The Preterist view claims that the time-frame for the fulfilment of most of the Book of Revelation is qualified by the opening remarks that it "must shortly come to pass".
Then in Chapter 13 it says that one of the horns of the Beast "now is". One Preterist commentator explains that to say "now is" means that the person represented by this "horn" was somebody currently living and currently in civic office at the time John wrote to the seven Churches of Asia-minor: he "now is".
Preterists claim that John expected his first-century readers to be able to work-out exactly who he was talking about, when he informed them that the number of his name was 666.
I've heard a lot of futurists suggest contemporary figures like Henry Kissinger or Rothschilds, then use some method to prove their names add up to 666, based on assigning numerical values to the letters of the English alphabet. But the English language didn't exist as we know it when John wrote Revelation. And who knows if it will still exist as it does today, in the future?
So for a preacher to publicly preach that the modern English language can be used to decode the identity of the Beast (without justifying his basis), and then to be surprised when I ask him why – well it surprises me that my question could surprise him.
To my mind, a more likely system would be to use the Hebrew language. There was a system in use at the time when John wrote the Revelation - a system which is now called the Gamatron - wherein the letters of the Hebrew alphabet have numerical values assigned to them. Apparently Hebrew has no numerals. Instead, each letter of their alphabet has a numerical value. This practice is evidenced in secular literature of the same period.
If you believe in a pre-AD70 date for the writing of the Book of Revelation, Nero Caesar might be a likely figure, if you were looking for a first century figure who acted like the horn of the Beast of Revelation Chapter 13. One Preterist commentary showed that "Nero Caesar" indeed adds up to 666, using this method.
A Jew once explained to me the whole gamatria method to me. I asked her to calculate the number of Nero Caesar's name for me. It took her about a minute, then she replied, "666". A week or two later I decided to ask another Jew the same question. But he gave me a slightly different value.
"Another person last week calculated it to 666," I queried.
He explained, "It depends whether you use the Hebrew or the Roman way of spelling his name. The other way of spelling it does equal 666."
So I asked, "Which is correct?"
"Either is correct," he replied.
Next, I knew I had to do some research to find out whether Nero Caesar's name was spelt both ways, in secular contemporary literature of the time. And I discovered that either spelling was common.
According to one author, in an early Latin manuscript of the Book of Revelation, the number 616 occurs instead of 666, in Revelation 13. Nero Caesar, written in Latin, adds up to 616 - so perhaps this is evidence that the Nero theory already existed at that time, and the translators wanted their Latin readers to know that John was referring to Nero.
The most I can say about the Nero theory is that it seems to have at least as much in its favour as the contemporary futurist interpretations. But I still have always stopped short of concluding that Nero must indeed be the horn of Revelation 13. For one reason, we don't know for sure that Revelation was written before AD70.
So, rather than assert an alternative dogma to the modern futurist views, all I do from time to time is show some of the problems associated with it, and show some of the things in favour with altnernative views. All I'm doing is asking honest questions about the popular futurist views. I also have questions about preterism.
Back in the early 80's, when World War II was still fresh in the minds of some older Futurists and when Soviet and Chinese Communism was the threat that concerned America, most Futurists claimed that Germany, Russia and China featured prominently in biblical prophecy. But once the Cold War was over, you seldom heard that view again.
After September 11 there was a flood of new books claiming that Iraq - the new Babylon - features prominently in end-times prophecy. I don't remember ever hearing this view in the 80's. It only became popular because of America's War on Terror.
Today the end-times preachers are writing books about Iran's role in prophecy, all because of Iran's new leader's anti-Israel rhetoric. I wonder why nobody seemed to notice Iran's place in end-times prophecy before this.
I've read century-old commentaries on the Book of Revelation which claim that Germany and Turkey are the subject of end-time prophecy. But of course Turkey hasn't even been mentioned by Futurists lately, since the end of their World-War I allegiance with Germany.
During the Reformation, preachers and kings wrote literature claiming that the Catholic Church was the subject of the Book of Revelation. This view doesn't get purported much these days, now that Catholics have stopped their wars and some of their members are getting baptized with the Holy Ghost and speaking with tongues.
Without presenting any new dogma, my question has simply been, What basis do we have to interpret prophecy through the grid of current events (like every previous generation has done), instead of letting the text speak for itself? Why do we always think that the Beast must be whoever is threatening England or America at the time?
Regarding the Millennium, most Preterists believe the 1000-year reign of Christ is symbolic of the indefinitely long period of Christ's rule in history through the Gospel during the Church age.
I have some serious questions regarding the Futurists' version of events during the Millennium. I think some Futurists are the real heretics not me, when they say that the whole world will offer animal sacrifices again in Jerusalem!
However, I also have some questions about the Preterist view that the "Kingdom" began at the fall of Jerusalem in a sense that the Kingdom didn't exist before the destruction of the Temple. Preterism claims to be non-dispensational. But in reality, it seems to set-up two different Gospel dispensations: the dispensation starting from Pentecost until the fall of Jerusalem, and then the dispensation starting from the fall of Jerusalem until whenever.
My problem with this view is that it gives the impression that many things that Jesus said, and many things the Epistles said, really only had relevance up until AD70 - and then a whole new dispensation began. This sort of concurs with the view that the gifts of the Spirit were withdrawn from the Church after the last Apostle died.
It implies that the apocalyptic Gospel preached by Jesus and by the Apostles was only relevant to that generation rather than it being a message that should still form part of the Gospel that is preached in every successive generation.
In my opinion, we belong to the same dispensation as the early Church, and we should be preaching the same message they preached, and we should be seeing the same miracles they saw. But that isn't possible if the biggest event in the Apostles' prophetic calendar was something that is now already in the past.
Surely they and us are each looking forward to the same great hope! I'm not planning on preaching a different message to what they preached. If their grand hope was the destruction of the Temple in AD70, then most of the Epistles are irrelevant to us today.
I've actually heard one Preterist complain that some preachers never get beyond preaching the Gospel. He thinks we should be more concerned with fulfilling Adam's lost Dominion Mandate in this present age, through civil action.
But I never want to get beyond preaching the Gospel! That particular Preterist’s comment is evidence, in my opinion, that some Preterist thought about the Millennium is off on a slightly wrong tangent, with origins in Presbyterianism rather than Pentecostalism.
I do feel comfortable with the possibility that God has plans to renew planet earth and to use it again, in the same way that we who are born again are a new creature in Christ even though we are still the same person.
In a sense, it's almost like the planet itself could be "born again" one day. Our physical bodies will be resurrected too. I believe this is all part of the plan of Redemption. I'm not sure though whether this aspect of our redemption will happen during the thousand years, or whether it will happen right at the end of time and then into eternity.
But for now, I'm sure our role is to preach the Gospel - the same Gospel that Jesus and the Apostles preached - the same hope - and we need never get beyond preaching their message. We belong to the same Church that they belonged to.
In the Book of Revelation where it says that "there should be time no longer", Preterists interpret this to mean that "there should be delay no longer" meaning that there should be no more delay before the vengeance on Jerusalem should take place; whilst Futurists interpret it to mean the end of physical time.
Modern Israel is another favourite topic of Futurists. They claim that Jesus was predicting the restoration of Israel as a nation when He said, "When you see the fig tree shoot forth its branches, then you know that summer is near, and in the same way, when you see all these things come to pass, you will know that the end is near, within a generation".
Looking at it purely exegetically, I would say the very opposite is true. The "things" Jesus had just finished talking about had more to do with the destruction of Jerusalem rather than the restoration of Jerusalem. Then he added, "When you see these things come to pass, you know the end is near".
In other words, the bad things happening in Jerusalem would be a sign of the end. Many of those bad things happened in the lead-up to the siege of Jerusalem. So I question whether this parable of the fig tree can really be a strong basis for the view that Jesus must return within a generation of 1948 just because Israel became a nation again in 1948. So if we are to look for a prophecy about the restoration of Israel, in my opinion we have to look elsewhere in Scripture.
Another question I've had is about Jesus' statement that, "One shall be taken and the other left". Futurists apply this to the rapture. But after Jesus said this, the disciples asked, "Where Lord? (Where will they be taken?)" Jesus replied, "Wherever the dead bodies are, there the vultures will be gathered." If He was talking about the rapture, how is that an answer to the disciples' question? It seems Jesus was instead saying that the Romans would be indiscriminate in their massacre of the Jews.
If Jesus was talking about His Second Coming at that moment, why did He warn his disciples to flee into the mountains? If Jesus is coming to set up His Millennial Kingdom, what need do we have to flee anywhere? And why would it matter if it was winter? Why would it matter for those who are pregnant? But it makes sense if Jesus was talking about the siege of Jerusalem, which came to pass within a generation just as He said it would, and the Roman historian Josephus recorded that the Christians survived the siege because they fled the city just as Jesus told them to.
But Futurists protest that it couldn't have been fulfilled in AD70 because the stars didn't fall from heaven and the moon didn't turn to blood, at that time. Preterists rebut that by saying that all prophecy draws on previous prophecy in its symbolism. Throughout the Old Testament, the imagery of stars falling and the sun going dark always referred to war, judgment and national calamity; and vocabulary such as the Lord "coming" was often used to describe God's involvement in various local judgments.
In support of the Preterist interpretation that the language of cosmic catastrophe in Matthew 24 is actually symbolic of political judgment, I found something interesting in an American Standard Bible. My American Standard Bible places everything in CAPITALS if it is a quote from another verse of Scripture. And in Matthew 24, it puts these verses about the stars falling etc, in CAPITALS. So, in the opinion of the producers of the American Standard Version, those statements by Jesus weren't literal statements but were actually quotes from the Old Testament. And every text in the Old Testament that uses that language always applies it as symbolic imagery of the Lord "coming" not in final judgment, but in a local judgment on a political entity.
So I question whether it was right for end-times preachers in the late 70's to hold seminars about the so-called "Jupiter Effect" in which it was presumed that a planetary alignment would cause the moon to turn red, the stars to fall, and the catastrophes of Revelation to take place on earth. Of course it came to nothing. But I got saved as a result anyway, so that was good! The same misdirected paranoia existed at the time of Y2K.
I should mention Daniel's prophecies, because Jesus linked his statements in Matthew 24 to Daniel's prophecies. Jesus said that immediately after Jerusalem's tribulation, you will see the sign of the Son of man coming in the clouds. The Futurists say this is the Second Coming of Christ. I think they could be right, and I'll explain below how I think I can depart from classic Preterism on this point without throwing out Preterism's regard for "time indicator" texts. But first, I'll mention how the Preterists apply the "coming in the clouds" verse.
It is actually a quote from Daniel. When we go to the source in Daniel, we see that the Son of man was "coming in the clouds" but in what direction? It says he came before the Ancient of Days, and was given a Kingdom. In other Words, it was speaking of an ascension, a coronation of Jesus, in heaven. Paul in Hebrews also uses the word "clouds" to refer to the saints who are already in heaven.
So the Preterists claim that the events leading up to the destruction of the Temple in AD70 enabled the people to "see" (that is, to perceive) that the Son of man (whom they crucified) has now been vindicated (in heaven) as Lord and King. And they say that this vindication, these "days of vengeance" as Jesus called them in Luke, are also the theme of the Book of Revelation.
Jesus said in Matthew 24 that those who read Daniel should understand. Certainly, I think that because Jesus quotes Daniel in Matthew 24, a contextual understanding of Daniel is important as a basis to correctly applying what Jesus was saying in Matthew 24.
Wesley and Clarke seemed to interpret it that way. But isn't it possible that some of Jesus' statements were about the destructionof the Temple and others were about His second coming? After all, the disciples had asked Him both questions. So in other words, there might be both past (preterist) and future events in the Olivet discourse. The key then would be to decipher which is which.
Another prophecy of Daniel's talks about four kingdoms that would rule over Israel, and then a fifth Kingdom coming at the time of the fourth. Most commentators agree that these are the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, then Roman kingdoms.
Futurists claim that the fifth Kingdom is the Antichrist. But Antichrist didn't come at the time of the Roman empire! People like Pastor Erica get around this problem by saying that the Roman empire is actually still alive through organizations like Freemasonry. Or they say that a gap of 2000+ years is inserted here (without Daniel knowing it) and then the Roman empire will be revived through the European Union - and then the Antichrist will come.
But I'm asking the question whether this fifth kingdom isn't in fact the Kingdom of God (not the antichrist), because Jesus indeed came announcing the Kingdom of God, during the time of the fourth kingdom (the Roman empire). This Kingdom came "out of heaven" like a "stone made without hands" and it "became a mountain that filled the whole earth".
Futurists say this is a prophecy about a coming one-world government. But I asked the question whether or not it could be the Kingdom of heaven. From the time of John the Baptist, people began to "take the kingdom" said Jesus.
If so, this Scripture may not be a strong basis for a belief in a coming one-world government. If so, it is a proof text that Jesus really is a candidate to be the Messiah, because He was born at the time of the Roman Empire.
Another major prophecy of Daniel's is the 70-weeks prophecy. He was told by an angel that from the date that the decree is issued to rebuilt the Temple until Messiah the Prince will be 70 weeks (or 70 sevens - that is, 490 prophetic years). In the middle of one of those weeks, Messiah would be "cut off" (that is, killed) but "not for himself" (that is, not for his own transgression). It goes on to describe several things that will happen within that time frame.
Futurists say that Jesus hasn’t yet done all the things that Daniel said he would do, therefore only 69 weeks have been fulfilled, and the final week (seven years) will take place during the Tribulation, after an inserted 2000+ years gap which Daniel knew nothing about.
Preterists say that Jesus fulfilled everything that Daniel said he would do and that we have no authority to turn 70 consecutive weeks into 69weeks + 2000years + 1week, just because something doesn't fit our prophetic system. Jesus did come within this time frame, making it a proof text that Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecy.
Jesus also quoted Daniel when he mentioned the "abomination of desolation standing in the Temple". Futurists claim a future fulfilment for this. Preterists say it referred to Roman idols being set-up in the Temple by invitation from Jewish rulers, culminating in an outpouring of wrath and the destruction of the Temple by Titus in AD70.
Contrary to Preterism, I wonder if it's possible that the 70 weeks don't have to be consecutive. The angel told Daniel, "Seveny week are determined upon thy people". Does that necessarily mean 70 consecutive weeks - or could it mean that there will be a total of 70 decisive weeks during which God’s focus is on Israel (and the remainder of the time Israel will remain in a state of being “cast off” until the Gentile Age is fulfilled)?
Another key Scripture is Malachi where it talks about the Day of the Lord. Part of the prophecy refers to a messenger coming before the Lord “comes” in judgment. Futurists say this refers to the Second Coming.
But Jesus said this messenger was John the Baptist. So did Jesus come as judge, in John’s generation? The prophecy continues to say, “then the Lord whom ye seek will suddenly come to His temple.” And that for some, He will come as Saviour anf for others, as Judge. In Malachi, He is said to come as both Saviour and Judge. What is the time frame? According to Jesus, it was in the time frame beginning with John.
So that fits with an AD70 fulfilment rather than a future fulfilment – or at least it began around AD70 – even if it’s continuing until today. Or, it describes the intrinsic apocalyptic nature of the Gospel message throughout the entire church age.
Isaiah prophesies about the Spirit of the Lord coming on Messiah to give sight to the blind and to heal the sick and preach good news, and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord and the days of vengeance of our God.
Jesus quoted Isaiah, leaving out the "days of vengeance" line, and said, "This day this Scripture is fulfilled in your ears". But later when He predicted the coming sack of Jerusalem, he explained, "These be the days of vengeance spoken of by the prophets, that all things might be fulfilled."
In other words, Jesus was claiming to have already fulfilled many Messianic prophecies, and was now saying that any as-yet unfulfilled prophecies about Him would be fulfilled by the fall of Jerusalem. He said that the blood of all the prophets and righteous people would be required of “this generation”.
Futurists put this all in the future. Preterists put it all around AD70. But I'm currently considering the view that "the days of vengeance" indeed began three-and-a-half years before the fall of Jerusalem and culminated in the destruction of the Temple – but in a sense Jerusalem has continued in that state down through the centuries with the city being trodden under feet by the Gentiles - until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled – and then all Israel shall be saved. So that’s slightly different to the Part-Preterist view.
I actually sense problems with the extreme of both views: both with Preterism and Futurism - even though I still find some Preterist explanations of difficult texts excellent and helpful.
As an example of the problems associated with either extreme, consider Matthew 24.
After describing the siege of Jerusalem and predicting the destruction of the Temple, Jesus said:
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days, you shall see the sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds".
The Futurist interpretation of this passage necessitates the rebuilding of the Temple before the Second Coming can happen.
But that technically refutes the widely-accepted belief that Christ can come at any moment - because it would take years to rebuild the Temple, even if construction started today.
To get around this problem, Futurists divide the Second Coming into Part I (Pre-Tribulation Rapture), Part II (Second-Coming), and Part III (End of the Millennium).
So are there now three second comings of Christ?
And are there really any prophecies about a future Temple, anyway? Futurists sometimes quote Old Testament prophecies about the rebuilding of the Temple: but weren't those prophecies already fulfilled after the Babylonian Captivity when Ezra and Nehemiah rebuilt the city and temple?
Besides, why would God now rebuild the Temple and re-institute the animal sacrifice system, after Jesus has already shed His blood on Calvary? Paul said in Galatians that "if I build again that which I once destroyed, I make myself a transgressor".
Futurists answer that God won't rebuild it - but Israel will.
But if that's the case, then they still can't apply the pre-Babylonian Captivity prophecies of a rebuilt Temple, because those prophecies talk in terms of GOD rebuilding it!
And if Jesus' prediction was about a yet future Temple, then did He really have nothing at all to say about the destruction of the then present Temple? To get around this, Futurists claim a "double fulfilment" hermeneutic. But to my knowledge, there is no precedent for a double fulfilment hermeneutic anywhere in Scripture.
The basis for the Preterist view is the so-called "time indicator" texts. For example, in this passage, after describing the siege of Jerusalem, Jesus said, "Immediately after the tribulation of those days you will see the sign of the Son of Man coming in the clouds..." Preterists claim that the words "immediately after" is a "time indicator" text as is the phrase "this generation" - and that these phrases qualify the time frame and make it impossible to insert a gap of 2000 or more years between the two events.
A problem I encountered however, if I consistently applied the logic that gave rise to Preterism in the first place, across the entire New Testament - was that you can hardly avoid eventually questioning whether there is ever going to be any ultimate Second Coming of Christ at all - and of course I felt uncomfortable with that severe a deviation from orthodoxy. That is why variations within Preterism arose - such as Part-Preterism, Orthodox Preterism, Full-Preterism etc - each of which accuses the other of breaking with the logic that gives rise to any form of Preterism in the first place. One of the most revered authors of a Part-Preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation later denounced his conclusions and became a full-Preterist, claiming that the logic that made him consider Part-Preterism in the first place now required him out of integrity to embrace full-Preterism. By denying that there is any future Second Coming of Christ, his Part-Preterist publisher and friend now labelled him an heretic.
So there are problems associated with either extreme.
Perhaps there is another solution. I need a couple more years to think about it, but here it is:
Jesus said that after the destruction of the Temple, Israel will be trodden under feet by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. Hasn't that been happening for centuries, even after the destruction of the Temple?
So it seems to me that Jesus could have been talking about a state of affairs in Jerusalem which began with the destruction of the Temple alright, but which certainly didn't end there.
In other words, even though some of Jesus' predictions may already have had a complete and final fulfilment, we may now still be in the phase of history which Jesus said would begin at the destruction of the Temple and continue until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled, the time wherein Jerusalem will be trodden under feet of the Gentiles - and therefore we still may not yet be up to the "immediately after" phase yet - even though the Temple was destroyed long ago.
This satisfies the Preterists' insistence on logic; it concedes that some specific prophetic events are now past; it also accurately pinpoints our present location in the timeline of prophecy, plus it upholds the orthodox belief in a literal Second Coming of Christ.
Or to put it another way, perhaps Matthew 24 includes three types of predictions: some which are now already fulfilled (such as the siege of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple); some which are currently happening (such as Jerusalem thereafter being trodden under feet by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled); and others which are yet to occur (such as the Coming in the clouds).
I think that each verse can speak for itself whether it is now past, or current or future - without needing some "double interpretation" hermeneutic to be applied to it.
This idea is therefore neither Preterist, nor Historicist nor Futurist (each of which, in their full version, have problems, in my opinion).
In this view, we no longer need to categorize the whole Chapter into one of the above schools of thought and then try to make each verse fit. Instead we can let each verse speak for itself on it's own merits, keeping in mind that Jesus was answering more than one question, without ignoring qualifiers like "immediately after" or "this generation", and without imposing an unbiblical hermeneutic such as the "double interpretation" hermeneutic to solve problems.
That is a relatively new development of my thinking, so I still need a couple more years to evaluate the idea.
In all my discussion about eschatology, I've never sought to propose a view, I've really only questioned others concerning the basis of their view.
It amuses me that what often happens when someone expresses their Futuristic dogma and I respond with a question that they can't answer either, is that they turn it against me by accusing me of placing undue emphasis on the subject of eschatology - when in fact all I have done is respond to the emphasis that they have placed on it.
Or sometimes they'll report that I have a shocking view, when in fact I've merely asked them how they justify there's. It's as if they don't have to justify there's, but I have to justify mine even though I don't have one just because I've asked them about there's.
I'm not trying to emphasize current events in the light of prophecy. If anything, I'm trying to de-emphasize them. But actually I'm not even trying to de-emphasize anything. I've simply asked why they do.
I've written to some of America's well-known proponents of Futurism, but not one of them has replied, to date.
I also submitted a paper to a leading figure in the Australian Assemblies of God, in which I dealt with five of the principal texts used by Futurists to examine whether each text really gives as strong a basis as is claimed for some of the strongly-held components of the Futurist view. The Australian Pastor replied, describing my paper as a sound and refreshing exposition of Scripture, and he heartily agreed.
But since the objective of my article was not to propose an alternative interpretation of those texts but simply to question whether they can really form a strong basis for some of the popular assertions of Futurists, I guess that Pastor's endorsement of my thoughts still leaves me somewhere in the middle of the road between Preterism and Futurism with a semblance of Historicism.
I noticed that the New Testament itself reveals that some uncertainty about the doctrine of the Second Coming of Christ already existed even in the early Church.
My feeling is that if it wasn't easy for the Apostles to satisfy every question in the first century about the Second Coming of Christ, then what chance have I got of now coming up with an explanation so good that it will eliminate all questions? The early Church had the advantage of the bodily presence of the Apostles Matthew, Luke and John who each heard the Lord at His own mouth - whilst all I have to go by is their writings.
To me it's helpful to keep in mind the PURPOSE of prophecy. Prophecy was never just about PREDICTION, but about relationship. Prophecy may include prediction, but it's more about seeking a response from the hearer.
If the purpose of prophetic passages like Matthew 24 and the Book of Revelation was PREDICTION, then the passages would instead provide a detailed list of future events in chronological order so as to remove all possibility of doubt.
But instead, the purpose was to give comfort, warning or encouragement. Prediction was only included where it was necessary as an aid to provide comfort, or where it helped to solicit a desired response from the hearers. Therefore the predictive element of prophecy is incidentary to the purpose, not the sole objective.
So to try to derive a complete chronological account of future events from prophetic passages is to try to make the passages say something they were never intended to say. No wonder we have difficulties.
The real objective of prophecy is matters of the heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment