Archive for pre-millennialism
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.”
Rev. Alfred Bryant– On The Loosing of Satan and The Destruction Of Gog and Magog
(from Millennarian Views, With Reasons For Receiving Them, 1852)
It is the opinion of some millennarians, and of many who are not, that after the thousand years of peace and purity on earth, there will be a great falling away through the influence of Satan, who will be permitted to go out and seduce the nations to sin; and that so great will be his success, that the number of the seduced will be as the sand of the sea.
But there is another view of this subject entertained by some, which we will give, and leave the reader to judge which is probably correct.
Who are the nations in the four quarters of the earth whom Satan shall go out to deceive? It is replied, they are the unholy dead, who are raised up simultaneously with the loosing of Satan, in all parts of the world, just where they went down to the grave. Included in these vast nations, the number of whom will be as the sand of the sea, will be all the wicked who died before the flood, and who were swept away with that catastrophe, the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah – of Tyre and Sidon, and all the vast nations of antiquity, who were destroyed from earth for their sins. Here, too, will appear the apostate nations, and Gog and Magog, described by Ezekiel, who were destroyed at the commencement of the Millennium.
The Orange Mailman: Millennial Musings
In this brand-new 33 minute podcast, Brian Simmons interviews Darrin (a.k.a. The Orange Mailman) concerning one of the most intriguing topics of endtime prophecy – the Millennium. Darrin holds that the “new heavens and earth” of Rev. 21 are the same as those mentioned in Isaiah 65 & 66. He sees the New Jerusalem as descending at the beginning of the Millennium, and not after the Great White Throne Judgment. Other subjects discussed in this audio include Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the rise of “Mystery Babylon.”
Darrin has written a large number of articles dealing with Bible prophecy. To visit his blog, go to http://theorangemailman.spaces.live.com.
Listen to podcast: http://www.archive.org/download/TheOrangeMailmansMillennialMusings/orange_millennium.mp3
By What Authority?
Thinking of my recent discussions with Hyper-Preterists, I find it somewhat ironic that I am relying less and less on the testimony of creeds and confessions, and more and more on the plain teachings of Scripture.
If I were asked a year ago to support my position, I would have quoted from Irenaeus, Lactantius, Tertullian, Commodianus, or other ancient fathers that held the Pre-Millennial view. All I can do now is cite the Scriptures. If my opponents don’t believe the Scriptures, then it is not likely they’ll accept any human testimony I bring forth.
The other day, on the CARM forum, a guy named “Cog” threw a challenge my way, alleging that Pre-Millennialism is clearly determined a heresy by the authority of creeds and confessions. He directed me to a Reformed discussion board, at which this topic was made a thread of debate. To view the original thread, click here.
This thread is really challenging, for it reminds me that none of the ecumenical creeds endorse a Pre-Millennial eschatology! However, I welcome this sort of challenge, for it confirms in my eyes the importance of Scripture over tradition. After all, if the creeds don’t endorse Pre-Millennialism, does that make it wrong? Or does the Bible get to decide the issue?
Here is what a person named “YXU” said:
“Surely, Pre-Millennialism is not a heresy, but it departs from the ecumenical creeds which are used to set up Christian orthodoxy in a certain degree.”
Now, this fellow clearly has it backwards. Creeds don’t determine orthodoxy, but merely bear witness to the teachings of Scripture. Wherefore I was glad to hear another gentleman named “Bookslover” correct ”YXU” on this.
”Bookslover” replied: “Well, it would be better to say that the ecumenical creeds refelect the orthodoxy of the Bible, rather than that they ’set up’ orthodoxy, as if creeds control the Bible. Rather, it’s the other way around — the creeds are subservient to the Scriptures.”
This position is important, for it negates the Roman Catholic notion that the meaning of Scripture is determined by councils of men. My position is that God has already left us with the meaning, and all we have to do is accept it.
E.W. Bullinger writes: “The first great and essential principle which must be ever present with us, when we study the Word of God, as a whole, is not to treat it as something which we have to interpret, but as being that which God has given in order to interpret Himself and His will to us” (How To Enjoy The Bible, pg. 7).
Obviously, a Christian that doesn’t hold to a “grammatical, historical, contextual” mode of interpretation, will require some human arbiter to act as a final authority in matters of doctrine. But in all such controversies, we should ask: What saith the Word of God?
Unfortunately, the “Sola Scriptura” position will be viewed as Hyper-Preterists as an “opportunity,” to claim that Scripture teaches the past second coming of Christ. However, the irony is that no Hyper-Preterist I’ve ever met can support his doctrines by Scripture alone. It is a standing joke among futurists, that without Josephus the Preterist is stranded.
The innate weakness of Hyper-Preterist theology was recently exemplified on CARM. Cog only threw the creedal argument at me after I Scripturally refuted his position.
Cog believes that the “wife of the Lamb” mentioned in Revelation 19: 7 is none other than the Christian church. I observed, however, that only Israel can properly be called the “wife” — especially when the timing of her “preparation“ is considered. It is as “wife” that she “makes herself ready.“
Hyper-Preterists say that the church is the “wife.” But if, as they claim, the old wife wasn’t divorced until Jesus Christ returned, it is obvious that at the stage of vision referred to in Rev. 19: 7-9, God is found with two wives, and stands open to charges of polygamy.
I suggested to Cog that the problem be solved by referring to the Old Testament texts which doubtless contain the key to John’s visions. Passages such as Isaiah 54: 4-8, Isaiah 62: 4, and Hosea 2: 16-20, determine that the wife none other than Israel, who was set aside for a season, but will be reclaimed at Jesus Christ’s second coming.
A simple reading of the text will inform us that Revelation 19: 7 describes the resumption of a former relationship, and not the inauguration of something entirely new. Whereas the church is never referred to as a “wife,” but as a “bride.” That makes the difference.
When did the Christian church ever bear the reproach of “widowhood“? (Isaiah 54: 4) When was she ever “refused“? (Isaiah 54: 6). Such a concept is foreign to the teachings of the New Testament. However, the prophets declared that Israel would be put away for a season (Isaiah 50: 1-2), and later reclaimed (Hosea 3: 1-5). In the New Testament writings, this concept was set forth as the “mystery” of Israel’s blindness (Romans 11: 25). This blindness is not to last forever, but will end when the fullness of the Gentiles has been gathered in. It is this national reclamation that John describes in Revelation 19 — as anyone will see by a comparison of that chapter with Zechariah 14.
It was only after my appeal to Scripture that Cog threw the creedal argument at my head. Very well. But I can pull the same thing. The creeds unanimously declare that Christ’s second coming is future. Will Cog accept this? Of course not. Like all Hyper-Preterists, he must needs wrest the Scriptures to support his own view.
But I have Scriptures as well. The main question, I suppose, is whose interpretation is correct. My answer is that God’s interpretation will stand. Is a “grammatical, historical, contextual” reading of the Bible sufficient to bring us to the truth? Does God speak clearly?
Because of their outlandish interpretations, the Hyper-Preterists must claim that God deliberately conceals the truth from His people. Hyper-Preterists believe that God spoke so ambiguously that it took 2,000 years to discover the A-B-C’s of eschatology. We say nothing of other departments of theology, which (strangely enough) are considered inviolable, and not subject to the slightest amendment. But if Hyper-Preterist premises are true, then couldn’t one reasonably affirm that the church got it wrong in other areas besides eschatology?
The difference between my mode of interpretation and that of the Hyper-Preterist, is that my opponent works from a defeatist premise. Whereas I work from the premise that God wishes to be understood by His children, and that the truth is always “at hand,” and not “far off.” It is not a matter of “my interpretation” or “your interpretation.” The only thing that matters is “God’s interpretation.”
This is why I welcome such challenges as Cog gives me. It confirms in my mind the authority of Scripture over tradition, while it solidifies my position that in order for “Sola Scriptura” to hold good, the Bible must be understood according to the “grammatical, contextual, and historical” method of interpretation. The two go hand in hand. And if creeds be found standing in the way, then they must fall as surely as the conflicting babel of Hyper-Preterist interpretations.
David Brown– Premillennialists Have Done The Church a Real Service!
(from Christ’s Second Coming: Will It Be Pre-Millennial?)
“Pre-Millennialists have done the church a real service, by calling attention to the place which the second advent holds in the Word of God and the scheme of divine truth. If the controversy which they have raised should issue in a fresh and impartial inquiry into this branch of it, I, for one, instead of regretting, shall rejoice in the agitation of it. When they dilate on the prominence given to this doctrine in Scripture, and the practical uses which are made of it, they touch a chord in the heart of every simple lover of his Lord, and carry conviction to all who tremble at His word; so much so, that I am persuaded nine-tenths of all who have embraced the pre-millennial view of the second advent have done so on the supposition that no other view of it will admit of an unfettered and unmodified use of Scripture language on this subject — that it has its proper interpretation and full force only on this theory.
“With them we affirm that the Redeemer’s second appearing is the very pole-star of the church. That it is so held forth in the New Testament, is beyond dispute.”
*****************
[It the second coming is the pole-star of the church, Davie-boy, then it must have been eclipsed 2,000 years ago, by your "figurative" second coming of Christ. The Corinthian saints were waiting for the Apocalypse of the Lord (1 Cor. 1: 7 -- same word used in Rev. 1: 1). It was this very Apocalypse, or unveiling, that would bring about the resurrection. Paul says, "WE shall not all sleep, but WE shall be changed" (1 Cor. 15: 1). He included himself among those who shared in the hope of a speedy apocalypse of Christ, which was to be accompanied by the resurrection of the dead.
Paul said this would happen at the "last trump." This can only be the 7th trumpet of the Apocalypse! (See Rev. 11: 15). The same "trumpet" is mentioned in 1 Thess. 4: 16-17, as having to do with the archangel. Daniel had written that when Michael (the archangel) stands up for the children of Israel, there will be a time of trouble, and a resurrection will occur! (Dan. 12: 1-2). This is the same resurrection as that mentioned in 1 Cor. 15. The word "parousia" is used to denote the Lord's apocalypse, when the dead are raised (1 Cor. 15: 23; 1 Thess. 4: 15; Matt. 24: 3, 27, 37, 39).
The Corinthian saints were not waiting for something that was 2,000 years in their future, but for an event which might occur in their own lifetime! The hope of resurrection was based on expectation of an imminent PAROUSIA. To say that the parousia of Christ occurred in A.D. 70 is to claim that their hope was fully realized.]
Why I’m A Pre-Millennialist
[Note: The following article was published a few months ago at Larry Siegle's blog, "Kingdom Victory." Since it correctly expresses my position on the futuricity of Daniel's 70th week, and has never been refuted by Preterists, I am here re-publishing it, with some minor revisions. Essentially, my position is the same as when I wrote this article. Until I see something from The Bible proving that the events of Daniel's 70th week happened in the first century, I will continue to hold to a Dispensational scheme of eschatology. The real issue, I think, involves who we believe more: Christ or Josephus.]
As a former Hyper-preterist, I can certainly appreciate the arguments put forth by members of the movement, as to the second coming being a past event. After all, if “all these things” mentioned in Matthew 24: 1-34 really took place in A.D. 70 (which would include the one parousia mentioned in v. 3), then one must accept the logical consequences of his/her view and afirm that the Hyper-Preterist view is correct.
Nevertheless, despite the evidence that I always see put forward by Preterists, there is no way I would ever return to preterism. And the reason is based on solid exegetical evidence. The evidence may not be apparent at first sight. But when one really gets down to studying the Old Testament prophets, a great number of truths crop up that make any kind of preterism an impossibility. Of course there is the claim made by Dispensationalists (to which I agree) that prophecies relating to the restoration of Israel remain, for the most part, unfulfilled. But these prophecies and predictions are too many to get into. To discuss them all would require the length, not of an article, but of a book. Therefore, in giving my reasons why I am a pre-millennialist, I will only focus on a few texts which tend to support the Pre-Millennial system of eschatology.
As this article is mainly addressed to Preterists, I’ll start with a text on which we share some common ground. That text is Daniel 12: 1-2: “And at that time shall Michael the stand up, the great prince whih standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”
This obviously describes the Great Tribulation predicted by Christ Himself. Moreover, the passage unmistakably places resurrection in connection with this tribulation. Now Christ said that the tribulation would be set off by the abomination of desolation (Matt. 24: 14). What is meant by the term “abomination of desolation?” A comparison of Scripture with Scripture would inform us that it is none other than the image of the beast which will be erected in the rebuilt temple of Jerusalem. Its placement will take occur in the midst of Daniel’s 70th week, triggering that time of “Jacob’s Trouble” (Great Tribulation) out of which Israel will be saved (see Jeremiah 30: 6-7).
Notice that when Christ referenced the abomination of desolation, He said that it was the same one mentioned by Daniel the prophet. Appended to His words is the solemn injunction: “whoso readeth, let Him understand.” Whether Christ Himself said this, or it is an interpolation of Matthew, is not very important. However, I incline to the first view. Christ wanted us to understand that the Abomination of Desolation which He foresaw was the very subject of Daniel’s inspired predictions. This is the key element to understanding what the “abomination of desolation” really is. Keep it steadily in mind as we continue.
Going back to the book of Daniel, we find this “abomination of desolation” mentioned four times. As we’ll see, these passages are all intimately related, and point to the times of which Christ spoke in His Olivet Discourse . Therefore, any alleged “past fulfillment” must be viewed as anticipatory, and not final.
(Daniel 8: 11-14) “Yea, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. And a host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground, and it practiced and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saints which spake, How long shall the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”
(Daniel 9: 27) “And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate.”
(Daniel 11: 31) “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.”
(Daniel 12: 11) “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.”
To understand these passages better, it is suggested that the reader study E.W. Bullinger’s two papers, “The Times and Numbered Days of Daniel” and “The Visions of Daniel Synchronous.” There is no doubt but that the four passages cited above speak of the same period of intense tribulation of which Christ prophesied. Therefore, when the Lord said that the tribulation would be set off by the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Daniel; and when going back to Daniel we find that this would take place in the “midst of the week,” leaving a remaining period of three-and-a-half years, or a half-week, until the “time of the end,” we conclude that the preterist view of Daniel’s 70 weeks is mistaken, and that the Dispensational/Pre-Millennial view is correct.
We should keep in mind, of course, that the “2,300 days” of Daniel 8: 14 begin 220 days into the beginning of the 70th week; whereas the extra 75 days alluded to in Daniel 12: 11-12 extend beyond the close of the 70th week (see Bullinger’s papers). This leaves us a time-period of 42 months, or three-and-a-half years during which Antichrist (the little horn) will persecute the saints. This same period comes into play in John’s Apocalypse. In Revelation 11: 3, we read of the “two witnesses” bearing testimony during the 42 months. When their testimony is finished, “the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome and kill them.” Then after three-and-a-half days, they are resurrected (as per Daniel 12: 2) and ascend to heaven in a cloud (Rev. 11: 11-12). It is at this point that the seventh angel (last trump) sounds and the “kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ.” Compare with Daniel 7: 25-27, which refers to the same “42 months” as a “time and times and the dividing of time.”
The inter-relation of these several texts is further confirmed when we see that the beast from the bottomless pit is described as functioning for exactly “42 months.” Nobody who compares Revelation 13 with the above Scriptures in Daniel will doubt that it is the same events of which both prophets are writing. “And there was given unto Him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and power was given unto him to continue for forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them; and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (Rev. 13: 5-7).
When, we ask, does this persecution commence? It begins in the “midst of the week” when the daily sacrifice is taken away and the abomination that maketh desolate is erected in the holy place of the temple. Christ Himself said that this would mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24: 14-21). And Daniel, in ch. 12, references the same exact period of time. This period, moreover, ends in a resurrection of many from the dust of the earth. Let us not wrest words, but believe what the Holy Spirit has recorded for our edification. Did any such events as mentioned in the inspired prophecies of Daniel occur during the Jewish war?
The answer is a firm no. Although it is sometimes alleged that the “abomination of desolation” was fulfilled during the Roman campaign against Judea, a closer comparison of Scripture with Scripture makes such a scenario impossible. For we look in vain for any ”prince” who made the daily sacrifice cease in A.D. 67, or for any persecution of the saints by this aforesaid “prince” (identified with the “beast” and “little horn“) which began at that time and ended in A.D. 70. These main ingredients are needed, however, to support a Preterist view.
But matters become more complicated. For Preterists believe that Christ was the “he” of Daniel 9: 27, and that after “confirming a covenant with many” for “one week,” He was “cut off” in the midst of the week, thus causing the temple sacrifices to cease as a divine appointment. This view, while cleverly framed, breaks apart under closer examination. For, in the first place, it is expressly declared that Messiah would be cut off “after the threescore and two weeks“–that is, upon the termination of 69 weeks–and not in the middle of the 70th.
Secondly, if Christ made a covenant with many for “one week,” the Scripture gives us no clue of what this covenant consisted or when it was made. Such an important fact would not have been left out of the record of our Lord’s earthly ministry. Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Romans 15: 8), and to offer Himself a sacrifice for the sins of the world–not to make a one-week covenant.
On the other hand, Antichrist is described in Daniel as entering into a league with the Jewish people. “And after the league made with him, he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people” (Dan. 11: 22). This same “vile person“ is depicted as having his heart set against the “holy covenant.” After a flurry of indignation, “arms will stand on his part,” and “they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength,” and “take away the daily sacrifice,” placing the “abomination that maketh desolate” (Daniel 11: 28-31). It is this very breaking of the covenant by Antichrist which Gabriel describes in Daniel 9: 27–and not the crucifixion of Christ.
Thirdly, as the taking away of the daily sacrifice is accompanied by the placement of the abomination of desolation, the Preterist view forces the student to do two things:– 1): argue for a fulfillment of the abomination of desolation in A.D. 30, when Christ was crucifed. And– 2): place a 36-year gap between the first and last halves of the week. But Christ declares the abomination as the event which begins the tribulation. Hence, His own interpretation links the first and last halves of the week together. Lest we be lost in confusion, we have only two choices. The first is to argue for a fulfillment of the 70th week in A.D. 33, which theory the Olivet Discourse, the prophecies of Daniel, and the Book of Revelation all make impossible. The second is to see the 70th week as still future. I’ll leave the reader to judge which view is in better alignment with common-sense, logical consistency, and the Word of God.
All Christians have for determining whether or not the 70th week was fulfilled in the first century is the inspired New Testament record. But where the Bible is silent, secular history affords no help. The main problem with the Preterist view is that it ignores the fact that the return of Christ was conditional on Jewish national repentance (Hosea 5: 15; Matthew 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21). Since the nation rejected the kingdom in A.D. 63 (see Acts 28: 25-26), they rejected the coming of the King, and therefore all has been postponed. Incidentally, this is the only view which honors a consistent literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and one that relies on direct Scriptural support, and not clever theorizing. Therefore, it is to be accepted by all reverent students of God’s Word.
Before I close this article, allow me to say that it was Philip Mauro’s book on the Seventy Weeks that led me into Preterism. At that time I knew very little of prophecy, and was impressionable to his arguments. Now, however, I see that book as a very poor and disjointed study. Ironically, it was Dispensationalists like E.W. Bullinger and Clarence Larkin, as well as early church fathers like Irenaeus and Hippolytus, that led me ultimately away from the Preterist view, and toward a futuristic interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel. Because of the inconsistencies of the Preterist view, which cannot be reconciled except by ignoring the clear testimony of sacred Scripture and enforcing hypothetical views of fulfillment, I remain, and shall always remain, a died-in-the-wool Pre-Millennialist.
Resurrection And The Land Promises
One of the strange inconsistencies of “orthodox Preterists” is seen in regard to the doctrine of the Resurrection. Preterists tenaciously hold to belief in a future resurrection of the body. Naturally, this is part and parcel of New Testament theology. And we’re glad that Preterists maintain their position against the outright denial of the Hyper-Preterist cult.
But at the same time Preterists err in denying that there will be a future literal restoration of Israel to the land of promise. When Pre-Millennialists ask Preterists to give a reason for their denial of this future hope, we’re told that the land promises are now fulfilled “In Christ.” That is, somewhere along the line there was an abrogation of God’s promises made to Israel. Somehow, some way, the promise of a future physical reality was replaced by something entirely hypothetical. Do you see the inconsistency? If not, continue reading.
Because Preterists believe in a future resurrection, they admit that something of a profoundly physical nature will occur at Christ’s second coming. Very well. So orthodox Christians have believed for centuries. But when it comes to the doctrine of restoration of the land, they don’t believe it. Why not? It is ten times more incredible that God should raise dead bodies from the dust, than that He should restore to the Jews the land God promised their fathers. Furthermore, if Scripture is carefully studied, it will be seen that both doctrines (land restoration and resurrection of the body) are closely related. So, my question is: If God will accomplish the one, will He not accomplish the other?
Both promises are represented as having their fulfillment in connection with physical things. Why spiritualize the land promises, but maintain the literality of the resurrection? I am not quibbling. I am merely pointing out what seems a fatal anomaly in the Preterist theory. Orthodox Preterists believe that Christ will return in His own body, just as He ascended. And yet passages which describe this physical coming (like Zechariah 14) are understood as being entirely “spiritual.” Well, if this is the case, why can’t the resurrection be spiritualized as well?
According to the prevailing mode of allegorizing the Scriptures, it would be easy to insist that the resurrection of the body is fulfilled “In Christ,” in precisely the same manner that the land promises are. Just suppose that when Paul spoke of the resurrection, he used language descriptive of earthly things to symbolize higher spiritual truths. “Heresy!” you cry. And so it is. But if such a view is condemnable, how are we to react to the spiritualization of such passages as Daniel 12: 2: “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” Surely, any spiritualization of this verse is also worthy of condemnation.
But let us look at another passage that is often allegorized by Preterists. I speak of Ezekiel’s prophecy of the dry bones. “Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, and shall put My Spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land” (Ezekiel 37: 12-14). How are we to interpret this passage, which ostensibly looks forward to a physical resurrection?
I hear you respond that this is a hypothetical resurrection of which the prophet was writing. You say that it was fulfilled in the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity. Very well. So we are to understand the resurrection of the dry bones as being allegorical in nature. But what about the land? Was it allegorical land to which the Jews returned? Of course not. But if the “land“ meant was really the land of Palestine, then what warrant do we have for spiritualizing the doctrine of the resurrection? For according to Ezekiel’s prophecy, the resurrection would place them back in the land.
Now do you admit that the land to which the dry bones would be restored was physical? Then move down to 37: 25. “And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob My servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever.”
Neither does this passage admit of any spiritualization. The very phrase “the land wherein your fathers have dwelt” reveals this prophecy as relating to Israel, and not to the church. A simple glance at the succeeding context tells us that the passage will be fulfilled when the everlasting covenant (i.e., New Covenant) is established, and the Divine sanctuary placed in the midst of the children of Israel forever (Ezek. 37: 26-27).
And this is not a mere isolated proof-text I am giving. Hearken to Ezekiel once more: “And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God” (Ezekiel 36: 26-27).
Again, the phrase “the land I gave to your fathers” (note the use of the personal pronoun “your“) identifies exactly what the prophet was talking about. It has nothing to do with spiritual promises to the church, but refers to the land of Palestine. The Christian church was not instituted until the first century A.D. Therefore, Ezekiel’s original audience could only have understood such promises as referring to themselves and to their children. However, if God made a promise to them, which was later abrogated, why may not promises made to church be set aside? If the land promises are fulfilled “in Christ,” then why may not the resurrection also be fulfilled “in Christ?”
However, God’s promise to give Israel the land of Palestine is entirely unconditional, and based on the original grant made to Abraham. Dispensational scholar Clarence Larkin writes: “God’s promises to Abraham were progressive. At Ur the promises were the ‘land,’ and that his seed should become ‘a great nation.’ Gen. 12: 1, 2. At Shechem the promise of the ‘ownership of the land to his descendants.’ Gen. 12: 7. At Bethel, a” the land ‘thou seest,’ and that his seed should be as the ‘dust of the earth for number.’ Gen. 13: 15, 16. At Mamre, that his seed should be for numbers as the ’stars of the heavens,’ and that the land should extend from the ‘River of Egypt’ to the ‘River Euphrates.’ Gen. 15: 5, 18. And at Moriah the promise as to the number of his seed was repeated. Gen. 22: 16, 18. These promises were unconditionally confirmed to his son, Isaac (Gen. 26: 1-4), and to his grandson, Jacob. Gen. 28: 10-15.”
True, the law was added 430 years later, but this later addition cannot annul the original promise (Galatians 3: 15-17). The reason why the Jews have never gained permanent possession of the land, is because they sought it through the law. But the original promise was by grace. In Jeremiah 7: 5-7, the prophet lays down the conditions necessary for possessing the land: “For if ye throughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye throughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbor; if ye oppress not the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, and shed not innocent blood in this place, neither walk after other gods to your hurt: then will I cause you to dwell in this place, in the land I gave to your fathers, for ever and ever.”
Now because Israel could never meet these conditions, they never obtained permanent possession of the land. But once the conditions are met, what is to hinder God’s promises from being fulfilled? A bit of honest reflection will inform us that the land promises will be literally fulfilled when the New Covenant is established.
Listen to Jeremiah, as he delivers the words of Jehovah Himself: “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and will write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be My people” (Jeremiah 31: 33). Israel can only keep the law by being brought into the bonds of a new and better covenant. Once they receive the blessings of the Spirit, they will keep the law and be restored to the land forever.
But you say that the above passage has already been fulfilled, for it was quoted by Paul in Hebrews 10: 16. The mistake, however, is obvious. Paul nowhere said that Jeremiah’s prophecy was “fulfilled.” In fact, he had previously said that the Old Covenant was still in effect, and ready to give place to the New (Hebrews 8: 13). Moreover, Paul could not have understood Jeremiah 31: 33 as already fulfilled, for he cites it again in Romans 11: 27, as proof that “all Israel will be saved.” This was cited hand-in-hand with Isaiah 59: 20, which refers to the same permanant sanctification of Israel, at the second coming of Christ (Isaiah 59: 16-21–read entire passage). Therefore, the fulfillment of the New Covenant remains future.
If this be so, then it is clear that the resurrection and the land promises are intimately related, and both involve physical realities. For as the land was personally promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; and as none of them ever lived to possess their inheritance, but wandered as strangers and pilgrims in the very land that God had given them (Acts 7: 5; Heb. 11: 9): then there must be a resurrection in order that God may keep His promise. Hence Christ’s quotation, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” was enough to put the Sadducees to silence (see Luke 20: 27-39). For God fully intends to keep His promises. And it is nonsense to claim that later promises can be used to upset and overthrow earlier ones.
Therefore, if one spiritualizes the land promises, insisting that they are hypothetically fulfilled “in Christ,” then one may just as well spiritualize the resurrection. But as orthodox Preterists believe in a future coming of Christ in His own body, and a resurrection of the dead upon His return, it should not be hard to accept the doctrine of a future restoration of Israel to the land that God promised them. And this is precisely what Pre-Millennialists believe. As you can see, our doctrines are not so irrational, after all.
