Will the Real Anti-Prophets Please Stand Up?

Part One

The more of Larry Spargimino's book The Anti-Prophets I read, the worse it gets. Last month, we saw how he muddied the waters with extraneous issues that are not directly related to the topic of Preterism/Futurism. He finally gets to the heart of the argument with a study of the time texts, but it takes him 124 pages to get there. He writes:

There is no question but that the so-called "time texts" of the Bible form the main weapon of Preterism. Statements indicating that these things are to happen "shortly," or that "the time is at hand," or that "this generation shall see all these things," are statements used to ridicule and mock futurism.[1]

This is a rather vitriolic assessment of the intent of the writing I and others have done in the area of eschatology. The time texts aren't weapons; they are the Word of God! They are not used to "ridicule and mock futurists" any more than the Word of God was used by Paul to "ridicule and mock" Peter when "he stood condemned" (Gal. 2:11) for his faulty understanding of the gospel. I and other Preterists believe Larry Spargimino and those who follow his novel interpretive methodology called dispensational Premillennialism are wrong. Developing a comprehensive argument to show why dispensationalists may be wrong is not ridicule and mockery.

Location, Location, Location

Spargimino continues his assessment of Preterists by accusing us of allegorizing prophetic texts and localizing prophetic events. The essence of his argument is as follows:

When these "time texts" are combined with an allegorical interpretation of biblical prophecy, Preterists feel scripturally justified in concluding that nothing more than a first-century disaster upon Jerusalem is needed to satisfy the requirements of these predictions.[2]

Let's first assess his "first-century upon Jerusalem" accusation. Has Spargimino considered that Jesus' first coming took place in the first century in the very small country of Israel? Jesus wasn't even born in the nation's capital but in the small town of Bethlehem (Matt. 2:6). If Spargimino had his way, Jesus' birth would have taken place in Rome. Jesus' birth, ministry, death, resurrection, and ascension were obscure local events. His birth was witnessed by some unnamed shepherds who happened to be in the fields that night (Luke 2:8). Only Simeon met Jesus and His parents in the temple and acknowledged Him as God's promised savior (2:25-32). After this, Jesus appears for a fleeting moment in the temple when He is twelve years old (2:41-52). We don't see Him again until He's about thirty (3:1-22). In terms of a world-wide audience, only a few people saw Jesus' crucifixion. His own disciples deserted Him (Matt. 26:56). No human being witnessed His resurrection. The apostles, not a world-wide television audience, saw Jesus "lifted up" at His ascension (Acts 1:9). Even so, all of these local events had cosmic consequences: "For God so loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16). A localized first-century event had world-wide implications. The local nature of an event does not obscure its importance.

Spargimino wants us to believe that only a world-wide conflagration, a global tribulation, satisfies the demands of the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21) and Revelation. Nonsense. In fact, it makes more sense to believe, coupled with what we know about those first-century Jews who conspired to have Jesus put to death (Acts 2:23), that only a first-century, pre-AD. 70, event is in view. Why punish the world for what only one generation of Jews did?

Following Spargimino's interpretive model, two-thirds of the Jews who will be living in Israel after the rapture and during the tribulation will be killed. Charles Ryrie describes the great tribulation as "the time of Israel's greatest bloodbath."[3] Fellow dispensationalist John F. Walvoord teaches that there will be a time when "two thirds of the children of Israel in the land will perish."[4]

Will the Real Allegorizer Please Stand Up

The Bible is very clear: The destruction of Jerusalem is a first-century event that took place within a generation of Jesus' deliverance of His Olivet Discourse. No other meaning of "this generation" (Matt. 24:34) is possible. This brings me to Spargimino's "allegorical" accusation. He claims that a "literal" interpretation leads necessarily to his brand of futurism. If this is true, then why doesn't he interpret the time texts literally? Why doesn't "shortly" mean "shortly" and "near" mean "near"? Consider the Greek word engus, translated either as "at hand" or "near" in every English translation, including the King James Version that Spargimino uses. Kenneth L. Gentry's various lexical studies of the time texts are revealing. None has an eschatological ax to grind:

[The Greek word engus] is an adverb of time formed from two words: en ("in, at") and guion ("limb, hand"). Hence the meaning is literally "at hand." The Arndt and Gingrich Lexicon offers one word, "near," as the meaning.[5] Thayer expands on the idea of the word: "of Time; concerning things imminent and soon to come to pass."[6] He lists Revelation 1:3 and 22:10 in his series of examples. The word is used frequently of chronologically near events, such as approaching summer (Matt. 24:32), the Passover (Matt. 26:18; John 2:13; 11:55), the Feast of Tabernacles (John 7:2), etc."[7]

Just to see if anything has changed about the meaning of engus, I checked the newly published Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament, where two of the three authors served as field linguists and teachers of graduate linguistics in Southeast Asia, and one served in several countries as a Greek consultant for Wycliffe Bible Translators: "[engus] adverb (1) of space near, close to (John 3.23); absolutely close by, near at hand, neighboring (JOHN 19.42); (2) of time near, imminent, close (MT 26:18); (3) figuratively, of close or intimate relationship near, close up (EP 2.17)."[8]

How does Spargimino answer this compelling lexical evidence? "These passages, however, refer to human affairs. Man has a different sense of time than God."[9] There you have it. Every time you see a word in the Bible related to eschatological time, just think of its opposite. Now who's allegorizing Scripture?

Spargimino's understanding of "this generation" is equally dubious and confusing. It's very easy to figure out what Jesus means by "this generation" in Matthew 24:34 and Luke 21:32. Go to every other place in the New Testament where "this generation" is used and determine what the phrase means in these various cross references. In every case, without exception, "this generation" means the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. It never means a future generation. Not a single time! One wonders why Spargimino fails to list these cross references if they could support his position. The meaning is not in doubt unless you're trying to get Scripture to mean something else. Spargimino writes:

Preterists make much of the words "this generation," but they have the wrong generation. Luke 21:32 is the parallel of Matthew 24:34. Luke 21:31 tells us something about the "generation" to which reference is made: "So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand."

Notice that Jesus says, "when you [ye] see these things come to pass." The "you" [ye] obviously refers to the people to whom Jesus was speaking. Notice that Jesus uses the second person plural twice: "Even so you, too, when you see these things happening. . . ." If Jesus had a future sign-seeing audience in mind, He could have said, "Even so they, too, when they see these things happening, recognize that the kingdom of God is near for them." Of course, this is not what the Bible says, but it's what Spargimino wants and needs it to say!

Seeing Signs

Spargimino claims that those people who see the signs identifies the generation. Did the people of Jesus' day hear of "wars and rumors of wars" and see "famines" and "false Christs"? Most certainly. Did they experience "earthquakes in various places"? Without a doubt they did. The historical and biblical records on these first-century signs are clear and evident to any one who takes the time to read (see Last Days Madness). Did those living in Jerusalem see the city "surrounded by armies" (Luke 21:20), and did Jewish believers "flee to the mountains" (Matt. 24:16; Luke 21) as Jesus said they should? Yes. So then, those living in the first century saw these signs. Why doesn't Spargimino mention these first-century signs? Why does he conceal from his audience the arguments that Preterists put forth to show that these were literal signs that those in the first century saw?

But there are some signs that Spargimino says the first-century Christians did not see. For example, Jesus states that "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come" (Matt. 24:14). I get tired of going over this verse, and by now, you are probably tired of reading my explanation. But since some critics count on the ignorance of their readers to slip things by them, let me go over it again:

Jesus said: "this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world . . . to all the nations" (Matt. 24:14).

Paul wrote: the faith of the Romans "is being proclaimed throughout the whole world" (Rom. 1:8).

Paul wrote: "the gospel that you have heard, . . . was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister" (Col. 1:23).

Paul wrote: the gospel "has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience" (Rom. 16:25-26).

Does what Paul writes fulfill what Jesus said would happen before that first-century generation passed away? The gospel had to be preached "as a witness" no further than the meaning of the Greek word oikoumene, the word inaccurately translated "world" in many English translations of Matthew 24:14. Oikoumene means "inhabited earth" or "Roman empire." The same word is used in Luke 2:1 in describing the extent of Rome's taxing authority and in Acts 11:28 when describing the extent of the famine that "took place in the reign of Claudius." Paul, without flinching and need of further explanation, declares that the gospel had been preached in his day to "every creature under heaven" (Col. 1:23). This is probably hyperbole, but it certainly fulfills what Jesus said would happen within a generation. We also learn from Paul that the gospel "had been made known to all the nations" in his day (Rom. 16:26). This, too, is a fulfillment of what Jesus said would happen in Matthew 24:14.

How does Spargimino get around the obvious meaning of these passages? "The statements in Romans 1:8 and Colossians 1:23 must be understood from the perspective of the human author. From Paul's perspective, the ancient Roman world was the entire world. Scripture bears the marks of the culture in which it was given."[10] This is dangerous stuff. How many other things did Paul get "wrong" because he was bound by his "culture"? Liberals have argued like this for years. In an attempt to explain what he means, Spargimino offers the following:

In 2 Timothy 4:13 Paul wrote to Timothy and states: "The cloke [sic] that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments." He didn't write, "and especially the floppy discs."[11]

I'm sorry, but I am terribly confused by the point Spargimino is trying to make with this example. The reason Paul didn't ask for floppy discs was because he wanted his cloak, books, and parchments. No one would ever conclude that he had anything else in mind. If I didn't already know what Paul meant by cloak, books, and parchments, I would study the language and period in which he wrote to determine their meaning.

In the same way, in order to determine what the word oikoumene meant in the first century and the way "world" was sometimes applied, the interpreter should study how these words were used in the first century. Spargimino admits that this is the proper methodology: "The first lesson that must be taught and caught in biblical hermeneutics-the science of interpreting the Scriptures-is that the interpreter must first know what a scripture meant to the original authors before we can know what it means to us."[12] Exactly! So then, what did oikoumene mean to Matthew in Matthew 24:14 (gospel proclamation) and to Luke in Luke 2:1 (taxation) and Acts 11:28 (famine)? It's obvious that oikoumene meant the boundaries of the Roman empire. And how does Paul use "world" (kosmos) in Romans 1:8 and "all creation under heaven" in Colossians 1:23 to describe the extent of gospel preaching? It seems pretty clear that both descriptions apply to the confines of the "Roman world." What meaning should we give to "all the nations" in Romans 16:26? Once again, if we follow Spargimino's injunction that we should determine what "scripture meant to the original authors," we can only conclude that "all the nations" refers to those nations under the sway of the Roman empire in his day. One of those nations was Spain (15:24, 28).

If you don't like the approach I've just outlined, then you can follow Spargimino's ultra-literal model and conclude that every time "world" (kosmos) is used in Scripture it always means whole wide world, "all creation under heaven" means every single solitary person who lived in the first century, and "all the nations" means every nation known and unknown in the first century. This would mean that the gospel was preached to every living soul, in every nation around the world in the first century. We don't know how the apostles did it, but they did. This very literal approach would also fit the demands of a first-century fulllment of Matthew 24:14.

Notes

1. Larry Spargimino, The Anti-Prophets: The Challenge of Preterism (Oklahoma City: Hearthstone Publishing, 2000), 126.

2. Spargimino, The Anti-Prophets, 126.

3. Charles Caldwell Ryrie, The Living End (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell, 1976), 81.

4. John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan/Academie, [1962] 1988), 108.

5. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 4th ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1957), 213.

6. Joseph Henry Thayer, ed., Greek English Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: American Book, 1889), 164. Some of Thayer's examples are: "the coming of the Lord is at hand" (James 5:8); "the time is at hand" (Luke 21:8) "the day is at hand" (Rom. 13:12); "the end is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7).

7. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, 3rd ed. (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1998), 140.

8. Timothy Friberg, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller, Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2000), 126.

9. Spargimino, The Anti-Prophets, 140.

10. Spargimino, The Anti-Prophets, 131.

11. Spargimino, The Anti-Prophets, 131-132.

12. Spargimino, The Anti-Prophets, 132.

 American Vision P.O. Box 220, Powder Springs, GA 30127, 800-628-9460