Preterism 101 Answered

Hyper-Preterists Misunderstand Time Texts

I listen to the pod cast,i wonder if Sam or Jason has created a anti 101 times statement list,where you refute ANY of the 101 times statements,and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt ANY of the 101 incorrect.? If you have id like to see it. ~ Manny Fragoza

The “101″ list that Manny is referring to is a list of 101 time indicators that are attached to an article by Dave Green entitled “Preterism 101″.  Dave prefaces the list of “time-indicators” with the following:

Following this brief article are 101 biblical, preterist “time-indicators.” (Hence the title.) There are many more than 101 to be found in Scripture, but these are probably the most blunt and obvious of them all. If we were to include every preterist time-indicator in Scripture, the number would possibly be in the hundreds. My purpose in displaying these passages (with some cross references) is to lay out in a concise, easy-to-read format the overwhelming testimony that our Lord actually fulfilled the Law and the Prophets, as He said He would. (Matt. 5:17)

Now it seems to me that there are only two ways to “get around” these 101 Scriptures and remain a futurist. One of those ways is to dismiss the spirit of imminence that saturates the New Testament and to say that it only indicates things that are “soon in God’s sight.”

There are some major problems with that approach. If the imminence saturating the New Testament was only an “in-God’s-sight” imminence, then why was the Old Testament not also saturated with an “in-God’s-sight” imminence? Why did God not tell Adam and Eve, “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand?” Why did He not tell Abraham, “The Son of Man is about to come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and will then recompense every man according to his deeds?” Why did He not say to Malachi, “This generation will not pass away until all these things take place?”

Why is it that a Second Coming in the 21st century was “imminent” in the 1st century, but was not imminent before the 1st century? There is no substantive defense against this objection. The fact is that what God said was near to the Apostles, He said was not near to the earlier prophets. Perhaps the clearest illustration of this truth is found in a comparison of Dan. 8:26 and Rev. 22:10:

6th century B.C: “Seal up the vision; for it shall be for many days.” (Dan. 8:26)

1st century A.D.: “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.” (Rev. 22:10)

What God said was far away in Daniel’s time, He said was imminent in the Apostles’ time. The implication is inescapable: The imminence in the New Testament was real.

Granted, it is not unreasonable to use an expression of imminence or brevity in reference to a relatively long period of time, (II Cor. 4:17) but it is biblically unreasonable to interpret every statement of eschatological imminence throughout the New Testament as meaning “2,000 years later.” If we are going to claim scriptural support for such a hermeneutical approach, the only option is to make II Peter 3:8 (“With the Lord a day is like a thousand years”) a “Code Key” that unlocks the “secret” meaning of the Spirit. But not only is that method Gnostic-like, it makes eschatology (and ultimately, soteriology) utterly impossible to understand correctly without the mystical elucidation of II Peter 3:8 (and Ps. 90:4).

The second technique that is employed to “get around” the New Testament declarations of imminence is to dichotomize the spirit of imminence (and therefore the unified eschatological theme of Scripture), and to say that some or most New Testament imminence Scriptures do indeed indicate nearness in time (such as in references to the Great Tribulation in A.D. 66-70 and to a “coming” in judgment in A.D. 70.) but that other imminence Scriptures are in reality not statements of imminence at all. (In this approach, all references to the Second Coming, the Resurrection of the Dead and the “final Judgment” are said to contain no indications of imminence whatsoever.)

The problem with this method is simply this: Denial. The Bible says it. They deny it. They have thereby been forced to construct a duplicitous, theological system of “Yes” and “No.” They have created a kind of twilight land of both “shadow” and “substance.” (the land of partial preterism and historicism) They are rather like Saul of Tarsus, a man who sincerely and ignorantly “kicked against the goads” of the plain declarations of Scripture.

Many who have found themselves in this predicament recognize that they are in abject exegetical poverty, and so they end up appealing strictly and only to the authority of “the historic Church and her creeds.” Not unrelated to this sad phenomenon is the defection of many protestants to the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Denial is a complicated and destructive thing indeed. Like deception, it becomes a tangled web. The incredible eschatological confusion that has plagued the Christian world since the days of the Reformation is a testimony to that fact.

But in contrast to the chaos of futurism, the Scriptures (below) have a straightforward teaching, which is this: The fulfillment of all prophecy was “at hand,” “near,” “soon,” “about to be,” etc. when the New Testament was written, and it was all to be fulfilled by the time the old covenant vanished and its temple was destroyed (in A.D. 70).

The prophetic message is so simple, yet it is so profound. In a way it is not surprising that we missed it for so long.

Now a final note. The Apostle Peter was referring to eschatology when he said the following:

“…in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction.” (II Peter 3:16)

Be careful what you do with the truth. Being in possession of a true, biblical proposition is by no means an evidence of being wise, no matter how wonderful the proposition is. There is no denying that some preterists are “untaught and unstable,” and have used preterism to “distort” the Scriptures. (They are Universalists, Arians, Neo-Gnostics, etc.) They despise the collected teachings of the historic Church as being little more than the tricks of jugglers, and have blasphemed virtually every pillar of the Faith. They imagine themselves to be pioneers, but they are revilers in the tradition of II Peter and Jude. Do not follow them. Avoid them at all cost. Please see my Q&A #33.

Starting with Matthew and working towards Revelation, Dave then lists “101 Preterist Time-Indicators”. This list is very popular among hyperpreterists and was utilized by myself at times. However, even during my hyperpreterist days, i stopped using the list as “proof” that hyperpreterism was true.

Why?

Simple. The list does not prove what hyperpreterists claim it proves. This is yet another example in which hyperpreterists overstate their case, arguing fallaciously that ALL prophecy is fulfilled because PARTICULAR prophecies are fulfilled.

Keep this in mind: the “preterism” that Dave and those who utilize this list wish to “prove” is hyperpreterism; the belief that every single prophecy in the Bible has come to pass…there is not a single one that remains to be fulfilled. Now, just ask yourself, as you go through the list, whether or not the conclusion that ALL prophecy is fulfilled can be DEDUCED (proof) from the verse in question. Let’s just start going down the list:

1. “The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.” (Matt. 3:2)

Stop right there. Does the proclamation that the kingdom of heaven was at hand NECESSARILY, beyond any shadow of a doubt, INFER that the fulfillment of ALL prophecy was “at hand” as well? NO! In fact, the Gospel of Matthew goes on to tell us that the kingdom has an element of progression to it. In chapter 13, Jesus likens the kingdom to a seed and leaven; the kingdom “grows”. Paul says in 1 Co 15 that Christ must “reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.” There will come an “end” at which point Christ “delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.”

Progression. Progression working towards a telos…a goal…a consummation. And there is absolutely nothing in John the Baptist’s proclamation that logically infers that not only was the inauguration of the rule of Christ at hand, but the consummative goal of that kingdom was at hand as well. It is logically impossible.

Then there is the objection that some would raise as to whether this is even a “time text” to begin with; that is, in the sense that hyperpreterists understand it. ἐγγίζω (at hand) can be understood, according to the lexicons, as conveying either “time” or “movement”. Further, it can express something that is, literally, AT HAND…PRESENT…NOW! For example, in Luke 10.9, Jesus tells his disciples:

Heal the sick in it and say to them, “The kingdom of God has come near (ἐγγίζω) to you.”

Were the disciples healing sick people and then saying, “See that? The kingdom of God is not here yet, but it is coming soon.” No. They were proclaiming, in essence, “Look! The kingdom of God is HERE. It is presently in your midst! See, we have healed you. Repent!” Even the “futuristic” Message Bible gets it: “When you enter a town and are received, eat what they set before you, heal anyone who is sick, and tell them, ‘God’s kingdom is right on your doorstep!’”

Further, in Mark 1.15 we are told that after John the Baptist was arrested, Jesus began to proclaim, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.” Note: the time is fulfilled. Jesus was not putting off the kingdom until a later date. The kingdom is present…the time is fulfilled; therefore repent.

How’s that for irony? If my understanding of this text is correct, i’m actually arguing for a more preteristic understanding (this text) than what many hyperpreterists would allow for. Some hyperprets, however, may say, “Ok…well. We can run with that. Arguing for a present kingdom and not merely a kingdom that is coming in a short time actually fits well within our framework.”

No, it doesn’t. Because if that is in fact what Jesus and John meant, then it is even MORE obvious that they did not have the CONSUMMATION of the kingdom in mind. Clearly, Jesus nor John were saying, “Repent, for the consummative goal of the kingdom of God is now presently here.” Such an interpretation would destroy not only “futurism”, but hyperpreterism as well, considering that both camps agree that there was something yet to be fulfilled in John the Baptist’s day.

One can not get hyperpreterism out of this text. Plain and simple.

Now, you may be wondering if i’m going to treat the remaining 100 “time-indicators” as i have done with the first one. Ummm…no. I have neither the “time” nor the desire to do such. What i will do is simply state that the essence of what i have argued for with this first “time-indicator” could be argued with the remaining 100. All one has to do is take each item on the list and ask the same question i asked above: Does the verse LOGICALLY NECESSITATE the conclusion that “all” prophecy was fulfilled? And my answer is “No.” It is impossible. Not a single hyperpreterist has demonstrated such and thus the whole article is bunk.

Try it. Does the following imply that “ALL” Bible prophecy was fulfilled then?

2. “Who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come?” (Matt. 3:7)

No. Even if this “wrath” were in reference to the events of ad70, where did John say that this “wrath” would be the “last” or “only” wrath to ever occur again?

3. “The axe is already laid at the root of the trees.” (Matt. 3:10)

No. See rhetorical question above.

4. “His winnowing fork is in His hand.” (Matt. 3:12)

No. See rhetorical question above. Folks, how does saying that a winnowing fork is in His hand logically infer that ALL prophecy will be fulfilled at that time?

I can go down the entire list.

The only verse that appears to support the hyperpreterist conclusion is this one:

23. “These are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” (Lk. 21:22)

I admit that it appears to support hyperpreterism because of the words “all things which are written.” The word “all” can trip people up. I have addressed their false interpretation of this verse HERE.

Not a single verse nor all the verses combined logically necessitate the theory that “all” prophecy was fulfilled. Their argument has yet to have been established. The burden of proof is NOT on Christians. In fact, when you really step back and look at the article, the article is a pathetic excuse for argumentation and exegesis; which, again, is why i stopped utilizing it even while a hyperpreterist. Objectively, i could not use this list, claiming that is proves (logical necessity) the case. I mean, talk about “exegetical poverty”…this list does not even present bad exegesis, much less good exegesis. Exegesis does not exist in this article. It is merely a copy and paste job of 101 verses, with the author expecting the reader to take a ridiculous, irrational, blind leap to conclude that the author’s understanding of the texts is correct.

Here, let me try this method. I will prove hyperpreterism wrong with one verse:

Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (1 Corinthians 15.24-26 ESV)

There. That’s it. I have proven hyperpreterism wrong.

Of course, no hyperpreterist will accept such an “argument”. They will contend that i assign a meaning to this text that is not correct. YET, they expect Christians to accept the lazy and pathetic “argument” presented in a list of 101 verses. Give me a break.

Manny’s original request that we ”refute ANY of the 101 times statements,and prove beyond a shadow of a doubt ANY of the 101 incorrect” is just downright silly. Neither Sam nor i REJECT these 101 verses. These 101 verses are NOT “incorrect”. What we reject is the hyperpreterist distortion of these texts that results from trying to cram the entire bible into an ad70 box. NONE of these verses demand such restrictions. None. And there is absolutely zero exegetical reasons presented in the article to demonstrate that we must.