The Bridge from Futurism to Preterism
By Walt Hibbard (PreteristAD70@uReach.com)
According to Webster’s Unabridged
Universal Dictionary, a Preterist is “a theologian who believes that the
prophecies of the Apocalypse have already been fulfilled.” By extension,
this includes the writings of the Old Testament prophets, the words of the Lord
Jesus Christ, and the inspired New Testament books and epistles. It is
therefore inaccurate for theologians who believe that the second coming of
Christ, the resurrection of the dead, and the judgment are still future for us
today to call themselves Preterists. They are actually futurists with perhaps
some
Preterist leanings. The pejorative term, “hyper-Preterist,” can only serve to
prejudice the reader against a particular viewpoint before he has been exposed
to what it teaches.
The study of eschatology
involves words and phrases that convey different meanings to different people.
It is always wise, I think, to define our terms in advance and thus avoid
possible confusion and misunderstandings. I shall try to define some of these
key words and phrases as I believe the Lord intends us to understand them.
“The last days,” spoken so often by Jesus and His
apostles, refers to the final and brief period of time that the Old Covenant
remained as the administration given to God’s chosen people,
“The time of the end,” spoken of in Daniel 12:4 & 9
refers to the same time period as “the last days.” This term is not to be
confused with “the end of time” which does not appear in Scripture. I do not
find any mention of the concept of “the end of the material world” or “when
time shall be no more.” These ideas have come to us primarily from the annals
of Greek and Roman philosophy, as well as the mistranslations in the King James
Version of “the end of the world” (Matt. 24:3) which all newer versions
translate as “the end of the age.”
The term “this
generation” appears at least twenty times in the synoptic Gospels, and each
time refers to the people living on earth contemporaneously with Jesus. It does
not refer to successive generations of Jews who would live in future centuries,
nor does the term mean “race,” as some scholars maintain. When this phrase
appears in the New Testament, it always speaks of people living in the first
century AD.
I understand the phrase “heaven
and earth” as often referring to covenants. The
Words such as “soon,”
“near,” “shortly,” “quickly,” “at hand,” “at the door,” etc. are to be
understood in a literal sense. It will not do to stretch the obvious meaning of
these words so as to place their fulfillment time thousands of years into the
future. It should be clear to the unbiased reader that these terms refer to a
time of fulfillment in the immediate future. To remove all doubt, our Lord
promised that His coming would occur within “this generation” (Matt. 24.34) and
before “some standing here shall not taste death” (Matt.
The words “die” or
“death” as used in the Bible may refer to either physical death or
spiritual death. The meaning must be carefully determined by the context. In
the Garden of Eden God promised to Adam and Eve in connection with the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil, that “in the day that you eat of it you
shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). Adam lived to be 930 years old physically, but
his disobedience resulted in his spiritual death that very day, just as
God had promised. To maintain that Adam “began to die physically” at the time
of the Fall is to miss the point that the Genesis record is teaching. If the
correct interpretation was physical death, then Satan was right and God was
wrong! So spiritual death resulted directly from the Fall; physical death only
indirectly. When God drove Adam and Eve out of the Garden, this deprived them
from regularly partaking of the tree of life, which previously had sustained
them physically. This cut them off from enjoying indefinite physical life on
the earth and physical death ultimately followed. So physical death was not a direct
result of the Fall, but came about more indirectly. “The last enemy that will
be destroyed is death” (I Corinthians
Now that I have attempted
to define some of the more frequently misunderstood terms, let’s get to the
heart of what Preterism really is. It is no more or no less than an effort on
the part of conservative Bible scholars and students to arrive at the true and
correct view of what Jesus and His disciples were really teaching about His
kingdom. It is, in the words of Dr. R. C. Sproul, a “paradigm shift” in
biblical interpretation. Preterism especially relates to those passages where
Jesus spoke of the timeframe of His second coming. It also includes references
to the other “end time” events that Scripture teaches will occur at the same
time, or in connection with, the second coming, such as the resurrection of the
dead (e.g. I Corinthians 15:23). But why should an investigative study of these
imminency statements be absolutely necessary in order to understand Preterism?
Simply because the
definitive imminency passages of the New Testament have been either ignored,
passed over too quickly, or denied outright, in most denominations including
our Reformed churches. How many of us have ever listened to an in-depth message
preached from our pulpits on any of the over 100 imminency verses from the lips
of Jesus or His apostles? In cases where these passages may have been cited,
there is usually no attempt to thoroughly exegete the verses; no teaching to
remind us of the intense sufferings of those first century Christians and how these
people were to be soon delivered from their severe persecution and given
rest (I Thess. 4:13-18; II Thess. 1:6-7). It is apparently an unspoken rule
that these important promises made by Jesus are best left alone, hoping that
they will go away. They seem to be an embarrassment to many pastors, since a
normal reading will suggest conclusions that are in conflict with long
established eschatological teaching and at variance with the historic creeds
and confessions. Searching dozens of commentaries for a satisfactory
interpretation of these verses will likely result in the same uncertainty,
denials, warped exegesis, and confused thinking that I encountered in my
studies.
For lack of time and space
I will limit my comments to just four of these passages, all being promises of
a first century second advent by the Lord Jesus Christ. All of these verses
have at least one thing in common: namely, the inspired writer, Matthew, quotes
the plain words of Jesus in a straight forward manner, using didactic language,
in an ordinary prose fashion. There are no symbolic, poetic or veiled
statements. Everything Jesus said in these verses is very plain, quite
succinct, and right to the point. There is no parabolic language here; nothing
that should prevent anyone from gaining a correct understanding of the verses
in question. Yet many scholars have stumbled over these verses. Perhaps this
happens because of an unhealthy reliance on the early ecumenical creeds and the
historic confessions, which are normally reliable as summaries of orthodox
biblical teaching. Now let’s investigate these seemingly difficult verses.
Matt. 10:23 When they persecute you in this
city, I say to you, flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not
have gone through the cities of
Jesus has just finished
instructing His twelve disciples to evangelize “the lost sheep of
I have been disappointed by
the variety of interpretations offered by dozens of otherwise competent
scholars, in attempting to state what Jesus meant in that 23rd verse. I will
not repeat their words here, except to say that not one of these
teachers was willing to admit that Jesus meant exactly what He plainly said.
Was He not clearly saying that He would come again before His
disciples had finished going “through the cities of
Well, no…if one is
thoroughly convinced that the creeds are completely accurate when they teach
that the second coming was to take place beyond the date limits of that first
century. And haven’t we all been taught that the creeds are the yardstick in
defining what “orthodoxy” consists of? Yet at the same time, all conservative
Christians know in their hearts that the Scriptures are inerrant and
infallible, postulated by both the witness of the Holy Spirit and the
external/internal evidence of the manuscripts themselves. They also know that
the historic creeds are not inspired, and do not even claim to be. As accurate
and valuable as the creeds are to the church on most doctrines, there is good
reason to question their accuracy in summarizing the eschatological teachings
of Scripture.
In view of the context of
vs. 23, and the clear and unmistakable words that Jesus employed in making the
statement, this first imminency passage requires us to believe that Jesus
promised His twelve disciples that His second coming would occur before
they had passed through the cities in Israel. Perhaps Jesus had in mind the six
cities of refuge scattered around
Matt. 16:27-28 For the Son of Man will come
(Greek: mello, is about to come) in the glory of His Father with His
angels, and then He will reward each according to his works. Assuredly, I say
to you, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see
the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.
In spite of the efforts of
the early editors to divide these two verses in the parallel rendering in Mark
8:38 & 9:1 into separate chapters, the editors did not see fit to make this
separation in Matthew. Verse 27 flows very naturally into verse 28 and
therefore contextually related. Several literal versions remind the non-Greek
reader that the phrase “will come” is better translated “is about to come.” As
we saw earlier that I Corinthians
And then Jesus, as if to
assure His disciples (vs. 24) that this magnanimous event was something that they
themselves could anxiously look forward to and not to something that
would happen a long time (perhaps 2000 years or more?) into the future, He
continues in vs. 28 to make sure that they did not miss the fact that some
of these disciples would still be alive to witness His second coming and
the related events as well. The readers of these verses will search in vain to
find poetic language, hyperbole, or symbolic word pictures. Jesus taught His
disciples exactly what He wanted them to believe. Notice He did not say
that “maybe” or”perhaps” He would return while some (but not all) of His
disciples still had not died physically. He said that He would return to
those same disciples that He gave the promise to. This was a genuine pledge to
His disciples, and He dates the timing of His second advent within the bounds
of that generation living in the first century. Is there any reason to
attempt to reinterpret these verses to mean something different from the
obvious meaning of the language? Do we have any authority to twist the meaning
of Matt. 16:27-28 so as to postpone its fulfillment to the distant future as
the creeds suggest we do? I think not. Neither do these verses stand alone in
the Gospels. Let’s now consider a third imminency verse.
Matt. 24:34 Assuredly, I say to you, this
generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.
As I reminded us earlier,
the Greek word, “genea,” is used over twenty times in the Gospels, and each
time refers to people living at the same time. Read Matthew 23 as just one of
many examples which refer to that first generation of apostate Jewish leaders
who had come under the judgment and condemnation of the Lord Jesus. Their
forefathers had murdered the prophets whom He had sent to them, they had
spurned His every gesture of kindness and mercy, and now, like the parable of
Matt. 21:33-46, where the landowner sends his son, whom they kill, hoping to
gain the inheritance, the Father sends the Son to minister to His people, but
they hated Him and nailed Him to a tree. The judgment that was coming upon that
first century generation of Jewish covenant breakers was aptly described in the
seven woes of Matt. 23 and the conclusion was in vs. 38: “See! Your house is
left to you desolate.” Chapter 24 answers the disciples question, “Tell us, when
will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end
of the age?” (vs. 3) In the words that follow, Jesus in the Olivet discourse
provides great detail concerning the impending judgment on the city of
Jerusalem and its Temple, and follows immediately with the highly symbolic
language of stars, sun and moon being shaken and falling. This language was
familiar to the Jews since numerous judgments on other nations, such as
Luke’s version of the
Olivet discourse explains in Luke 21:22 “For these are the days of
vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” Luke
further explains in vs. 27-28 of the same chapter: “Then they will see the Son
of Man, coming in a cloud with power and great glory. Now when these things
begin to happen, look up and lift up your heads, because your redemption draws
near.” What does Luke mean by redemption here? Since Jesus was speaking to His
believing disciples, and their hearts had already been redeemed, did this not
obviously refer to the resurrection and the redemption of their bodies? Yes,
the second coming of Jesus was to take place in connection with God’s judgment
on
Matt. 26:64 Nevertheless, I say to you,
hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power,
and coming on the clouds of heaven.
Jesus was speaking to the
high priest, Caiaphas (vs. 57, 63 & 65), and promising that Caiaphas and
the council would witness the events relating to His second coming. Jesus is
clearly telling all who were present during that trial, perhaps the entire
Sanhedrin, including Caiaphas, that “the cloud coming” of Jesus would happen
during the lifetime of some of these Jewish leaders who would witness it. The
events of AD 70 would “reveal” or “unveil” Jesus as the Son of Man, who is the
Messianic “Judge of all Judges.” It is hardly credible to suggest that the
fulfillment would take place in a future generation “to those covenantally
related to Caiaphas.” Isn’t it amazing to what lengths some will go to avoid
the meaning of plain words in an effort to uphold the creeds? Yet that interpretation
was offered by a renowned professor at Westminster Seminary to this writer many
years ago. Why is it so difficult to simply take the words of Jesus at face
value and believe what He said, because He is the Son of God and does not lie?
In conclusion, I would like
to discuss a number of what I will call “common sense” arguments that tend to
validate the Preterist view. They are not listed in any particular order, and
can be considered individually.
** It is often assumed that
if a Preterist can not explain to his own satisfaction (or to anyone else’s
either) just how a particular prophecy was fulfilled, that this refutes the
entire Preterist system. Nothing could be farther from the truth. In view of
the time statements that Jesus and His disciples made, a first century
fulfillment is the logical outworking of these promises. Is it so incredible
that Jesus would fulfill His promise like He said He would do? Perhaps the
logic of it all ought to be turned back upon the opponents of Preterism. How
can they dare to suggest that Jesus really did not fulfill His
promises that He said He would and in the way that He said He would? If it is
scary to 21st century ears that the second coming has already happened, how
much more scary should it be to suggest that the second coming has not
yet taken place? What does this do to Jesus’ credibility as a true
prophet? If He did not keep His promises, then He either deceived, mislead, or
outright lied to His disciples. If so, how can anyone be sure that Jesus’ Cross
sacrifice was truly efficacious and that His way of salvation is really the
true way into heaven? This demonstrates the extreme importance that eschatology
holds in the overall interpretation of the Holy Scriptures!
** A common objection to
the teaching that the second coming has already happened is to suggest that
these time statements don’t really mean what the Preterist says they mean.
Usually people who level
this criticism think they have found a loophole in one of the time statements,
and explain it in some other way. In view of the over 100 New Testament
imminency statements that Preterist scholar, David Green, has compiled, can any
objector overcome all 100 of these Scripture verses? A good approach is to ask
these people to give their own interpretation. According to the teaching of the
Reformers, the “analogy of faith” (comparing Scripture with Scripture) is the
only sound method to use in arriving at the true meaning. Are these people able
to do this? Not that this writer has observed.. Instead, there is a marked
tendency to pass over, or ignore, these important verses, saying that Jesus
Himself did not know the day or hour. Let’s consider this objection next.
** It is sometimes suggested that Matt.
24:36, “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven,
but My Father only,” nullifies other more specific time limitation statements
that Jesus made. Not so. We must not read this verse out of its context. The
established context is within that first century generation of about forty years,
and emphasized with reference to some individuals being still alive at the
second coming.. To not know the precise day or hour does not allow a 2000 year
postponement! Rather, we can understand this in the same way as we speak of a
pregnant woman who will deliver within nine months, yet no one can predict the
exact day or hour that her child will be born. Yet the nine month period has
not changed because of this lack of precise day and hour knowledge. We need to
read our Bibles like we normally read other literature. One final
thought on this verse. The text says that the Father knows the day and
hour! That alone ought to be enough to settle the matter, in view of the many
other imminency statements
**. If Jesus made a promise
to specific people to whom He was speaking, doesn’t it make sense that He would
fulfill His promise to those same people? Reason with me now: If I
promised my son a bicycle for Christmas two months into the future, and come
Christmas day, there was no bicycle presented to my son, did I keep my promise
to him?
Would not my son be
horribly disappointed and lose faith in my promises? Would it not be
disgraceful for me to suggest that I really didn’t promise my son the bicycle
at all (a lie!), but rather I will be presenting it, at some indefinite time in
the future, to my son’s future son, my grandson, instead. In the covenant line,
you know! I am glad that our God is not like that. If He made time delineated
promises to certain people, facing them eyeball to eyeball, He will
always keep His promises perfectly to them. No postponement is possible.
Postponement is the same as non-occurrence, and that is a broken promise. The
Lord God is always faithful. He keeps His promises.
** Some opponents of Preterism
have suggested that the dating of the Book of Revelation was around the year of
AD 90, and if this is true, the whole Preterist position would come tumbling
down. This is absurd! The four imminency statements that we considered above
were spoken by Jesus Christ about AD 33. They are valid promises and are not
invalidated by opinions about the dating of this last book of the Bible. The
excellent book by Dr. Ken Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell, powerfully
argues the pre-AD 70 date, and an earlier work, Redating the New Testament, by
the liberal scholar, John A. T. Robertson, also supports the early date. The
majority of scholars in the 19th century upheld the early date.
** Although it should be
obvious, the New Testament documents were written to people living in the first
century AD. They were not written to individual Christians or even to the
churches that would exist in future generations. The time delineated promises,
therefore, were given to those first century people and not to believers in
subsequent centuries.. It has been said that when we 21st century people read
the New Testament, we are reading someone else’s mail! None of the Gospels,
Epistles, etc. were written to us. But while none of the Bible was written
directly to us, all of the Bible was written for us. This
distinction is crucial to an accurate understanding of Bible prophecy. It also
spells out the difference between fulfillment and application,
and upholds the hermeneutical axiom of audience relevance.
** A common charge against Preterists
is that they teach that nothing significant really happened to the living
believers in AD 70 at the time of the Parousia. They continued living normal
lives and, one by one, died in the course of time, with no deliverance from
Roman persecution. However, I do not believe that! If this predicted event was
merely an objective, change of covenants, and nothing more than that for the
Christians alive at that time, our opponents would have a good argument.
Rather, I hold to a literal “catching up” (some call it a “rapture”) event. Along
with this catching up (I Thess. 4:13-19; I Corinthians 15:50-54; II Corinthians
5:1-4) of living believers, who were “changed” and given glorified,
incorruptible, spiritual bodies, the departed believers in Sheol/Hades were
resurrected and both groups together were taken to heaven by our Lord, as He
promised to do in John’s Gospel, chapter 14:1-3. This view is in line with the
numerous “expectation statements” of the New Testament, such as Phil. 3:10-11;
** Preterists often come
under attack for believing that our material world should not expect a finality
to history. Yet there are over a dozen Scripture passages that suggest that
this earth will remain forever, such as Eccl. 1:4 “One generation passes away,
and another generation comes, but the earth abides forever”, or Isa. 9:7 “Of
the increase of His government and peace there will be no end, upon the throne
of David and over His kingdom, to order it and establish it with judgment and
justice from that time forward, even forever…” Mention is made of the
“everlasting covenant” in numerous verses, e.g., Isa. 55:3; Jer. 32:40; Heb.
** God finally and
completely dealt with sin at the Cross in behalf of each and every true
disciple. In AD 70 He rewarded the faithful and cast all unbelievers into hell.
After the first century judgment, all people, saved or unsaved, are consigned
to their eternal destination when they die physically – the saved are taken to
heaven, and the lost are taken to hell. When Paul wrote in I Corinthians
13:9-12 “when that which is perfect has come…” he was speaking of heaven where
sin will never enter. In order to deal with the sins that Christ did not pay
for (in the case of the unbeliever), it remains for this judgment to take place
sequentially, at the time of each unbeliever’s death.
** And finally, there would
seem to be a contradiction on the destination of departed Christians, as given
in some funeral sermons, compared to what is often taught in classes in
seminary. A pastor, on the one hand, assures the family of the departed loved
one that he/she is in heaven with Jesus. On the other hand, in seminary
classes, students often are taught that the soul/spirit of the loved one is in
a “disembodied state” (see Charles Hodge’s comments) awaiting the coming of the
Lord when his soul/spirit will be re-united with his body at the resurrection
and taken to be with Jesus. So which is it? Preterists understand that the
pastor’s words of assurance are correct, at least partially, since believers
dying today immediately are given incorruptible, glorious spiritual
bodies because of the AD 70 consummation. Christ has completed “the place” that
He began to prepare after the ascension (John 14: 2-3), taking the Old
Testament saints and first century believers with Him at AD 70. Since then,
there is no “waiting period” to complete before entering into that glorious
habitation, which is the focal point of Rev. 20 & 21. We truly have a
completed salvation in Jesus Christ!