|
Click here for audio: |
Focus text: "in the last days"
And it will come about in the last days
That the mountain of the House of the LORD
Will be established as the chief of the mountains
And it will be raised above the hills
According to Peter in Acts 2, and elsewhere in the New Testament, the Apostles were living in "the Last Days" of the Old Covenant. This is when Jesus was made the Christ: in the past. He came a second time in judgment against those who rejected Him as the Christ. The claim that Jesus is the Messiah today (not just in the future) is the claim that Jesus was made "Lord and Christ" in the past. The Latin word for "past" is praeter, and saying a prophecy was fulfilled in the past is called "Preterism."
Rules for Interpreting Scripture:
Applying these simple and universally-agreed upon rules leads to this controversial conclusion:
The Second Coming of Christ happened in the past
and there is no prophecy of a Third Coming of Christ in our Future
The focus of the New Testament is on the generation that rejected Jesus as the Christ, not any generation thousands or millions of years in the future. The "Second Coming" of Christ -- a coming in vengeance against those who murdered Him -- is said to be imminent everywhere in the New Testament. Atheists say Jesus was wrong about His Second Coming, but that's because atheists ignore those rules above. Jesus never predicted the imminent end of planet earth. He predicted the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, the end of the Old Covenant, and the beginning of the New Covenant. This all took place in the past, hence "preterism."
| There is not a single verse in the New Testament which was intended by its author and understood by its original audience to be prophesying an event thousands of years in the future. |
Preterism vs. Futurism:
Which Theory Brings the Greater Glory to God?
The word "Preterism" comes from the Latin word for "past."
Every Bible-believing Christian is a "preterist" when it comes to interpreting Isaiah 7:14, which predicts the virgin birth of Christ. Matthew 1:23 teaches that this prophecy was fulfilled in our past. There's no evidence in the Bible that there will be a future fulfillment of Isaiah 7:14. A "preterist" interpretation is orthodoxy.
"Full Preterism" or "Consistent Preterism" teaches that there are no events in the Bible which are prophesied to occur after A.D. 70, when the temple was destroyed in Jerusalem and the Old Covenant came to a complete end. The consistent preterist believes there are no prophecies in the Bible that remain to be fulfilled in our future. All were fulfilled in the past. This is decidedly not orthodox.
Some full preterists teach that while all prophecies have been fulfilled, some prophecies predicted the inauguration of on-going conditions. Isaiah 65 predicts a "New Heavens and New Earth." A preterist can hold that this new world was inaugurated in
the past, but is also a "world without end" (Isaiah 45:17; Ephesians 3:21, KJV). Similarly, the age predicted in Isaiah 2 and Micah 4 is said to be one which, while inaugurated in our past, continues into our future, "from now on, even
forever" (Micah 4:7). The government of Christ was established in our past, but
"Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end"
(Isaiah 9:6-7).
Some theologians have come to preterist conclusions, but don't call themselves "full preterists." They put the traditions of the church on a par with Scripture. So they might say that while the New Testament is dominated by prophecies about the coming of Christ in vengeance against the Jews in AD70, and while there are no prophecies about any events in our future, they still believe in a future coming of Christ "because Holy Mother the Church has taught that doctrine for 2,000 years." I call such theologians "ecclesiastical preterists."
The question should always be, "What saith the Lord," and in particular, "What saith Scripture."
Let's suppose that the full preterists make a prima facie case for their view, and futurists make a prima facie case for their perspective. One way to decide between two equally-Scriptural views might be to ask, "Which view gives greater glory to God?
"Christian Reconstruction" is the view that Christians should work to make society more obedient to God's Laws in the Bible.
"Christian Reconstructionists" tend to be preterists. Futurists tend to oppose Christian Reconstruction.
Hal Lindsey is a well-known futurist, and wrote back in 1970:
There used to be a group called "postmillennialists." They believed that the Christians would root out all the evil in the world, abolish godless rulers, and convert the world through ever-increasing evangelism until they brought about the Kingdom of God through their own efforts. Then after 1000 years of the institutional church reigning on earth with peace, equality and righteousness, Christ would return and time would end. These people rejected much of the Scripture as being literal and believed in the inherent goodness of man. World War I greatly disheartened this group and World War II virtually wiped out this viewpoint. No self-respecting scholar who looks at the world conditions and the accelerating decline of Christian influence today is a "postmillennialist."
Hal Lindsey, The Late, Great Planet Earth, 1970, p. 176
The idea that Christians would bring about the Kingdom of God "through their own efforts" is a real red-flag for Christians like Hal Lindsey. They say it reeks of "secular humanism."
"Christian Reconstruction" was not well-known back in 1970. Lindsey was speaking more of liberals and progressives in the early part of the 20th century who promoted "the social gospel." His criticisms miss the point if directed toward Bible-believing inerrantists, 5-point Calvinists, and 6-day creationists like the Christian Reconstructionists.
Futurists tend to be "New Testament Christians," while Christian Reconstructionists put an emphasis on the whole Bible, from cover to cover, including the Old Testament.
Most Futurists today believe Jesus came to give us a ticket to heaven when we die. In the meantime, Satan rules the planet. Their story of the Bible goes like this:
In other words, Satan wins.
Pretty dismal story, isn't it?
Not much of a "gospel" ("good news") is it?
Sure, God sent His Son, who died on the cross, so that some of the players can be forgiven for their rebellion and go home with God, but God's original purposes for man and the creation were thwarted by Satan, the ultimate victor.
Didn't God know that His plan of giving human beings dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-28) was doomed to failure?
Didn't God know that His plan of sending His Son to establish a Kingdom of Peace would be defeated by Satan and the human beings that Satan won to his false gospel?
The popular Christian writer Dave Hunt has written:
In fact, dominion taking dominion and setting up the kingdom of Christ is an impossibility, even for God. The millennial reign of Christ, far from being the kingdom, is actually the final proof of the incorrigible nature of the human heart, because Christ Himself cant do it.[1]
"Impossible even for God." Wow.
The Creator's idea of creating man in His Own Image and telling man to exercise dominion over the earth, converting the earth to God's Temple, building the City of God, was a mistake. Progress is not possible. Only regress. Earth is a failure. Jesus' prayer ("Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven") is just tilting at Satanic windmills. As Hal Lindsey put it, "Satan is Alive and Well on Planet Earth." And always will be. Poor God.
In contrast to a "futurism" (which really has no future), is a radical preterism. It looks like this:
Many futurists -- even those who acknowledge that there may not be any verses of Scripture which were intended to predict an event thousands or millions of years after the closing of the canon -- believe there must be a radical, discontinuous event in our future in order to reverse the curse that was brought about by the First Adam. But this is not a claim made by the Bible itself. There's no Biblical reason why universal sanctification cannot reverse the curse.
Childbirth is an interesting case in point. When God announces that Satan's temptation has resulted in pain for women in bearing children, it is clear that this is a change from the way things originally would have been: joyful, pain-free childbirth. Futurists believe that "in the resurrection" (Matthew 22:30) there is no marriage, no sex, no childbirth. (While futurists do not take literally Paul's claim that "there is neither male nor female" [Galatians 3:28], they generally take Jesus literally on this point.) That means that during all of human history, Satan triumphs over God's original plan of joyful pain-free childbirth. Women will never experience God's original vision, not in history, nor even in eternity. Never. Satan wins.
So here's the question:
Which perspective gives more glory to God: