan. 12 is the general resurrection and to believe it was fulfilled is heresy.
“In 2009, Kenneth Gentry wrote that the resurrection of Dan. 12 was fulfilled in AD 70, and to believe it wasn’t is an error.
“Gentry can’t even agree with himself. He’s to busy accusing people of heresy for disagreeing with his ever changing opinion.”
The Covenant Creation Fiasco
Well, I said that I wasn’t going to write anything else about the Hyper-Preterist movement. However, because things have gotten so out of hand among them, an update is needed to inform Christians as to what is going on. It’s too bad that both of the rival factions involved in this controversy have restricted access to their sites, so it’s not easy getting the facts. However, here they are.
For those who don’t know, Covenant Creationism is a view which teaches that the creation account of Genesis 1 is purely symbolic in nature. For a while I’ve been saying that this is the logical corollary of claiming that the destruction mentioned in 2 Peter 3 is “figurative” or “covenantal” in nature — something that nearly all Preterists teach. Since the heavens and earth of Revelation 21 are antitype to the creation of Genesis 1: 1, it is natural to conclude that if one is non-literal, the other is non-literal as well.
This view of Covenant Creationism was invented by Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn. They wrote a book called “Beyond Creation Science,” which has been lauded on various Hyper-Preterist forums – especially on Planet Preterist, an extremely liberal site run by Virgil Vaduva, an associate of emergent leader Brian McLaren. Although Martin is the brains behind the book, Vaughn is a professional scientist with a Ph.D., and so his name gives luster and respectability to their joint effort.
While for the past year or so, Hyper-Preterists within the quasi-conservative faction have tried to fence off these liberal views, and prevent them from infiltrating their fold, Covenant Creationism has now become a formidable problem which won’t go away. A furious battle is therefore being waged between the members of two rival “social networks.” The conservative network, Sovereign Grace Preterism, is run by Jason Bradfield — otherwise known as “King Neb” (short for Nebuchadnezzar). The more liberal network (known as “Death Is Defeated”) is administered by John Scargy, a weird individual who operates under different names. The ground of controversy is, ironically, whether the creation account is literal, or figurative.
Strange though it sounds, Martin & Vaughn have purchased some credibility by affirming that the early church taught some forms of their doctrine, and that Jewish apocalyptic literature contains references to certain of the concepts they put forward. The conservatives are now crying over this use of “extra Biblical” sources by the Covenant Creationists. And yet this is exactly what they have been doing for years, shamelessly using Josephus and other non-inspired writers as “authorities” for their fanciful interpretations. So they can’t really complain. They are merely getting a dose of their own medicine.
This reminds me that Preterism is a movement now collapsing on several fronts, through radicalization of its core teachings. The Partial preterists are being eaten away from within by Hyper-Preterists, while the Hyper-Preterists are eating away at themselves. Although it is a mere application, and not an interpretation, a verse from the prophet Isaiah comes to mind:
“And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm: Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah” (Isaiah 9: 20).
Of course, “Judah” may be used to represent Biblical Christianity in general; while Ephraim and Manasseh can stand for partial Preterism and Full Preterism. Or, they can just as aptly represent the two factions within Hyper-Preterism — “Judah” standing for Christians who take their Bibles literally. While these are the common enemy, the Preterists have no peace among themselves, but are ever at war, always working to destroy one another. What accounts for such hatred? The root cause is, departure from the teachings of Biblical Christianity. The Bible doesn’t say Jesus already came, but that He will come! Until these prophecies are actually fulfilled (with a literality that matches realization of those regarding His first advent), no man has a warrant for throwing them into the past — regardless of how many proof-texts he may imagine he has on his side.
One would think that the conservative Hyper-Preterists, seeing the inconsistency, and reacting against the absolute anarchy of the Covenant Creationist view, would wake up and realize that the futurist interpretation is correct after all. But it seems they are as blind as ever. Does Jesus Christ have to be crucified afresh for these people to acknowledge (or rather, remember) that Christ purchased the creation with His blood, and that He will one day return to redeem it? Apparently nothing less than a miracle will make them see the light.
Regardless, it is clear by this time that Covenant Creationism represents the “tomorrow” of the Hyper-Preterist movement. It is really a more consistent form of what conservative H.P.’s already teach regarding the creation motif.
Of course, someone like myself has to ask how far one can push even THESE doctrines. Well, if history is really written in symbols, then the next logical step would be to view the Gospels as pure allegory, and not history. All it would take is some smarty-pants liberal to write a book affirming that the story of Jesus is merely a poetic allegory of “man’s need for redemption, which theme runs throughout all the great religions of the world.” If such a thought sends icicles up your spine, just remember that the Bible predicts this (or something like it) as the culmination of that ”apostasia” which will precede Christ’s return to earth.
“…Who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2: 1).
Unless you are a religious humanist, or are living in a marine bunker, you won’t deny that things HAVE been getting worse and worse for Christianity. However, if it’s any consolation, just remember that things are getting bad even for cults like Hyper-Preterism. Whether the whole program will crash tomorrow, we don’t know. But those who in the face of all obstacles, believe what God tells them, and patiently wait for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior, keeping their focus on Him alone, will win in the end.
Why I Love R.C. Sproul
In his book entitled, “The Last Days According to Jesus,” Dr. R.C. Sproul endorses a Preterist view of eschatology. One of the reasons I recommend this book, is that it teaches the reader what mistakes NOT to make when interpreting the Bible. In setting a framework for his hermeneutical principles, Sproul claims that the prophecies given by Christ concerning the end of the age and of His own “coming” in the clouds, ought not to be taken literally.
Sproul writes:
“Part of the confusion concerning biblical interpretation stems from contemporary usage of the term literal. Literal today usually refers, not to the technical sense in which Luther used it, but to the interpretation of poetic images and the like as straightforward didactic or indicative language. To take every text literally in this sense is not to interpret it according to the genre in which it is written, but to interpret it in a plain indicative sense. When the Olivet Discourse is subjected to such a wooden literalism, the crisis of parousia-delay is created. The cataclysmic events surrounding the parousia as predicted in the Olivet Discourse obviously did not occur “literally” in A.D. 70. Some elements of the discourse did take place “literally,” but others obviously did not.” (pg. 66).
When I read this, I almost fell out of my chair. Dr. Sproul, in his effort to support Preterist reasoning, trips himself up. He suggests that interpreting the discourse as straightforward and didactic is “not to interpret it according to the genre in which it is written.”
However, Sproul‘s error is obvious. The Olivet Discourse was not originally issued in a literary context! It was SPOKEN by Christ to His disciples! Bible-believing Christians need only ask for what reason was it spoken? In Matthew 24: 3-4, we are informed that the discourse was given as an answer to the questions put forward by the disciples. Therefore, it can only be didactic and indicative in nature.
In its primary sense, the Greek verb apokrinomai (Matt. 24: 4) means “to respond or reply to a question.” A study of its usage throughout the New Testament will verify this beyond any shadow of a doubt (see Matt. 3: 15; 4: 4; 8: 8; 11: 4; 12: 39; 14: 28; 16: 2, 16; 17: 11; 19: 4, 27; 20: 13, 22; 22: 29, 46; 24: 4; 25: 9, 12, 26, 37; 26: 23, 25, 33, 62; 27: 12, 14, 21, 25; 28: 5; etc.). If Christ was responding to questions, then unless He wished to mystify His audience, His words must be allowed a degree of literality — far greater than Preterists suppose.
Dr. Sproul’s hermeneutical basis is flawed. In chiding Christians for their plain interpretation of Bible prophecy, he treats a didactive and instructive discourse as if it were literature. Then Sproul claims that Christians, in taking the discourse literally, are not interpreting it in the genre in which it was written. But it was given orally, and wasn’t committed to writing until more than three decades later. Therefore, how is the reader to interpret it?
I submit that Dr. Sproul is not interpreting an oral discourse according to the genre in which it was first given. True, the discourse is literature to us today; but to its original audience it was not. Sproul fails to see that it was a response intended to address certain questions asked by Christ’s disciples. The entire discourse must be read with this in mind, and interpreted accordingly.
But it gets better. Sproul goes on to admit that some parts in the discourse were LITERALLY fulfilled in A.D. 70. But if some passages, why not others? Wouldn’t literal fulfillment of some parts set a precedent for literal fulfillment of others? If not, why not?
It is obvious that Dr. Sproul is trying to have his cake and eat it at the same time. His system insists on a clarity of those predictive elements which can be pinned down to an A.D. 70 fulfillment, but denies that the same clarity applies to other portions of the same prophecy. The reason? Well, because other portions were not fulfilled in A.D. 70!
Such thinking demonstrates, of course, that Sproul’s hermeneutic is based on “circular reasoning.” Sproul would be far more consistent in taking the entire discourse literally – even if he had to accept the idea of a “parousia delay” (which isn’t so bad, really, when you think about it) – than to resort to such heremeneutics as he endorses in his book. It’s bad grammar, I know. But when I read this stuff, I have to thank R.C. Sproul for making me not a Preterist.
Do Dispensationalists Employ A Hyper-Literal Hermeneutic?
In conversations with our friends from the Reformed world, the phrase “hyper literal” has sometimes been dropped when referring to the hermeneutical standards espoused by Dispensationalists. It is often said, that we hold to a ‘hyper literal‘ interpretation of prophecy. While Preterists acknowledge that Dispensationalism falls within the pale of orthodoxy, many feel that we have gone too far in applying the literal principle to our understanding of the sacred text. And so the term ‘hyper literal‘ has been coined.
It is not surprising to find that much of this rhetoric originates from the “orthodox Preterist” camp. Orthodox Preterists endorse a hermeneutic which generally calls for a more dynamic understanding of prophetic language. In contradistinction to most schools of prophetic teaching, Preterists claim that the majority of Christ’s eschatological predictions were fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
However, this view requires interpreting certain texts according to what may be called a “literal method.” While conventional futurists often claim that “time texts” must be referred to God’s standard of time, where a day is as a thousand years (2 Peter 3: 8), Preterists insist upon a restrictive meaning. But the epithets “hyper-literal,” “wooden literal,” and “over simplistic” are reserved for those who believe that the prophecies concerning Christ’s parousia are yet future.
When the orthodox Preterist view is laid on the table and carefully examined, it appears that they are using a two-tiered hermeneutic. Adopting a pseudo-literal view of the timing indicators, they use these as leverage for a spiritualized understanding of Bible prophecy. O.P.’s allow for a literal interpretation in matters of timing, but deny that the same literality applies to those passages which indicate how an event is to be fulfilled.
The texts which indicate nature are just as inspired as those which indicate timing. Therefore, they should be read according to the same canon of interpretation.
Dispensationalists of the Bullinger/Welch school take all of the timing texts in the same way that Preterists would. Except the conclusions reached are different from that of Preterism. Because we are taking “nature indicators” just as literally as we take the “time texts,” we cannot agree that there was any fulfillment of the parousia in A.D. 70. A careful look at the evidence assures us that after Acts 28: 28, the parousia was postponed, due to Israel’s failure to meet the required conditions of national blessing and restoration. In Acts 28, there was a break in the course of ages, and the parenthetical Dispensation of the Mystery (Eph. 3: 9) began. This mystery involves the “one body of Christ” — a joint body of Jews and Gentiles with no Dispensational distinction between them, peace having been made through the blood of the cross.
Of course, all Dispensationalists maintain that the Bible is to be read literally — that is, interpreted according to the customary laws of grammar and rhetoric. In Dr. Mal Couch’s “Introduction To Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics” (2000, Kregel Publications), Ron Johnson defines the essential hermeneutic as a “normal reading of Scripture.”
Johnson quotes Bernard Ramm, who observes:
“To interpret Scripture literally is not to be committed to a “wooden literalism,” nor to a “letterism,” nor to a neglect of the nuances that defy any “mechanical” understanding of language. Rather, it is to commit oneself to a starting point, and that starting point is to understand a document the best one can in the context of the normal, usual, customary, tradition range of designation, which includes ‘facit’ understanding.” (pg. 34). — Quoted from Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 3d. rev. ed. pg. 121.
Of course, only when such principles are consistently applied can the student hope to gain any degree of objectivity. Preterists employ the hermeneutic outlined by Ramm, but only when dealing with the time-texts. All other language is spiritualized for the sake of retaining the literality of passages which speak of a “soon” coming of Christ.
Orthodox Preterists can call Dispensational hermeneutics “hyper literal” all they want. The fact is, they are using the same technique whenever they aproach texts that speak of the timing of prophetic events.
From a Dispensational perspective, Preterists and Hyper-Preterists are both inconsistent, as they fail to interpret Scriptures according to uniform exegetical standards. What is the hermeneutical and exegetical necessity for taking the timing texts literally, but the controlling context spiritually? There is no necessity other than that which Preterist theology creates, through its insistence of A.D. 70 as an eschatological marker.
Of course, Preterists do not like to hear such an assessment. Rather than blame their own hermeneutics for the proliferation and spread of Hyper-Preterism, it is sometimes alleged that Dispensationalism is to blame!
Dee Dee Warren, administrator of the Preterist Blog, and an outstanding proponent of Orthodox Preterism, recently wrote:
“I am amazed daily at precisely how hyper-literal the hyperpreterist can be; at times worse than some dispensationalists.”
Such statements appear on their surface to indicate that Hyper-Preterism and Dispensationalism are allied theologies. I am sure that both parties would be surprised to hear of this affinity, as the difference between their respective hermeneutical standpoints is like night and day. Hyper-Preterists can hardly be called hyper-literal, as they spiritualize almost all of the eschatological passages that speak of Christ’s second coming. It is this spiritualization against which Dispensationalists protest.
Rather, the Hyper-Preterist ideology is closely allied to that of orthodox Preterism — so much so, that certain distinctives of Hyper-Preterist doctrine (such as that Matthew 25: 31-46 was fulfilled in A.D. 70) routinely pass as ‘orthodox‘ in Reformed circles, provided their adherents give lip-service to a future second coming of Christ and resurrection of the dead.
The critiques of Dipensational hermeneutics which come from the orthodox Preterist camp strike us as being a desperate measure to take the heat off themselves, lest their own prophetic approach be subjected to critical scrutiny. But when it comes to timing passages, they already agree with us on half the evidence. Why not the other half? If Preterists accuse Dispensationalists of using a hyper literal hermeneutic, then cannot the same label be applied to their interpretation of the time texts? And why may not Dispensationalists call Preteristic interpretations “hyper spiritual” for breaking their own rules? Instead of name-calling, however, we simply affirm that the Bible is to be interpreted according to clear-cut exegetical standards, and not by an arbitrary two-tiered approach.
Did The Apostles Understand What Christ Was Talking About?
One of the things we often hear from Hyper-Preterists, is that Jesus Christ, in His great Olivet Discourse, speaks in language almost entirely figurative and allegorical. For instance, Hyper-Preterists will tell you that in Matthew: 29-30, Christ is using poetical imagery to describe the destruction of the Jewish nation. Hyper-Preterists (and some moderate to extreme Partial Preterists) claim that He is not speaking of geophysical changes at all.
In order to bolster their views, H.P.’s sometimes quote from passages such as Isaiah 19: 1 and Ezekiel 32: 7-8, where the prophets used similar language when describing great national calamities. However, Hyper-Preterists totally ignore the eschatological context in which these verses are placed, relegating the passages to historical events which have already been fulfilled. Obviously, their Preterist interpretation of the Old Testament texts allows them to interpret New Testament in like manner.
In framing their arguments, Hyper-Preterists have always relied on a great deal of liberal and higher critical thinking. As Thomas Ice observes:
“The original proponents of Preterism in recent centuries are those who have practiced a critical or rationalistic approach to interpreting the Bible. For example, Preterists interpret key prophetic passages such as Zechariah 12-14, Matthew 24, and the book of Revelation in the same way liberals approach the entire canon of Scripture” (The End Times Controversy, pg. 63).
Dr. Ice’s observation is right on target. Most Preterism that I’ve come across is inseparably wedded to liberalism. However, such a theology as Hyper-Preterism does sometimes seem plausible to those who don’t know the Scriptures. This theology has snared many into thinking that the second advent is a past event.
And yet after a detailed study of the H.P. theories, we are left with the nagging question: Did the apostles know what Christ was talking about? Well, according to some, apparently not. If Hyper-Preterist theology is correct, then it appears that some of the most significant teachings of our Lord were not actually understood until centuries after His prophecies came to pass.
But the solution to the whole Preterist-Futurist debate is not that difficult. All we have to ask is how the apostles themselves understood Christ’s discourse. To start from the a priori assumption that they never came to a perfect understanding is both reckless and subversive – not even worthy of our time and trouble. But few Preterists would make such an assertion. Their belief comes rather as a “built in premise” than an outright declaration.
Did those who originally heard the Olivet Discourse understand what Christ meant? There is not the slightest indication to show that they didn’t. The fact is enough to destroy Hyper-Preterist theology. But this fact requires some elucidation.
As we’ve said in the past, we must make a distinction between the two discourses given in Matthew 24/Mark 13 and in Luke 21. These are different discourses that were given on different occasions. The one recorded in Luke’s gospel was spoken publicly in the temple (see Luke 20: 1; 21: 1, 37). Whereas that recorded in Matthew 24 and Mark 13 was spoken privately, on the Mount of Olives (see Matthew 24: 1; Mark 13: 1-3). This makes all the difference.
Our suggestion is that the two discourses, when harmonized, will follow the chronological sequence already laid down in Daniel 9: 26-27, in which the destruction of the city and sanctuary by the “people of the prince” PRECEDES the later defilement of the (rebuilt) temple by the prince himself. Christ’s ”Temple Discourse” deals largely with the nearer event, which took place in A.D. 70. Whereas the Olivet Discourse focuses on the later defilement of the Jewish temple when the “abomination of desolation” is set up in the holy place (Matthew 24: 15; Mark 13: 14).
With these facts in mind, we draw the reader’s attention to the fact that the destruction of the city and sanctuary was a matter of public disclosure. In fact, Christ referred to these events more than once during His public teaching (Matthew 23: 38; Luke 19: 41-44). However, the events regarding the Great Tribulation were the subject of special revelation, and therefore spoken privately.
Now, it is known that Christ sometimes spoke in parables; but only when he wished the truth to be hidden from the unbelieving multitude (Matthew 13: 13-15). Whenever Christ spoke privately to His disciples He made known all things (Mark 4: 34b). This automatically rules out any allegorical interpretation of Matthew 24/Mark 13. To hold that Christ spoke this discourse parabolically or in riddles, is to go contrary to the grain of New Testament revelation. There was no incentive for Christ to conceal the truth in a non-public setting.
But there are two other questions we must ask:
1. Is there any Biblical precedence for a literal exposition of the Olivet Discourse?
2. Did the apostles have any experiential basis for expecting that fulfillment would be literal, and not allegorical?
These questions can be readily answered in the affirmative.
To tackle the first, it is only necessary to remind readers that the supernatural and miraculous were part and parcel of the economy then current when Christ made His predictions. Such events as the parting of the Red Sea (Exodus 14: 21-22), the standing still of the sun (Joshua 10: 12-13), and (later on) the darkening of the sun itself (see Luke 23: 45), would have confirmed, to the minds of Christ’s original audience, belief in a literal fulfillment of the Olivet Prophecy. There is nothing in the history of Old Testament Israel that would lead them (or ourselves) to believe otherwise.
Take the “cloud-coming passage” of Matthew 24: 30, for example. Every one of Christ’s Jewish hearers would have been familiar with Moses’s account of Jehovah’s coming to Sinai in a visible cloud (Exodus 19: 16). It did not need any special revelation to confirm the literality of that event, or a future fulfillment of something similar. On the contrary, a revelation would have been required to sustain a non-literal view. Was such a revelation ever given? Our response is in the negative.
The second question may be answered with equal facility. During our Lord’s 3 1/2-year ministry, the apostles had already witnessed some miraculous visions, the foremost of which was in connection with a literal cloud.
(Matthew 17: 5) “While He yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold, a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased; hear ye Him.”
This passage is “admissible evidence” in the controversy of whether Christ’s coming with clouds (as depicted in Matthew 24: 30) is to be understood literally or figuratively. Peter — one of the original hearers of Christ’s Olivet Discourse – himself used the word “parousia” to describe the vision of Christ’s transfiguration which he saw on the holy mount (see 2 Peter 1: 16-17).
All Christians agree that the “cloud” described in Matthew 17 was a literal one. Well, why not the geophysical phenomena depicted in Christ’s Olivet Discourse, which includes His coming in clouds of heaven?
In what sense should we take Christ’s language? We answer by asking: In what sense did the apostles take it? They had Biblical precedence, as well as a strong experiential basis, for understanding our Savior’s words in a literal manner. Therefore, there is no reason not to interpret the passage the same way they did.
I think when the facts are fairly examined, any honest student will concede that it is far more reasonable to interpret Christ’s prophecy according to a “grammatical, contextual, historical” sense, than mystically or allegorically. The literal view already agrees with the whole fabric of divine revelation. Whereas the figurative approach seems to be a measure concocted to bolster an erroneous set of preconceived conclusions. This renders it much less credible than any view held by Christians today.
