Ezekiel's Temple - Not Predictive but Instructional

Some people say Ezekiel's vision of the Temple will literally be fulfilled during a future Millennium or Great Tribulation. That's awkward seeing the Old Covenant with its Levitical priesthood and blood sacrifices has been abolished.

Others say it is symbolic, and was prophetic of the work of God through the Church.

But tonight a third possibility dawned on me: it wasn't written as a prophecy of a certain future event, rather it was written as instructions for Israel returning from captivity. Whether or not Israel obeyed it to the letter is another matter.

The instructions about the Temple are not worded like a prediction; rather, it is written like instructions. Ezekiel saw the pattern in a vision, similar to how Moses was shown a pattern for the tabernacle while in the mountain, and how David was given the pattern for the Temple by the Spirit. Some of it was obviously symbolic, like the part about the river flowing from under the threshold of the Temple. This represented the blessing that Israel was meant to be, if Israel had obeyed God. It also represents the blessing that true Israel - the believing and faithful - succeeded at becoming.

Moses gave instructions to Israel before entering the land. It was necessary therefore that Israel again be given instructions upon re-entering the land after the Babylonian captivity.

A prophet's instructions led Israel into the land; a prophet's instructions would lead them to re-enter the land.

Moses and Ezekiel's instructions alike included instructions about the house of God, the service of the house and the division of the land.

In the first instance, no strangers were given inheritance; but in the second instance they were to. Israel had been softened through their time in captivity.

Israel did seek to follow these instructions through Ezra and Nehemiah. How far the nation co-operated with them and completed the task is another matter. But Ezekiel's vision gave them their blueprint.

God said He would again bring the Jews to the land. They would be purified. He would again require their offerings. They and their rulers would again serve him again without wickedness, potentially. And potentially forever. We now know that only the remnant of the believing and faithful did so to the full extent. But all the prophets predicted that would be the outcome - the remnant, the true Israel, would inherit what was promised, along with believing Gentiles, rather than the nation as a whole.

So in summary, it seemed to me tonight upon reading the Book of Ezekiel, that the passage about the Temple was not written as a sure prediction of a future outcome in Israel but as instructions for the nation returning from captivity.

If you buy a model aeroplane kit, and look at the instruction sheet - the sheet is not a prophetic instruction about the future. It's just an instruction sheet! Similarly, the passage about the Temple is not worded like a prediction of the future, but like an instruction sheet. There are other passages in the Prophets which do include specific prediction. Other parts are instruction, not prediction. Ezekiel's Temple is written about instructionally, not predictively.

Just because something was written by a prophet, does not mean it was all predictive. Moses was a prophet, but most of what he wrote was instructional not predictive. Some passages in Ezekiel were intended to be instructional to Israel not predictive to us.

In conclusion, if this is correct, it means we need not look for a future fulfilment of this passage either literally or symbolically.

But spiritually, the spiritual blessings foreshadowed by it are experienced in fulness and in reality and perpetuated in the true Israel, the true house of God, through the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

All These Things in This Generation?

Preterists claim that Jesus said everything He predicted (in Matthew 24) had to be fulfilled within the first-century generation.

"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled" (Matthew 24:34)

But does the text really say that?

Imagine if I told you that I intend to go to college, go on a world holiday, and then return and start a family business.

And you ask me, "When are you going to do all these things? And how are you going to advertise the new business?"

And I answer by telling you how I'm going to advertise the new business, and I tell you that before that, I'm going to college.

And then I say that before going to college, I'm first going to finish high school, get some part-time work, and enter an ameteur bodybuilding competition - I'm going to do all these things before this year is over.

It is obvious that when I say I'm going to do all these things this year, it doesn't refer to every topic I ever mentioned in my entire conversation with you - it refers only to the things I was discussing in that particular paragraph.

It didn't mean I'm going to complete high school, complete part-time work, complete college, return from an overseas holiday, and set-up the family business - all by the end of this year. More likely, it just meant all the things leading up to starting college - because that's what I was discussing with you in that particular paragraph.

Similarly, when Jesus said "this generation shall not pass away before all these things are fulfilled", I'm wondering whether the text really necessitates that He meant all things in the entire chapter - or could He just as well have meant only the things in His latest paragraph?

After all, the disciples had asked Him more than one question! And Jesus did chop and change between addressing the different questions.

If this is textually/linguistically allowable, could it then be possible that all of the things relevant to the disciples' first question (concerning the destruction of the Temple and the scattering of the Jews) indeed came to pass within the first-century generation - while the things relevant to the disciples' other questions (concerning the end of the world, and His coming) may not necessarily have had to be fulfilled within that generation?

Admittedly, the language in both Daniel and in the Olivet discourse doesn't seem to make too much of any potential time-span between the themes they were discussing. But does the text really necessitate that no time-span was possible?

I think there actually are indications - clauses in the texts (both the Lord's and Daniel's) - which could just as well indicate that an indefinite period of time could potentially span between some of the themes they were discussing. There are some clauses in the texts which might actually be indicative of that. I have examples in mind, but I won't mention them here and now.

This seems all the more possible when we remember that both the Lord Jesus and also the angel who spoke to Daniel, despite being able to give an approximate time-frame for certain themes which they'd been asked about, were not able to give as specific a time-frame for certain other themes they were asked about. Jesus actually admitted this. That means that even if in the Father's foreknowledge, there was to be a long span of time between some of the themes, Jesus and the angel could not have said very much to indicate exactly how long the time span would be. But the main things is: did they say anything in the text which precludes the possibility of a time span? That is something I'm personally investigating.

And as I've said above, while there are clauses in the texts which indicate that certain themes had to be fulfilled within a specific time frame, there also appear to be certain clauses in the texts which do seem to indicate a potential span of time between certain themes.

If this is linguistically allowable, then it might be possible that some things in Daniel and in the Olivet discourse are indeed exclusively now already fulfilled (as is claimed by preterism), while other clauses may hint at an ongoing state (as is claimed by historicism), and other things may be exclusively yet to happen in the future after all (as is claimed by futurism). But the entire chapter would not fit exclusively into just one of the classic categories. Rather, each part of the chapter would fit appropriately into its own time-frame category - past, ongoing or future - depending on the clause that qualifies it.

If so, this would allow us to accept that the siege of Jerusalem, the destruction of the Temple, and the scattering of the Jews are indeed now already fulfilled - while at the same time allow us to see that the second coming and the resurrection are indeed still future events - and that the preaching of the Gospel to all nations continues to span the period in-between (tribulations and persecutions also continue to span the period in between).

This could eliminate the modern problem of repeatedly failing end-times predictions - and maintain the orthodox hope of the future coming of the Lord and of the resurrection at the same time.

I'm still investigating whether the texts of Daniel and the Olivet discourse allows this linguistically. There are still some difficult passages. But so far the possibility still seems worth investigating.

Resurrection

Paul wrote that the dead in Christ were awaiting the resurrection. That means they had not yet experienced the resurrection.

The dead in Christ had already experienced a spiritual resurrection before they died, during their life in Christ on earth; and after their death, they had already begun experiencing a spiritual resurrection in heaven - yet there was still a future resurrection awaiting them, wrote Paul.

Paul explained that Christ shall bring them with Him when He comes; then they shall rise; then we which are alive and remain shall be reunited with them and with the Lord forever.

We look forward to this event with all our hearts!

Eschatology and Social Action

I agree that hyper-futurism can weaken a person's social vision. But I think part-preterism or part-futurism, and not full-preterism, is sufficient to restore a basis for social vision.

Full-preterism and dominionism sees social reform as the kingdom of God on earth, and doesn't look forward to any special future arrival of the kingdom. Hyper-futurism perceives very little of the kingdom in society, prior to the second coming, except for in the spirit of a believer and in the church.

But I feel both are extreme. I think it's wrong to say that there won't be a day when the kingdom and the King will come openly and in perfection. But I think it's also wrong to say that there is no expression of God's kingdom at all outside of believers' spirit and the church.

I think of it this way:

1) the kingdom is in believers (individually, and corporately in the church);

2) the kingdom is being expressed through believers (and to varying degrees is shaping family, tribe, nation, business, government and nation); and

3) one day the kingdom and King shall arrive literally, openly, perfectly.

I see all three.

Does Mark 9:1 Indicate the First-Century Generation?

Some modern renderings of Mk 9:1 are basically the same as the KJV’s, while others differ. But I don’t see that either rendering means Jesus necessarily had the first-century generation in mind.

If the KJV and similar versions’ rendering is correct – then the wording of the text allows the meaning that Jesus meant the generation which shall be alive when the kingdom comes, not necessarily the first-century generation.

And in that case, it makes it more a statement of the nature of the kingdom than of its timing. It makes it a statement that the kingdom shall one day be so literally present that people alive at the time will not need to die first in order to see it.

That makes sense, since Jesus said no-one knows the timing (I believe). It also makes sense seeing the nature of the kingdom was a disputed topic.

If on the other hand, the alternative renderings of Mark 9:1 are correct – and the wording of the text addressed the first-century generation directly in the first person – it still doesn’t mean it literally came to pass that way.

As an example of this non-literal use of the first person by Jesus, consider the Olivet discourse itself. Jesus spoke to four of His disciples directly, addressing them in the first person, as if they would be alive to see Jerusalem besieged by armies and to respond when it happened. But we know James was not alive to see it – for he had been martyred by Herod. We don’t know whether any of the others were present to see it either. Jesus spoke to His four disciples in the first person – but He didn’t have them personally in mind when He spoke what He spoke. Instead, he had in mind things beyond their lifetime – things which related directly not to them but to others even after their lifetime. This style is used more than once in the Olivet discourse.

Similarly therefore, Jesus’ statement in Mk 9:1 may have a future generation in mind even though it addresses a first century audience in the first person (assuming the KJV’s rendering is incorrect). If this literary style or hermeneutic is good enough for the Olivet discourse, it should be good enough for Mark 9:1 as well!

But as I said, the KJV’s rendering, if it’s correct, doesn’t necessitate the use of that hermeneutic – because the wording of the text itself allows that Jesus may have had a future generation in mind.

This is the problem I encountered with preterism after studying it for seven years. I found preterism does an excellent job of explaining that we needn’t expect a future fulfillment of the destruction of the Temple. The time-indicators for that event were clear, both in the Olivet discourse and in Daniel. But full-preterism also brings you into conflict with what I consider to be clear themes elsewhere in Scripture – such as the theme of the future, general, physical resurrection of all the dead on the day of His coming. I never found preterism’s explaining-away of these themes adequate.

So I went back and re-studied preterism’s claimed time-indicating clauses in Scripture - and I'm beginning to see that preterism leans too much weight on the so-called time-indicating clauses. I feel preterism doesn't allow for such clauses to have a different scope and meaning than theirs, even though the plain text, let alone literary rules and hermeneutics, allows it. I’m beginning to see that some of these clauses are in fact not after all such literal, unmistakable time-indicating clauses after all. While in some verses they are.

Preterism and the Resurrection

Since the kingdom was already at hand when John the Baptizer ministered, it's certainly at hand now!

John didn't know when the world will end, therefore he could only say that it is at hand. The angels and the Son of Man didn't know either, therefore they could only say 'soon'.

The entire Church age is therefore intrinsically the last hour - because there is nothing else covenantally which must happen in the interim - it's all been done - therefore He could potentially come at any time now.

The Bible explains why He delays His coming - so that more people come to repentance. Even a thousand years is 'soon' compared to eternity.

Nothing spiritual and covenantal happened in AD70 that wasn't already happening beforehand during the early Church. Believers already went straight to heaven when they died, said Paul in Phillipians. Unbelieving Jews were already missing out on the promises. The Bible doesn't say that Sheol was to empty in AD70.

As for the resurrection, the Bible says it is to be physical and worldwide, inclusive of all the dead, in my understanding of things. If so, then that obviously hasn't happened yet.

The Preterist View of the End of the World

When Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes 1:4 that "the earth abideth forever," it wasn't intended as a statement about whether or not the earth shall never end in future - he was just saying that the earth exists trans-generationally.

It's similar to when Moses wrote that the Levitical priesthood should continue "forever in Israel" - it wasn't intended as a statement about whether or not the Levitical priesthood should never end - because we now know that the Levitical priesthood was only ever intended to be temporary - it was always intended to pass away when Jesus came.

And as for Ephesians 3:21, it doesn't actually say the earth will never end, especially not in the Greek.

Therefore if we want to assert that the earth shall remain literally ‘forever’ – we will have to establish the case for it elsewhere than in the above Scriptures, because the above Scriptures didn’t have that intent.

But even if it’s true that the earth shall literally remain forever, I feel the Bible still teaches that the current age will come to an end – when Jesus returns and abolishes physical death. I don’t feel that the “end of the world(KJV)” has happened yet – because I feel the Bible says that there is to be a universal, physical resurrection of all the dead on that day.

There Will Be An End of the World

The Greek word translated “world” in Ephesians 3:21 is – αἰῶνος – the same Greek word translated “world” in Matthew 24. Preterists seem to make it mean “earth” in Ephesians 3:21 but “age” in Matthew 24 – even though it’s the same Greek word!

In fact, the Greek text literally means, “…throughout all the generations of the age of ages…” It doesn’t actually include vocabulary conveying the certainty that the earth (terra firma) will never end.

But even if Paul did mean that the world (αἰῶνος, age) is never to end – still preterists contradict that by saying that Paul’s age did in fact end several years later!

Ephesians 3:21 is therefore not a strong basis for the view that the earth will never end.

Joel's Prophecy is Receivable by Believers

I don't think Joel's prophecy was necessarily about a future nationwide salvation in Israel before the coming of the Lord. Peter said Joel's prophecy was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.

"All flesh" probably meant that the promise was to all, including sons, daughters, servants and the aged - rather than exclusively for prophets, priests and kings.

It also probably meant the promise was potentially available to all Jews – even though not all Jews would necessarily believe and receive it.

The promise may indeed have been for Jews first of all - but on the same day, Peter continued his sermon, saying, "...for the promise is for you and your children and for them that are afar of, even as many as the Lord our God shall call..." So the promise was to extend beyond the day of Pentecost. And it was also conditional upon being called – that is, upon believing in Jesus.

The Apostles seemed to deal differently with apparently unfulfilled prophecies than many of our end-times teachers do today. Modern end-times teachers seem to say, "Well it didn't come to pass, so it must be going to happen during the end-times." But the Apostles didn’t seem to be looking for a future fulfillment of God’s promises to the forefathers. Rather, they explained the manner in which the promises had in fact already been fulfilled through the Gospel. They explained that the promises had been received by the remnant of believing Jews. They also explained that Gentiles who believe had been grafted in. They never seemed to look for a future, repeat fulfillment in Israel.

Jesus didn’t seem to mention a nationwide salvation of Israel before the end, either. And the book of Revelation too seemed to paint a different picture for Israel’s future. The Apostles seemed to be expecting not a nationwide revival in Israel, but a great falling away, the love of many growing cold, and persecutions and hardships in Israel, immediately prior to the end. Not a nationwide fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy!

Joel’s prophecy didn’t state for how long God’s Spirit would continue to be poured out before the Day of the Lord – because the prophets didn’t know how much longer it would be before the Day of the Lord – and we don’t know either, neither did the angels know, and neither did the Son of Man know. Only the Father knows.

Therefore the baptism with the Holy Spirit had an end-times context just as much in the first century as it does at any other time during the Church age. The entire Church age is the “last days” really. Joel’s prophecy about the pouring out of God’s Spirit upon all flesh was therefore interpreted by the Apostles as fulfilled. They taught that the promise is receivable by believers – whether Jew or Gentile, and would continue to be received right up until the day of the Lord - and unbelievers will miss out - whether they are Jews or Gentiles. That’s how the Apostles understood prophecy.

The Apostles said nothing of a future, nationwide repeat fulfillment in Israel of Joel’s prophecy immediately before the Day of the Lord. It’s worthwhile taking note of the manner in which the Apostles said prophecy had been fulfilled (and the manner in which it continues to apply during the entire Church age), rather than asserting our own idea that prophecy is yet to be fulfilled during some special future dispensation. The Apostles’ interpretation of prophecy is good New Covenant doctrine which keeps Gospel-truth and natural Israel in proper perspective.

Immediately After the Tribulation

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days" meant immediately covenantally, more so than immediately by the calendar. It meant there was nothing else of significance to happen in between the tribulation and His coming.

But what was that tribulation? Was it the suffering of the Jews in AD70 only? Is it a future 'Great Tribulation'? It was indeed the suffering of the Jews - but it is also the "distress upon the nations" which has been happening ever since and which will continue until He comes!

Therefore His coming will occur immediately after the tribulation of those days - in every sense immediately after - both covenantally and by the calendar. We just don't know how many calendar pages that tribulation will take up. During that whole time, the Gospel will also continue to be preached among all nations - and then the end shall come.

Past and Future in Matthew 24

Note to Full-Preterists:

The theme of God coming with His saints to judge the world, was first written by Enoch, before the Law was given. Therefore the coming day of judgment spoken of by Enoch was not a past, localized, temporary judgment against Jerusalem, but a future, worldwide and eternal judgment.

The Temple and city were desolated in AD70 - but the end of the world and the coming of the Lord is yet for an appointed day.

The angel was able to give a timeframe in which the desolations of the Jews would be accomplished, and it apparently came to pass - but of the timing, the day of His coming, and of the end of the world, the angel could not answer. Only the Father knows. 

Eschatology

In regard to end-times, Jesus said there are a number of things we are not meant to know:

* We are not meant to know the times and seasons which the Father has placed in His own hands.

* We do not know the day nor hour in which the Son of man shall come.

But there are a number of things which I think are quite clear:

* Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecy.

* The Temple and city of Jerusalem have been destroyed, just as foretold by Jesus.

* The Gospel is to continue to be preached among all nations.

* All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer tribulation.

* Jesus is coming again.

* There shall be a resurrection from the dead.

* There is coming a day of eternal judgment.

* His kingdom shall be revealed.

* His coming is soon.

There are also a number of other modern popular beliefs about end-times which, to me at least, still seem quite unclear in the Bible, such as:

* Any future special period of worldwide tribulation lasting seven years, or 3 1/2 years.

* A pre-tribulation rapture, or mid-tribulation rapture.

* A One-World government and One-World currency.

* A cashless society.

* That microchips fulfill the mark of the beast.

* That there must come a nationwide spiritual awakening in Israel.

* That the Temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem.

* That Christ must return within the lifetime of the generation that saw the rebirth of the nation of Israel in 1948.

* That there must come an exponential increase in earthquakes, famines, pestilences and wars in the few years immediately preceding Christ's second coming.

* A literal, Jewish Millenium.

When it comes to end-times teaching, I think we should have the integrity to distinguish between what we cannot know, what we must know - and what still appears unclear.

If something is unclear in the Bible, we should at least admit it's only our opinion - rather than promulgate it as Gospel truth. And in those matters we ought to be tolerant of others who may have a different opinion. But by all means, we should be shouting the things which everyone must know, from the rooftops.
Jesus is coming!

Is the Fukushima Nuclear Crisis a Sign of the End?

Did Jesus specifically predict the Fukushima nuclear crisis and tsunami? Answer: probably not.

"...the sea and the waves roaring; Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things which are coming on the earth: for the powers of HEAVEN [Greek: ουράνιο - ouránio] shall be shaken..." (Luke 21:25,26).

Some Bible-teachers are pointing-out that the Greek word which means "heaven" (ουράνιο - pronounced ouránio) is the same word used in Greek for uranium. Therefore it is claimed the real meaning of the above Scripture is that in the end-times a nuclear powerplant will meltdown as a result of a tsunami (the sea and waves roaring); and it is claimed this was specifically fulfilled at Fukushima in March 2011, and therefore ours must be the final generation that shall see the return of the Lord.

1. The Greek word used for "heavens" in the above Scripture is ουράνιο - pronounced ouránio.

2. The same Greek word pronounced ouránio is indeed the word for "uranium". Ouránio is the Greek form of the English word uranium (first published in English in 1797) - an Anglicized form of the Latin word which derived from a Greek word.

3. The same Greek word is also the name in Greek for the planet Uranus.

4. So in modern times the same Greek word now has three or four meanings: "heaven" or "heavens"; "uranium" and "uranus". Therefore, when interpreting the above Scripture, we need to choose between one of those meanings, and state why it should be chosen over the others.

5. If someone is going to base an end-times doctrine on their choice of "uranium" as the intended meaning of the Greek word in the above Scripture instead of its other meanings, then they also ought to state why they know "heaven" or "uranus" were not the intended meanings.

6. When Jesus spoke that Greek word, the word meant "heaven" or "heavens" - it didn't mean uranium or Uranus. "Heavens" is the meaning the apostles would have understood by the word, at the time they wrote it.

7. A literary rule of interpretation is that the obvious meaning of a word is always to be taken, especially if it fits the context nicely - unless something written in the text itself instructs us not to take the obvious meaning.

8. Therefore it is most likely that Jesus and the apostles intended the word ουράνιο - pronounced ouránio, to mean "heavens" not uranium or Uranus.

9. But even if it can be proven that the intended meaning is "uranium" - it still needs to be proven why the recent Fukushima nuclear crisis and tsunami fulfills it. Why not some other future nuclear crisis? or why not the Chernobyl nuclear crisis? why specifically Fukushima? Admittedly, the Chernobyl crisis wasn't caused by a tsunami (the sea and waves roaring) - but some future crisis might!

10. But even if there will never be another nuclear crisis caused by a tsunami, we still can't prove that the Fukushima crisis fulfills this Scripture specifically, because the above Scripture doesn't explicitly state that the powers of the heavens (or, nuclear powerplant) shall be shaken by a tsunami - it lists the two phenomena without stating that there shall be cause and effect between the two.

11. But even if the above Scripture did intend to mean that there shall be cause and effect between a tsunami and a nuclear crisis, the Fukushima crisis loses its status as a sign of the end - unless the crisis is ongoing. If the crisis comes to and end, and time continues to march on, then it wasn't the specific crisis referred to in this Scripture.

12. Therefore it doesn't appear to have been proven that the Fukushima nuclear crisis and tsunami uniquely fulfills the above Scripture, or that the crisis indicates ours must be the final generation before Jesus returns.

13. Nuclear crises may be part of the many signs of the end - but Jesus probably didn't intend to refer specifically to nuclear crises - He probably intended the meaning "heavens".

14. So, the Fukushima crisis probably isn't a certain indication that ours must be the final generation that shall see the return of the Lord.

15. Nevertheless, it is probably valid to include the Fukushima nuclear crisis and tsunami among other signs of the times which have existed in every generation since the early church.

16. Jesus can return at any time - if the Father wills. He is coming soon!

In Times Like These

J. Johns wrote:

"In times like this these, remember there have always been times like these."

Romans 11 and the Future of Ethnic Israel

Here is a link to interesting articles about Romans 11 and the future of ethnic Israel:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200012/ai_n8926780/?tag=content%3Bcol1

More on Dispensationalism

Here is a link to interesting articles about dispensationalism:

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/full.asp?id=9|21|649

A History of Dispensationalism in America

The following was written by Ernest C Reisinger:


"In our last study we considered the vital relationship of Dispensationalism to the Lordship controversy. Dispensationalism is the theological mother of non-Lordship teaching.

In this study I wish to give a very brief history of dispensationalism in the U.S.A. This is not meant to be an exhaustive study. It is just a little parenthesis in our studies on the Lordship controversy.

I am taking this little diversion because many, if no, most, of those carrying Scofield Bibles, who sit under Dispensational teachers, know very little about the system and its history. They do not know how the Dispensational theological system differs from the Reformational, historical theology in general, and covenant, Reformed Theology in particular. This is true not only of those in the pews but also, in many instances, the preachers themselves have never seriously compared Dispensationalism with covenant theology as it is most clearly expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith and the theology of the Heidelberg Catechism. Covenant Theology is the archrival of Dispensationalism.

It is my conviction that many who are presently disposed toward Dispensationalism would not be victims of the system if they were better acquainted and informed about the system and its history-its theological roots and the doctrinal errors it has spawned.

Dispensationalism has its roots in the Plymouth Brethren movement which began in the United Kingdom. Writers do not all agree as to the time and place of the Brethren's origin. The first "breaking of bread service" that I can find a record of was in 1827 in Dublin. The preponderance of the information would show that John Nelson Darby was in a real sense a key person and early teacher of the Brethren movement. Other names are very early identified with the movement; such as A.N. Groves; B.W. Newton; W.H. Dorman; E. Cronin; and J.G. Bullett. All of these men were early leaders in places like Dublin, Plymouth and Bristol. It would be generally agreed that John Nelson Darby was the energizing and guiding spirit in its beginning. These men had many differences and divisions among themselves in the early days and ever after. This is not a critique of the Plymouth Brethren movement in the U.K. I mention it to show approximately when and where the Dispensational roots first appeared in history.

There are some Dispensationalists who do not agree with this assessment of their historical beginning. Their arguments, however, will not survive historical examination. Dispensationalism is a development of the Plymouth Brethren movement.

Dispensationalism is a theological system which developed from a twisted, theological interpretation of Scripture that dates from the late nineteenth century. Before that time it was not know as a theological system. The first record of Dispensationalism in the USA is 1864-65, when J.N. Darby twice visited the country. Through these two visits the 16th and Walnut Avenue Presbyterian Church in St. Louis (then pastored by Dr. James H. Brooks) became the principal center of Dispensationalism in America. How could it be!?! This is like trying to mix oil with water! A Presbyterian Church promoting Dispensationalism? Dr. Brooks became Darby's most prominent supporter and has been call the father of Dispensationalism in the U.S.

Dr. Brooks, the most influential exponent of Dispensationalism, propagated it by his own Bible studies with young men. His best known student was C.I. Scofield. Dr. Brooks also published many books and pamphlets (this should teach us the power of literature) as well as editing a magazine called The Truth. The chronology follows this order: Darby to Scofield; Scofield to Chafer; Chafer to Dallas Theological Seminary.

Before proceeding from Dr. Brooks it may be wise and helpful to call attention to conditions in the mainline denominations in the U.S. during this time. In the early twentieth century liberalism was beginning to rear its ugly head in these denominations. The sad condition of the churches had a profound effect of the success and inroads of Dispensationalism.

I will not mention the history in each denomination, but rather, use the Presbyterian Church which was more influenced by Dispensationalism than any other denomination.

Princeton Seminary, which was once the great stronghold of Biblical Christianity, was one of the first places where liberalism was exposed. One of the first open signs of this liberalism appeared in 1914 when J. Ross Stevenson became president of the Seminary. Dr. Stevenson was more interested in ecumenical goals than in the theology of the Westminster Standards.

In the General Assembly in 1923 the brewing storm came to a head. After this meeting a group of spiritual and theological giants followed J. Gresham Machen to found a new seminary. On September 25, 1929 Westminster Seminary, with fifty students and a choice faculty, was opened. There has never been a faculty like it since.

The faculty consisted of articulate, Reformed theologians and they were fighting for the fundamentals of the faith; namely, the inspiration of the Scriptures; the virgin birth of Christ; the bodily resurrection of Christ; the miracle of Christ; and the substitutionary atonement. Their fight was against liberalism, and this same battle was being fought in most, if not all, the mainline denominations. Those who rejected liberalism and held to the five fundamentals just mentioned were labeled "Fundamentalists." This fundamentalism must not be confused with the present day Dispensational fundamentalism.

Let me explain precisely what I mean. The five fundamentals mentioned are beliefs which are essential to historic Christianity. In this sense, every true Christian who holds these truths is a fundamentalist. The present day Dispensational fundamentalists, though they hold to the five essential truths, often attack many other important fundamental of the faith which Reformed people have always cherished and have shed their blood to maintain.

Scofield Dispensationalism brought a new kind of fundamentalism into many churches. This new dispensationalism in its unscriptural, unreformed, and uncalvinistic teaching came on the religious scene to fill a vacuum-a vacuum which existed because of liberalism. The churches had drifted away from the doctrinal roots expressed in the old confessions and creeds. Many of the best schools and seminaries had been taken over by liberals and modernists-beginning in the colleges and seminaries and spreading to the pulpits and the pews. Bible-believing Christians turned to those churches where the bible was believed and taught.

This vacuum which Liberalism created in the churches provided a prime opportunity for the establishment and spread of the new Dispensational teaching.

This resulted in the independent church movement, the independent Bible conference movement and the Bible school movement. Those who participated in them were almost all carrying Scofield Bibles and their leaders were predominantly Dispensational in their views.

The major training center for evangelical and Bible-believing churches became Dallas Theological Seminary, founded in 1924. Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer was the first president. Keep in mind these were days when the crucial battle between modernism and historic Christianity was in progress.

In that desperate hour sincere, Bible-believing people turned to Dallas Seminary, the mecca of Dispensationalism, for teaching on God's Word.

Many Dispensational Bible schools and colleges were born during this period, and they all were brought forth unreformed.

The late Robert King Churchill, a respected Presbyterian minister, wrote a little paperback entitled, Lest We Forget. It consists of his reflections on his fifty year history in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. Mr. Churchill confirms what I have said about Dispensationalism getting into the Presbyterian Church. He tells of his personal experience in two specific churches: First Presbyterian Church of Tacoma, Washington, where he was converted, baptized and called to the ministry, and another located in Seattle, Washington. He tells how, in these two great churches, the notes in the Scofield Reference Bible became more and more prominent in the preaching. Churchill said, "These notes and the interpretation of Scripture upon which they were based, were contrary to our Presbyterian and Reformed heritage."

He tells of Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer delivering a series of lectures on the subject of "Grace" (the same material now appears in Chafer's book by the same title). Hear Mr. Churchill's own words:

But Chafer's treatment of the subject of grace never arrives at the right view of the law of God. According to Dr. Chafer, the law was a condition of salvation placed upon the people of God in the Old Testament during a special and limited time period-the Dispensation of Law. This condition, Chafer contended, no longer has application to the New Testament believer since we relate to God under a new dispensation, the Dispensation of Grace. Since, as he put it, "we are no longer under law, but under grace," Chafer argued that there is no necessary relationship between law and grace. Here is law without grace, and grace without law. Always and in every sense, law and grace are opposed to each other.

This teaching appears to be scriptural, but in reality it was the ancient error of Antinomianism (anti-law) which denies that the law has application to the Christian. Chafer defended this view by means of a radical reinterpretation of the Scriptures (p. 31).

Dispensationalism is also a frontal attack on Covenantal Theology and the doctrine of the unity of the covenant of grace, which have been held since the time of the Reformation.

How could Dispensationalism be welcomed and embraced in strong Presbyterian churches whose confession teaches Reformed, Calvinistic, Covenant Theology? Though there is not a simple answer one thing is certain: the churches which were infected with Dispensationalism were those which had ceased teaching in any vital way the doctrinal distinctives of their own confession.

All honest Dispensationalists would agree that the Dispensational system of theology has a different view of the grace of God, the law of God, the church of God, the interpretation of the Word of God and the salvation of God. That is, its teaching are different from tested, respected historic creeds and confessions.

Dispensationalism has a different view of living the Christian life-of sanctification and, more specifically, how justification and sanctification are inseparably joined together in the application of God's salvation.

This is a Southern Baptist journal, therefore, I must say something about Dispensationalism in Southern Baptist churches. Historically, the Southern Baptist churches were not Dispensational in theology. None of our leading seminaries or colleges ever taught Dispensationalism and to the present day they do not teach Dispensationalism.

I believe I am safe in saying that Dr. Wally Amos Criswell has been the most influential and articulate Southern Baptist Dispensationalists. Dr. Criswell is one of the great, esteemed and respected leaders of our denomination and every Southern Baptist is deeply indebted to him as a defender of the Bible and conservative Christianity. Where and how this great leader got his Dispensationalism I do not know. I do know that he did not get it at Baylor in his college days. He did not get it at Southern in his seminary days, and he did not get it from his great predecessor, George W. Truett, who pastored the First Baptist Church in Dallas, for 47 years before Dr. Criswell. George W. Truett was a postmillennialist.

There are other good men in the Southern Baptist Convention who have Dispensational views, but they did not get these views in our schools or seminaries. They did not get them from our Baptist fathers or from our Baptist historical roots.

We cannot overlook the accomplishments of Dispensationalism. It has given rise to Bible colleges and independent churches all over the land. It has spawned numerous independent missions, independent preachers and missionaries.

If we apply the pragmatic test and ask the question, "Does it work?" The answer is, "yes."

If we apply the same test and ask the same question to:

Jehovah's Witnesses, the answer would be yes.

The Mormons, the answer would be yes, it works.

The Roman Catholic Church-yes, it works.

The Charismatic movement-yes, it works.

They all have many converts and followers. They build schools, churches and have missionaries and great accomplishments-but, there is another, more important question that needs to be asked. Is it true, is it Biblical? This question will bring a different answer.

The issue before us is not a few minor differences or disagreements between those who hold basically the same position. It is not just a difference in eschatology. It is the whole system of theology that touches every major doctrine of Christianity. What is at stake is the saving gospel of Jesus Christ and the sinner's assurance that he is living according to God's plan for history.

There are many being rescued from the errors of Dispensationalism and I pray that God will use these studies to awaken many more to ask the right question.

In our next study we will return to the Lordship controversy."

Source

Re-Reading Matthew 24

* I think many aspects of "end-times" prophecy may have already been fulfilled (such as the prediction of the siege of Jerusalem; the abomination of desolation; the destruction of the Temple; its associated tribulations; and the subsequent deportation of Jews all around the world)

* I also think some aspects of prophecy concern the future (for example, the visible return of the Lord; and the resurrection of the dead)

* I also think there are bridging statements in Biblical prophecy which seem to span the period of time between now-past and yet-future events (for example, Jesus predicted that after the fall of Jerusalem, the city would remain trampled under foot by Gentiles until the "times" [i.e., years] of the Gentiles are fulfilled. This state of affairs appears to have begun circa AD70 and still describes Jerusalem until today!)

The challenging part is to accurately decipher what is past, what spans the centuries, and what is yet future. If we fail to take note of any time-indicator statements in end-times passages of Scripture accurately, we could end-up with an eschatology that is more fiction than fact.

For example, preterists regard so much of Biblical prophecy as already fulfilled, to the extent that they even regard the resurrection as a past event.

Then on the other hand, futurists regard so much of Biblical prophecy as yet-to-be fulfilled, to the extent that they even expect a repeat fulfillment of already-fulfilled prophecies such as the prophecy of the abomination of desolation, the destruction of the Temple and its associated tribulations all of which appear to have been fulfilled circa AD70.

I therefore recommend a helpful exercise: re-read Matthew 24, taking note of the fact that Jesus had been asked two separate questions: one question relating to the destruction of the Temple; the other question relating to His second coming. As you read, try to decipher which sections of the text might answer the first question, and which sections of the text might answer the second question - and whether any phrases in the text might indicate a span of time between the two.

After you've done this little exercise, see if your own model of "tribulation" and eschatology is confirmed or changed. And, where the text doesn't give enough information to decide, don't decide!

Assumptions of Futurist Eschatology

Someone wrote that he is expecting tribulation to begin on the Gold Coast within six months to two years; he also mentioned the microchip.

My reply:

1. Your model of future events is fairly typical of the futurist interpretation of end-times prophecy. But as for me, I can't help noticing that many of the foundation-texts of Scripture which futurists rely on to construct their view, may in fact have already been fulfilled.

For example, when Jesus predicted "great tribulation", He was actually answering a question that related specifically to the destruction of the Jewish Temple. Despite these events being fulfilled circa AD70, futurists use these Scriptures to construct a futurist model.

Jesus was dealing with two, not one, question in Matthew 24: the first, related to the Temple; the second, to His coming. I admit I don't find it easy to always decipher which of Jesus' answers relates to which question. However, Jesus did seem to provide a bridging-statement that does seem to span the period of time between the two events (when He said that Jerusalem would remain trodden under foot by Gentiles for years).

Because I don't find it easy to always decipher what is now past and what is still future, I'm careful to avoid creating a dogmatic model of future events. It means I can neither embrace nor outright-reject every aspect of the futurist model.


2. But even if your futurist model is correct, I still think it's impossible to put a time-frame on its fulfillment, even given the futurist model, for the following reason:

Paul stated that the man of lawlessness could not be revealed until the restrainer would be removed. The man of lawlessness, said Paul, would appear not at a time of his own choosing, nor at the time when a naturally-spiralling circle of events climaxes - but he can be revealed only once the restrainer is removed.

In other words, we can't look at current trends and then conclude a time-frame on the basis of those events or trends. There is one and one only factor which could determine the timing, and that is the prior removal of the restrainer - even in the futurist model.

Do you know for sure that the restrainer has been, or will be, removed in the next six months to two years? If not, then there's no possible way to give time-frames, regardless of what trends you see happening in contemporary society.


3. The microchip may or may not have anything to do with the mark of the beast. To conclude that it must, requires a fair bit of interpretive licence with regard to Revelation 13.

In the first place, the mark of the beast may be already-fulfilled prophecy. But that aside, notice a few things that the Bible does and doesn't say about the mark of the beast:

* The text of Revelation 13 does not say the mark was something that functionally enabled people to buy and sell - it could merely mean that without the mark, they wouldn't be allowed to buy or sell

* The text of Revelation 13 does not say people were marked in a way that identified them individually, distinguishing one individual from another - it says they were all marked with the same mark - either the beast's name or number

* The text of Revelation 13 does not say the mark was invisible like an implanted microchip - the very word "mark" according to an English dictionary, implies visibility

* The text of Revelation 13 does not say the mark replaced the use of cash - in fact, the use of the Roman Denarius currency is mentioned as being still in use during the period described in the Book of Revelation (Rev.6:6)

* The text of Revelation 13 does not necessarily mean that the people had a choice to receive the mark or not - it says they had a choice to worship the man as god or not - then the mark was imposed on them on the basis of the choice of worhsip they'd made (the wording of the text makes either meaning a possibility)

* The text of Revelation 13 says that ten kings supported the beast - ten kings doesn't sound like a one world government to me - aren't there nearly 200 countries in the world today, not ten?

* The text of Revelation 13 says that before the mark was given, miraculous signs were being done and people were worshiping the beast and his statue - that sounds like something a whole lot more religious than mere participation in a secular cashless system

* The text of Revelation 13 says that people who received the mark were thrown into the lake of fire - would God do that to a person for merely participating in a monetary system - or were these people literally worshiping a man as god?

* When an allegorical book describes an allegorical animal with allegorical horns giving a mark, chances are the 'mark' might be only allegorical too! (especially when you consider that the same book [of Revelation] already describes another mark which was given to people which was almost certainly only allegorical [namely, God's mark in the foreheads of the righteous])

All of the above means that it requires a fair bit of interpretive licence to assert that the microchip must be the mark of the beast. It's a fairly big assumption to make. I'm not saying that amount of interpretive licence shouldn't be taken - but I just want people who are taking that amount of interpretive licence to realize and admit that that's what they are doing! They have created an interpretive model of future events that relies heavily on assumptions and that doesn't seem to give regard to the fact that at least some of Jesus' end-times prophecies may or may not have already been fulfilled.

Another Look at Eschatology

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.