Archive for Preterism
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.
Moses Spanks Preterism
Deuteronomy 4: 25When thou shalt beget children, and children’s children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke Him to anger:
26I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
27And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you.
28And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
29But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find Him, if thou seek Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
30When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto His voice;
31(For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;) He will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which He sware unto them.
Well, to be truthful, it is less Moses, than the Lord Jehovah Himself Who spanks Preterism in the above passage. The passage teaches, firstly, that the tribulation will have been preceded by a dispersion of the nation; and secondly, that the Lord will never destroy Israel – even in the midst of tribulation. The conclusion is obvious: the scattering must precede the time of tribulation. Ergo, the tribulation cannot be equivalent to the national scattering which took place in A.D. 70. Nor can the scattering amount to any “destruction” of the Jewish nation.
If Deut. 4: 25-31 were only passage that teaches this truth, the conclusion would be at least open to question. But the concept is repeated in Ezekiel 22: 16-22, where the prophet implies that AFTER Israel has been dispersed, they will be gathered into the city of Jerusalem and melted. See also Ezekiel 36: 22-29, which depicts a yet future transaction, in which Israel will be gathered into the land in unbelief, and subsequently sanctified. The result will be the complete fulfillment of the New Covenant promises mentioned in Jeremiah 31: 31-40. The result will be national restoration – not national destruction!
What have we in the New Testament? Certainly a corroboration of the above. In Luke 21: 23-24 Christ predicts the taking of the city, in A.D. 70 at which time Josephus records 97,000 Jews were led away into captivity. If one notes the flow of Christ’s discourse, one cannot help seeing that the second coming must occur long afterwards, when the times of the Gentiles shall have been fulfilled (Luke 21: 24-27).
Hence, as we have pointed out many times, a true harmony of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21 will follow the chronological pattern laid down in Daniel 9: 26-27. In that passage, the destruction of the city and sanctuary is followed by the last week of Daniel’s 70, during which time Antichrist stops the daily sacrifice and desecrates the holy place (cf. Dan. 11: 31; 12: 11). Between the desolation of the city and sanctuary (Luke 21: 12-24) and the defilement of the temple (Matthew 24: 15; Mark 13: 14) lies the present dispensation, which was a secret hidden in God (Eph. 3: 9; Col. 1: 26).
Thus, it is clear that mere national dispersion cannot be tantamount to “the tribulation.” In accordance with the Old Testament prophetical motif of melting/refinement, the tribulation will result in the total sanctification of the nation (Isaiah 4: 3-4; Mal. 3: 3-4; Ezekiel 20: 34-38). It will issue in their deliverance, and not their destruction (Jeremiah 30: 7; Daniel 12: 1; Luke 21: 28).
This eschatological purging of Israel, as described so vividly by Moses and the prophets, did not take place at Nebuchadnezzar’s destruction of the first temple, inasmuch as neither the 3,023 Jews of the first captivity (Jer. 52: 28) nor the 832 of the second captivity (Jer. 52: 29) were regathered into Jerusalem to be “melted.” The largest captivity took place four years AFTER the destruction of the temple, when 4,600 Jews were carried away (Jer. 52: 30). And as Daniel continued to prophesy long after the destruction of the temple, the restoration passages therefore await future fulfillment.
Preterism is a stone-age theology that must be recognized for what it is. It is an ideological rebellion against God’s purpose to restore the nation of Israel. We are now realizing this for the very first time. When dealing with Preterism, it is essential to remember that it is not ideas under fire, so much as the right of God’s chosen people to inherit the promises of the Abrahamic covenant. Although Preterism asserts otherwise, the law never states that Israel would be cast away – even after the curses of Deut. 28 have been levied (see Deut. 30: 1-10). O fools, and slow of heart to be believe all that the prophets have spoken!
The Right of The Firstborn
“If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath; that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: but he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his” (Deut. 21: 15-17).
The above passage is often left out of the reckoning by Replacement Theologians who say that God permanently excommunicated Israel in A.D. 70. Indeed, among the great majority of Preterists that is deemed the standard theme of our Lord’s Olivet Discourse. But as we have demonstrated several times, Replacement Theology, of whatever mold or make it may be, is patently untrue.
The quotation above once again confirms our view that it is impossible for God to permanently cast away Israel. For Israel is Jehovah’s firstborn (Exodus 4: 22; Jeremiah 31: 9). According to the above statute, it is unlawful to set the firstborn aside in preference to another, or to deny him the double portion.
But this is exactly what Replacement Theologians do. They assert that Israel was cast away in A.D. 70, without any hope of a restoration according to a fulfillment of the law and the prophets – notwithstanding that Jesus Christ said that every jot and tittle must be fulfilled before heaven and earth pass away (Matthew 5: 17).
We, on the other hand, believe that Israel is a married wife (Jer. 3: 14), which though set aside for a season (Hosea 3: 3-4), will yet be recalled by Jehovah (Isaiah 54: 6-8) and blessed with a double portion during the Millennium (Isaiah 61: 7). For it is not in the Lord’s counsels that Israel should be cast away:
(Hosea 11: 8-9) “How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I deliver thee, Israel? How shall I make thee as Admah? How shall I set thee as Zeboim? Mine heart is turned within me, my repentings are kindled together. I will not execute the fierceness of Mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee: and I will not come against the city.”
Admah and Zeboim were cities which were destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah (Deut. 29: 23). The nation of Israel will not suffer the same fate. For Jehovah is God and not man! Although man would have Israel cast away forever, the Lord promises to restore them. He expressly affirms, through His inspired prophet and mouthpiece, that He will not destroy Israel. Because He is God and changeth not, the sons of Jacob are not consumed (Malachi 3: 6). The gifts and calling of God are without change of mind (Romans 11: 29). That settles the issue of Replacement Theology.
The church is not Israel, but is likened to an espoused bride (2 Corinthians 11: 2). The marriage has not yet taken place. Whereas Israel is a married wife. R.T.’s need to note this difference, because it forms a real distinction between Israel and the church. The church is being built up during the time when Israel abides in blindness. This blindness is not permanent (Romans 11: 11), but will be removed at the Lord’s second coming (Romans 11: 26-27; Isaiah 29: 18-19).
The church does not receive blessings here on earth. The church’s blessings are in heavenly places in Christ (Eph. 1: 3). Israel’s blessings are on earth, and to them pertains the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises (Romans 9: 4). Let R.T.’s take careful note of that last statement: to Israel pertains the promises. And Jesus Christ came to confirm these promises (Romans 15: 8).
In no Scripture does it state that the church has “replaced” or “superseded” Israel. This is an unbiblical figment of man’s theology, and comes from a Roman Catholic mindset in which it is assumed (without Biblical warrant) that the visible church receives all the promises made to Israel. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that the very church which gave us the sale of indulgences and the veneration of icons is she which hath replaced Israel.
No. That is simply not true! Israel was never replaced, but only set aside for a season, that salvation might go out to the Gentiles. The Gentiles do not inherit any of Israel’s earthly blessings. Israel has already been adopted to receive these blessings, and nothing can or will annul God’s decree. However, the church can and does receive spiritual blessings, which Israel will also enjoy during the Millennium (Jer. 31: 31-34). And this will be the “double portion” that Israel receives. May all of God’s promises reach fruition.
Maybe It Ain’t Quite Like They Thought It Was
Since I started this blog back in July of 2008, I’ve had lots of correspondence from people who endorse the Preterist view. Preterists basically believe that most, if not all, of Bible prophecy was fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The view strongly relies on the support of liberal scholarship, and agrees with that perspective known as “Replacement Theology.” Preterists believe that the church is the “true Israel.” And thus Christians who look for the future restoration of Abraham’s natural descendants are branded as misguided and erroneous – sometimes even subversive.
But when one hears these views espoused, one really has to wonder whether or not proponents of Preterism have seriously studied their Old Testaments. For even after the fulfillment of the curses of Deut. 28 (which Preterists say happened in A.D. 70), a restoration is promised, during which the Lord will re-gather His scattered people and bring them into the land of their fathers (Deut. 30: 1-5). This will be accompanied by the regeneration of the remnant (Deut. 30: 6) and judgments upon the Gentiles (see Deut. 30: 7). According to the Old Testament prophets, the Gentile judgments are inextricably tied to the outcome of the Day of the Lord (see Zephaniah 3: 8; Micah 5: 15; Zech. 14: 3).
Nobody who studies the Old Testament according to its grammatical, lexical, and obvious sense, will fail to see that Israel’s predicted blessings will be realized at the Lord’s second coming.
Even prophecies which speak of the New Covenant look forward to a restoration of the literal city of Jerusalem (Jer. 31: 38-40). It is simply impossible to discount the many prophecies which speak of Israel’s ultimate salvation and restoration, without wilfully ignoring the entire meta-narrative of the Old Testament. And the New Testament doesn’t trump that, either. For Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Romans 15: 8). And Paul says that the “gifts and calling of God are without change of mind” (Romans 11: 29).
One of the reasons I am a Dispensationalist, is that I believe in the literal, historical fulfillment of Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ. The prophecies regarding Christ’s first advent were all fulfilled in what spiritualizers would probably consider a ridiculously literal fashion. And yet past realization forms the foundation and precedent for future fulfillment. Even Preterists utilize this working principle when they (wrongly) cite Old Testament passages in support of their allegorical reading of Matthew 24.
But the prophets speak in literal terms. Consider, for example, the New Testament fulfillment of Isaiah 53: 4, in which the prophet said: “Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows.” Well, says the allegorizer, this must be restricted to something spiritual. No, says the New Testament! It involves physical healing of the sick (see Matt. 8: 16-17). We are not suggesting that the prophecy doesn’t also include spiritual healing (that is obvious from a literal reading of Isaiah). However, the New Testament record declares that the “fulfillment” of Isaiah 53: 4 was literal and historical in nature.
Now, since the Old Testament makes no distinction between the first and second advents of Christ, how are unfulfilled Messianic texts to be interpreted? They must not be carelessly relegated to Christ’s first advent, as some of the church fathers used to do. For if the Messiah’s work was totally fulfilled with His first advent, what need was there for a second coming? Neither should we relegate second advent prophecies to any A.D. 70 ‘judgment coming.’ For according to Preterists, that was not a personal coming of Christ. Yet the Old Testament Messianic prophecies deal with a literal, historical Jesus. Will Preterists be so bold as to claim that the Old Testament never refers to the second advent? If that is the case, then what Scriptures was Paul using when he taught Christ’s second coming? Ah, thou art beginning to see my point, young man!
The simple fact is, that the Old Testament predicts both advents of Christ, and the New Testament makes the distinction between the two, which allows us to go back to the O.T. and see which prophecies were fulfilled, and which remain future. Lest we be lost in confusion, all Messianic prophecies are to be interpreted according to the same “normative” hermeneutic. And once this principle is followed, it becomes clear that Israel will be saved and restored at Christ’s second advent. Paul says so (see Romans 11: 25-27).
Of course, I don’t have any personal complaint against those who endorse the Preterist view. I actually have friends who are Preterists! Nor do I have any personal problem with those who stand against Dispensational theology as a matter of principle – so long as no fines or anathemas are levied upon those (like myself) who respectfully disagree with them. My main complaint is against that straitened dogmatism which seeks to nullify the promises of God, and wipe Israel off the prophetic board. It is largely because of such views that this site exists. As long as Preterism remains an active theology on the internet, my business here is to point out the glaring possibility that perhaps — oh, just perhaps! — prophecy ain’t really like they thought it was. Maranatha!
