INTRODUCTION 

Mr. Forgy has done a good job articulating his view that all Bible prophecy related to our Lord's SECOND coming has already been fulfilled. However, he is sadly erroneous in his conclusions, and he is a bit "all over the place" in subject matter. Without Biblical truth, fine debating skills are like a jewel of gold in a swine's snout. The Bible plainly refers to a SECOND APPEARANCE of the Lord Jesus: 

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that LOOK for him shall HE APPEAR the SECOND TIME without sin unto salvation. 

If He will APPEAR the SECOND TIME, He must have already appeared the FIRST time. And whatever changes may occur in His second APPEARANCE, it is obvious that HE must APPEAR again, according to Hebrews 9:28. It cannot be a FIGURATIVE "He."

There will be some who will be LOOKING for "Him" when He comes. This, therefore, implies that there will be others who will not be looking for Him. Perhaps they have embraced preterism, and feel that looking for Jesus to literally appear the second time is "unsophisticated" in an age that has replaced Biblical revelation with scientism and man-centered fables for modern "intellectuals." Yet, the Scriptures predict that in the last days SCOFFERS (concerning the Lord's second coming) will arise (2 Peter 3:3). With Israel restored as a nation, and the stage already set for the literal fulfillment of many other last day's prophecies, it is no wonder that we can already hear these scoffers behind the curtain. But the obedient Bible believer does not base what he believes on what is fashionable and "intellectually" sophisticated in the present day (1 Corinthians 1:20, 2:1-4, Thessalonians 2:5). He does not care what infidel liberals think of a literal coming of Jesus. He will not invent (or resurrect) a theology that sweeps the prophecies concerning our Lord's second coming into a figurative never-never land. He also will not fall for the old trick of the Serpent, where he slyly raises up a monster on one side of the boat to scare people into jumping off the other side (where he wanted them in the first place). The zeitgeist of the world is pictured in a Time magazine cover (Jan. 18, 1999); it pictures a robed saint with a cross, holding a sign that reads, "The End of the World!?! Y2K Insanity!..." In other words, it is currently fashionable to MOCK Bible prophecy. And when there are people hyping prophecy for carnal gain, it is tempting for people to look at the date-setters, and all the commercialism, and then respond EXACTLY as the Devil desires. He wants these people to rashly fall off the boat on the other side and conclude, "The Bible prophecies concerning the Second Coming of Christ have already been completely fulfilled. Do not concern yourself about them." This is actually the gullible, lazy way out. The so-called intellectual world is never impressed when professing Christians try to purge their Bible of everything incredible. Preterism is simply another wing of the seeker-friendly, drive-through-church movement: "Is Bible prophecy too hard to grasp? Are you embarrassed by the idea that Jesus may appear at any moment? Is this hard for a rational man like you to swallow? Don't worry. HAVE IT YOUR WAY! How about a theology with all the Bible prophecies already fulfilled? This would be a theology for the successful intellectual person like yourself." This is like the old UNITARIAN attempt to make Christianity "acceptable" to the "intellectuals." It usually ends in secular humanism. The obedient disciple will resist such compromises with the spirit of the world. He will not stop watching for the literal, SECOND appearance of the Lord. He will resist the temptation to conclude that the Lord delayeth His coming (or worse, will never literally come again!): 

Matthew 24:48 But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming;

49 And shall begin to smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken;

50 The lord of that servant shall come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of,

51 And shall cut him asunder... 

THE HISTORICITY OF THE DISPENSATIONAL HERMENEUTIC AND THE ROTTEN FRUIT OF FULL PRETERISM 

Forgy writes:

"The dispensational school of thought is a very recent development in the school of eschatology. One that did not appear on the scene until about the mid 1800's, but the historicity of dispensationalism is by no means our subject. We are primarily discussing the realm of prophetic interpretation as it relates to dispensationalism and preterism."  

Indeed, the historicity of "dispensationalism" is not our subject. Therefore, the claim that it is novel should not have been made. But since it has been made, I will respond to it. Notice, that after Forgy makes the claim about dispensationalism being modern, he then goes on to say that we are "PRIMARILY" discussing the "realm of prophetic interpretation as it relates to dispensationalism..." Therefore, by this, he is implying that the dispensational hermeneutic I am defending is MODERN! But he is in error in this regard since the MAIN COMPONENTS of all branches of dispensationalism (i.e. those FOUNDATIONAL parts that are in opposition to preterism) are not only found in the Bible, they are found throughout 2000 years of Christian history! Dispensationalism is rooted in PREMILLENIALISM. And premillennialism (which firmly holds to a literal, bodily, second appearing of Jesus), was the orthodox view for the first 300 years of Christian history. Therefore, since dispensationalism is ROOTED in the ancient chiliastic hermeneutic (which was revived in the mainstream during the reformation), I reject this attempt of Forgy to imply that the system of interpretation I advocate is somehow new. Our subject of debate is Forgy's affirmation that the "consistent LITERALISM of dispensationalism" is a wrong system of interpretation. But the "consistent literalism of dispensationalism" is the consistent literalism of PREMILLENNIALISM! This "literalism" is therefore by no means limited to modern times. 

If historicity is any evidence at all of orthodoxy (and Forgy implies that he believes it is by making this statement about dispensationalism in the first place), then let the battle begin! Let him show us the list of CHRISTIANS in history who believed that ALL of the Second Coming prophecies have been fulfilled in A.D. 70. I would like to see it. An examples of early preterism in regard to SOME Bible passages (such as parts of the Olivet Discourse) is not FULL PRETERISM in regard to ALL prophecies concerning the Second Advent. Where is the list of sound Christians who believed that ALL Second Advent prophecies have been fulfilled? I will respond to such a list by listing a sample of the THOUSANDS of Christians who believed that ALL the Second Coming prophecies have NOT YET been totally fulfilled. Even most of the postmillennialists and amillennialists in history did not believe that ALL the second coming prophecies have been fulfilled.  

For the sake of argument, let us go along with Forgy's subtle attempt to detach dispensationalism from its premillennial roots (in order to argue that it is novel). If dispensationalism is to be detached from the premillennial hermeneutic, where does this leave full preterism? This would also mean that full preterism cannot be viewed as an outgrowth or application of partial preterism. On this basis, its historicity would be practically "without form and void."  

While we are examining WHERE full preterism is found in Christian history, it would be an excellent time to inspect what kind of FRUITS it has brought forth (Matthew 7:20). What has this doctrine brought forth? Many men and women, motivated by an imminent, future, literal Second Coming of Christ have endured tortures and martyrdom, and/or have left their comfortable homes to be missionaries, etc. But what has been the historical FRUIT of full preterism? Let us inspect some of this "fruit." It will give us a foretaste of what to expect as full preterism continues to gain ground. The Bible predicts a future falling away when scoffers will arise (2 Timothy 3:1-5, etc.). The Bible clearly teaches that watching for the second appearing of Jesus will PURIFY the believer in holiness: 

1 John 3:2 ...we know that, WHEN HE SHALL APPEAR, we shall be like him; for WE SHALL SEE HIM as he is.

3 And every man that HATH THIS HOPE in him PURIFIETH HIMSELF himself, even as he is pure.  

Therefore, those who do NOT have this hope will be missing a crucial motivation and means of practical sanctification (Matthew 24:48-49, 2 Peter 3:4,14). The Bible has spoken. It is enough. But history has already provided for us some notable examples of the "working out" of this Biblical principle.  

JOHN HUMPHREY NOYES (1811-1886) was the leader of an abnormal religious sect called the PERFECTIONISTS OF ONEIDA. He was affluent and educated at the best schools. Noyes believed that he was a recipient of Divine inspiration. He and his followers believed that he had reached ABSOLUTE PERFECTION in 1834. He held other heretical views similar to Emanuel Swedenborg (1688-1772), such as the dual sex of the Almighty. Hannah Whitall Smith (1832-1911) spent years investigating strange cults such as these Perfectionists of Oneida. From a book published by her grandson after her death, we have the following information concerning Noyes: 

"During the course of his studies he [Noyes] made a discovery which ALTERED HIS WHOLE OUTLOOK ON LIFE....This discovery was that THE SECOND ADVENT HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE, AT THE TIME OF THE FALL OF JERUSALEM IN THE YEAR A.D. 70...." (1) 

It was in 1833 that Noyes had this preterist "illumination," which altered his whole outlook on life: 

"In the summer of 1833, while reading the last words of the Fourth Gospel, Noyes received a sudden illumination concerning Christ's words, 'If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?' 'I knew,' wrote Noyes, 'that the time appointed for the Second Advent was within one generation from the time of Christ's personal ministry' - in A.D. 70, to be precise....Noyes himself [then] had the courage to proclaim that he did not sin..."(2) 

This new revelation of Noyes would bring forth even more rotten fruit. Since Noyes believed that Jesus had already returned, he believed he and his followers were already in the so-called "heavenly" state! Noyes therefore called attention to Matthew 22:30: 

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. 

Our theological views have consequences. Indeed, they often alter our "whole outlook on life": 

"The IMPLICATIONS of a Second Advent that has ALREADY taken place are bound to be far-reaching....Noyes, who did not want celibacy, used [Matthew 22:30]...to support a form of regulated promiscuity. In 1837 'The Battle Axe' published a letter from Noyes explaining his conception of the sexual relations that ought to exist between men and women. In his letter, he stated '...The marriage supper of the Lamb is a feast at which EVERY DISH IS FREE TO EVERY GUEST....In a holy community, there is no more reason why SEXUAL INTERCOURSE should be restrained by law, than why eating and drinking should be....[It] was at Putney... that Noyes first formulated his ideas of Male Continence and Complex Marriage, which were adopted by the community in 1846. 'These latter practices were more than the inquisitive neighbors were prepared to tolerate. In the following year the persecution of the community culminated in the indictment of Noyes on the grounds of adultery. Noyes... purchased... land in another state.... at Oneida.... In 1847... it was unanimously adopted by the forty or fifty members at Putney 'that THE KINGDOM OF GOD HAD COME'....'We are opposed', he [Noyes] wrote in 'Bible Communism,' 'to random procreation, which is unavoidable in the marriage system. But we are in favour of intelligent, well-ordered procreation...'...Complex marriage meant, in theory, that any man and woman might freely cohabit within the limits of the community....The exclusive attachment of two persons was regarded as selfish and 'idolatrous' and was strongly discouraged."(3) 

Talk about rotten apples! In conclusion, I am more than willing to continue to compare the historicity of the dispensational hermeneutic I advocate with the historicity of Forgy's preterism. But I trust that Forgy will wish to move on to other things, and therefore so will I; that is, unless this rabbit raises its head again.  

DOES FORGY FOLLOW THE GRAMMATICO-HISTORICAL HERMENEUTIC? 

Forgy writes:

"Our differences in view lie mainly in our hermeneutical views. I believe we should follow the grammatico-historical hermeneutic as we approach the system of prophecy." 

The "grammatico-historical hermeneutic" has almost always been viewed as the premillennial interpretive system of "consistent literalism." This is easily documented. One of the greatest premillennial works of all times is, "The Theocratic Kingdom," by George N. H. Peters (1825-1909). Peters writes: 

"By 'literal,' we mean the GRAMMATICAL interpretation of Scripture. Some writers, to avoid lengthy or circumlocutory phraseology, have employed the phrase 'literal interpretation'....Ellicot...after tracing the interpretation of the Church, says: 'there has been from the very earliest times, not only in theory but in practice, A PLAIN, LITERAL, AND HISTORICAL mode of interpreting Scripture'....The only true standard of interpretation is the GRAMMATICAL (aided by the HISTORICAL), and this opposes: That spiritual or mystical one which looks for an internal revelation either in or UNDER the letter...."(4) 

Therefore, when agreeing to negate Forgy's first affirmation: "The Grammatico-Historical hermeneutic should be used while approaching the interpretation of prophecy, and not the consistent literalism of Dispensationalism," I do so with the understanding that Forgy, as a preterist, MUST have an entirely different understanding of what these words mean than premillennialists. Forgy writes: 

"It is the method that states that first, scripture must be understood in it’s [sic] historical context before we try to apply it’s [sic] meaning to our situation." 

I certainly do not deny this principle. However, this principle is often ABUSED by sinners who desire to escape God's commandments! For example, a pro-homosexual commentator writes: 

"That is the point of the story UNDERSTOOD IN ITS HISTORICAL CONTEXT....To use this text [Genesis 19] to condemn homosexuality is to misuse this text."(5) 

Forgy's preterism will likewise abuse this principle (and many others). Forgy will attempt to use it to pervert the meaning of words from the meaning intended by the Holy Spirit. Forgy continues: 

"There are other rules we must look at, such as letting scripture interpret scripture etc." 

Of course, this principle, like most of the other things Forgy has mentioned so far, are fully embraced by dispensationalists. It is the application (or consistent observance) of these basic principles that will reveal our differences. Forgy writes:

"...but our goal is to show that it is almost always absurd to take a literal view on the subject of prophecy, not always, but almost!" 

Isaac Newton thought that the passage about all people seeing the dead bodies of the Two Witnesses MUST be figurative, since it would be ABSURD to imagine the news traveling around the world in only three and a half days! He, of course, lived before the telegraph was invented. But today we have SATELLITE TELEVISION! Earlier opponents of premillennialism thought the idea of a literal restoration of Israel as a NATION was ABSURD. They were forced to eat their words in 1947. Perhaps the tendency of Forgy to view the literal fulfillment of Second Advent prophecy as ABSURDITY is nothing more than old-fashioned UNBELIEF. The Virgin Birth might have appeared absurd to those who ERRED "...not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29).

The fulfillments of OT prophecy concerning Christ's First Coming instantly refute Forgy's above statement (of which he offers no support). John Wilkinson in, "Israel My Glory" (1894), sums up this point nicely in his preface: 

"The Scriptures relating to the first advent as to TIME, PLACE, CIRCUMSTANCES, in full details have been fulfilled to the very LETTER. Why should not the predictions relating to the second advent be also fulfilled to the very letter? Does not fulfilled prophecy throw light on the unfulfilled? In other words, is not sacred HISTORY the best guide to Divine prophecy?....The language therefore relating to Israel's gathering we treat as literally as that relating to the scattering; and the language relating to the second advent we treat as literally as the first..."(6)  

Therefore, we have barely begun, and Forgy has already broken a major principle that he claims to be defending. If we are to interpret Scripture by Scripture, then why doesn't he let the fulfillment of prophecy in regard to the First Advent guide him in regard to the fulfillment of prophecy concerning the Second Advent? Why wasn't the First Advent only a "figurative coming" of the Messiah? Why wasn't the prophesied crucifixion of the Messiah (Isaiah 53) simply "apocalyptic language" for the suffering of the whole nation? Why were the plagues upon Pharaoh all fulfilled LITERALLY as stated?  

THE LION IS A LITERAL LION! 

Forgy writes:

"1.) In Isaiah 11:7, we are told that lions will exist in the messianic kingdom. But, in Isaiah 35:9 (same prophet people!) we are told that no lion will be in the kingdom! Explain and remain consistently literal." 

Answer: Isaiah 35:9 No lion shall be there, NOR ANY RAVENOUS beast shall go up thereon, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall walk there: 

I will indeed remain "consistently literal." Lion means LION in both Scriptures. However, the "lion" in Isaiah 35:9 is a RAVENOUS lion. No RAVENOUS lion will be in the Kingdom. Why? Because the lion "shall eat straw like the ox." By simply comparing Scripture with Scripture, we can learn how the Bible speaks. It does not in any manner negate the principle of literal interpretation to compare Scripture with Scripture. For example, notice: 

Revelation 7:16 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; NEITHER shall THE SUN light on them, NOR ANY HEAT. 

This Scripture does not mean that they will not have the sun shining on them in an absolute sense (Isaiah 30:26). It means that the sun will not BURN them. It will not LIGHT on them to light them on fire (Revelation 16:8): 

Isaiah 49:10 They shall not hunger nor thirst; neither shall the heat nor SUN SMITE them: for he that hath mercy on them shall lead them, even by the springs of water shall he guide them. 

I have found that opponents of literal interpretation often confuse the terms relative and absolute with literal and figurative. But aside from this, the SPECIFIC context of the verse is a HIGHWAY: 

Isaiah 35:8 And an HIGHWAY shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but IT shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.

9 No lion shall BE THERE, nor any ravenous beast shall GO UP THEREON, it shall not be found there; but the redeemed shall WALK THERE: 

If we take "no lion" in an absolute sense, then it refers to the HIGHWAY only, since this is the specific context of the passage. Thus, there will be lions in the kingdom, but none on this specific highway. Yet, as we have seen, "no lion" could easily mean "no ravenous lion" in context. The "no lion," in context, could mean "no lion with the curse fully upon him, as in this world." There are multiple examples in Scripture where something is very literal, though it is limited or shaped by its context. I will offer only one more example (though there are others): 

John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, AND BAPTIZED.

4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,

2 (Though JESUS HIMSELF BAPTIZED NOT, but his disciples,)  

The explanation found in John 4:2 does not in any way mean that we are to see "baptism" in a FIGURATIVE sense. The phrase "and baptized" (John 3:22) is limited and shaped by John 4:2. Jesus did "literally" baptize people. Yet, we are told that His disciples were the instruments He used. If we did not have John 4:2 limiting and defining John 3:22, we would be forced to take John 3:22 in its most common, general meaning. In the same manner, if we did not have other Scriptures telling us that lions would indeed be in the Millennial Kingdom, we would be compelled to take the "no lion" (Isaiah 36:9) in its general, surface, absolute meaning. But since we have such defining Scriptures, we are compelled to take the phrase, in context, as referring to RAVENOUS lions (unless we relate the prophecy to the specific highway only).  

A LITERAL KING UNDER JESUS 

Forgy writes:

"2.) In Ezekiel 37:22-24 we are told that there will be one king in the messianic kingdom, and that one king is David. While in Jeremiah 23:5, we read that the branch raised up unto David will be king." 

Again, the question is not whether the "one king" is literal or figurative. The question is to what type of literal "king" is the passage referring? Herod was called a "king": 

Matthew 2:3 When Herod the KING had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. 

Yet, the Jews declared: 

John 19:15 ...The chief priests answered, WE HAVE NO KING BUT CAESAR. 

In what sense did they have no other king? Certainly in a literal sense; yet not in an absolute sense. Caesar had officials who ruled under him. Therefore, the "one king" of Ezekiel 37 refers to David reigning UNDER the Messiah, who is the ULTIMATE and HIGHEST King (of the whole earth): 

Zechariah 14:9 And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one. 

Ezekiel 34:23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and HE shall be their shepherd.

24 And I THE LORD WILL BE THEIR GOD, [i.e. Jesus] AND MY SERVANT DAVID a prince among them; I the LORD have spoken it.  

There are various levels, and the "one king" and the "one shepherd" are literal within their specific sphere.

THE 200 MILLION MAN ARMY 

Forgy writes:

"3.) In Revelation 9:16-17, Is the 200 million man army a literal 200 million man army?" 

Answer: Yes!  

Forgy writes:

"If so, are their horses literal lion headed, fire breathing horses, or some military vehicle?" 

They are literal lion-headed, fire breathing horses. I would suggest that Mr. Forgy get a good encyclopedia with pictures and examine the thousands of INCREDIBLE creatures God has placed in the ocean. The Bible teaches that God has made multitudes of angels, seraphim, cherubim, and many other creatures. There were horses "of fire" that took away Elijah (2 Kings 2:11). There are also devils and evil angels, and they come in many shapes. God therefore has creatures of wrath that are RESERVED for the terrible time to come; a time that is rapidly approaching. The rise of preterism is simply another proof that the Lord's judgment upon the world is near. 

THE MISERY OF PRETERISM 

Forgy writes:

"My brother will try to say that Preterists spiritualize important doctrines such as the resurrection of the dead. That will be his difference of how he spiritualizes and how I do it." 

Thus far, I have "spiritualized" nothing. God-forbid that a man spiritualize the resurrection! The Bible teaches that such a cankerous doctrine leads to MISERY: 

2 Timothy 2:17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;

18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the RESURRECTION is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.  

1 Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men MOST MISERABLE. 

Forgy writes:

"Is it heretical for me to say the Greek word anastasis (resurrection) has many definitions besides literal bodies rising from literal graves." 

Jesus LITERALLY rose again from the grave. Paul uses this fact to argue that Christians will also be resurrected from the grave. The fact that there are sometimes figurative applications of various words does not mean we must throw away the literal applications!

Forgy writes:

"That Daniel 12 seems to say that the resurrection of the dead was to happen by the time Israel is destroyed in 70 AD." 

It says nothing of the kind. "A.D. 70" is not even in the text. It is referring to a time still future. Premillennialists have said for years that Israel would be restored to fulfill such prophecies as these. They were mocked. It is hard to believe that we are even having this debate since 1947 and the rebirth of Israel! Daniel 12 describes a literal resurrection.

Preterists are very similar to the Sadducees who denied the resurrection. No wonder Sadducees were "sad": 

Matthew 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection... 

ERRING THROUGH ALLEGORICAL INTERPRETATION 

Forgy writes:

"These are but a few of the possible examples, but they show that literal interpretation can often lead us astray in discerning Biblical truth." 

No dispensationalist, premillennialist, or futurist that I am aware of has ever denied that our Lord often taught spiritual truths using parabolic language. Such language was often a help to those who had ears to hear. But the Lord often used such language as a stumbling-stone for those who had already stubbornly rejected light, and had closed their ears (Matthew 13:13). Parabolic language must be interpreted using the keys provided in the Bible itself. The parables which have been interpreted for us provide for us the keys to this language elsewhere. 

The Bible guides us in its use of figurative language. The "tares" of Matthew 13 are the "children of the wicked one." The "seven heads" of Revelation 17 are "seven mountains." It is admitted that it is possible for an unlearned person to think that a "tare" refers to a literal tare. There is certainly a danger in misinterpreting parables. Yet, there is an even graver danger of REBELLIOUSLY interpreting literal commands, warnings, and promises figuratively!: 

Ezekiel 20:47 And say to the forest of the south, Hear the word of the LORD; Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will kindle a fire in thee, and it shall devour every green tree in thee, and every dry tree: the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burned therein.

48 And all flesh shall see that I the LORD have kindled it: it shall not be quenched.

49 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! THEY SAY OF ME, Doth he not SPEAK PARABLES? 

Our Lord REBUKED the Sadducees who denied the literal resurrection. They MOCKED LITERALISM (Matthew 22:23-30). Our Lord said that THEY ERRED, "not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." Knowledge of the Scriptures and the power of God will go a long way in removing the many "absurdities" which STUMBLE the preterists. 

THE LITERAL KINGDOM NOT OF THIS WORLD  

Forgy writes:

"Christ had to seek shelter from the masses when they sought to make him a literal king. They did not realize the kingdom of God was spiritual (John 18:36)."  

John 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 

The Lord does not say here that His kingdom is a "spiritual kingdom" in this world. His literal kingdom will be established by the authority of God in Heaven in the world to come. It is a literal kingdom that is established when the Lord comes to the earth at His Second Coming: 

Revelation 12:10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, AND THE KINGDOM OF OUR GOD, and the power of his Christ:  

Again, there is nothing allegorical or parabolic about our Lord's words in John 18:36. 

THE ERROR OF THE JEWS 

Forgy writes:

"He thinks that consistent literalism leads him to the truth, but alas, he ends up interpreting in the same way that lead the Jews into error." 

Apart from the pride which motivated the rejection of the Lord Jesus, the Jews erred by LEAVING OUT the LITERAL fulfillment of Isaiah 53, etc. If anything, they SPIRITUALIZED these Crucifixion passages (as many still do today). They were not rebuked for thinking that the Kingdom of God is literal. They were rebuked for missing the ORDER in which literal Scripture would be fulfilled. They were guilty of taking the LITERAL parts they liked, and ignoring or spiritualizing the parts they didn't like! They rejected the LITERAL REQUIREMENTS that the Lord gave for entering the future Kingdom. They rejected the teaching that they were SINNERS in need of the Divine Saviour. Yet, they could have seen these truths if they had SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES. The lesson here is that we are called to believe ALL of the Bible. We are called to look for the fulfillment of ALL of the Scriptures, not just the parts which make us feel good. 

TIME STATEMENTS 

Forgy writes:

"The word Mello is given the basic definition by Arndt - Gingrich and Thayer as 'to be about to be; to be at the point of doing,' (Analytical Greek Lexicon p.262; Thayer p. 396) The PRIMARY meaning given by Vine is, 'about to do something," (p.15)...." 

I believe the A.V. translators (of whom some could speak and read multiple ancient languages as children!) understood the fullness and proper use of this Greek word "mello" that Forgy makes so much of. He appears to claim that it must ALWAYS mean "about to." Before examining this claim it is important to realize that "about to" can mean many different things depending upon the time frame or CONTEXT. The phrase, "Watch out, I am ABOUT TO sneeze," is on a different time scale than the phrase of a student: "I am a junior; it feels good after so many years of elementary school and middle school to be ABOUT TO graduate." But Forgy knows that other definitions are provided, and that the word often means simply "shall" with a sense of certainty, compulsion, or necessity: 

"...the verb may OFTEN be adequately rendered by our auxiliaries, WILL, SHALL, MUST..." (George Ricker Berry, "A Greek-English Lexicon") 

What does the word mean in Romans 5:14?: 

Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was TO COME. 

Does it mean "about to" here? How long was it between Adam and Christ? And why is a preterist suddenly "about to" argue about "primary meanings"? What happened to the PRIMARY, COMMON meaning of the word "resurrection" earlier? 

Forgy writes:

"How can the Corinthians, a group of people who were destroyed with their city thousands of years ago, not be lacking gifts today considering they are lacking even existence?" 

1 Corinthians 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; WAITING for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: 

The concept of "waiting" does not mean that the one doing the waiting will always experience (in this life) that for which they were waiting (Acts 7:5). The Corinthians were "waiting" at a time when supernatural sign gifts were prominent in the churches. They all died. Some are still "waiting" to day. Others are inventing heresies.

Forgy writes:

"1 Thessalonians 4:17 - 'Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.'....What is important though is that not all of the Thessalonians will die before that day comes. In verse 15 Paul does not only say we who are alive, but that some of those who are alive when Paul writes will also remain until the coming of the Lord. This is unmistakable language." 

Paul uses language which will keep his readers watching in suspense. The "we" is therefore conditioned upon whether or not the Lord comes in their day; otherwise, they have the promise of resurrection. The "we" in 1 Thessalonians is similar to the "you" of Genesis 50:4: 

Genesis 50:24 And Joseph said unto HIS BRETHREN, I die: and God will surely visit YOU, and bring YOU out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob.

25 And Joseph took an oath of the children of Israel, saying, God will surely visit YOU, and YE shall carry up my bones from hence. 

Who does the "you" refer to here, Mr. Forgy? 1 Thessalonians 4:17, 1 Corinthians 15:51, Hebrews 10:25, etc. should be interpreted in light of Genesis 50, above. Believers are to be kept in a state of anticipation. They are to be ready and watching for the Lord's coming at any moment. 

Forgy writes:

"When God tells man something is at hand he is not talking about time in relation to God, but time in relation to man. At hand means soon in proximity to man, not God, and the Bible is very clear on this." 

Where is the PROOF of this statement? The point of the "at hand" statements is to keep the Christian in a ready and watching state. No one knows the day or hour, therefore there is suspense. Peter refutes the above assertion by actually using time IN RELATION TO GOD as an EXPLANATION for why the Lord has not yet come: 

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.  

4000 years from Adam to Christ would be four "days." The Bible teaches that now that the New Testament age has come (with John the Baptist), the time would be short! Scholars throughout the ages looked to the general period around the year 2000 for the Second Advent. They kept themselves in a state of suspense by stating that the Lord may "cut the time short." Therefore, they stayed in a ready state. The Lord could have cut the days short in the 1st century, and He warned the churches that it was a possibility: 

Mark 13:34 For the Son of man is as a man taking a FAR JOURNEY, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

35 Watch ye therefore: for YE KNOW NOT when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning:

36 LEST COMING SUDDENLY he find you sleeping.

37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.  

Revelation 3:3 ...If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. 

Christians throughout the ages taught that there would only be TWO DAYS (in God's time) for this age. Therefore, the New Testament age began the LAST DAYS (only two left, compared to the four of the OT). We are now in the LAST DAYS of these last days. But at any time, the Lord could have cut the time short. We are called to watch today, just as they watched in the 1st century. And if He does not come before we die, we will be resurrected at His coming and given a watcher's crown, just as if He had come while we were alive! The state we DIE IN is important. We had better die watching. 

FORGY'S ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ANSWERED 

The "thousand" of Deuteronomy 7:9 and Psalms 50:10 are indeed literal. A narrative of one blind man does not negate the fact that there were two. God owns the cattle on a thousand hills. He owns the cattle on three thousand hills. But by stating the literal truth that He owns the cattle on a thousand hills (if He owns them all, then He certainly owns the literal thousand), there is something for the mind to grasp. Perhaps the naked eye on a tall mountain could see hundreds of hills. The Lord owns them all. There is no statement that the Lord owns ONLY the cattle on a thousand hills. The "thousand" means a literal thousand. There is no statement that the Lord will not keep covenant and mercy AFTER the thousand generations. However, there ARE statements of events which occur AFTER the thousand years are finished in Revelation 20 (Revelation 20:3, 5, 7). 

The term "seventy weeks" is literal. They are "weeks" of years. The context reveals this. Oxford Dictionary lists "week" as "a period of seven years" and shows how earlier English translations (e.g. Wyclif, 1382) uses the word "week" for Lev. 25:8. They also list some other examples. Therefore, the "seventy years" means seventy. And seventy "weeks" means seventy weeks. Yet, they are seventy literal weeks of years. Israel did not let the land rest every seventh year. God added the sabbaths all together and made up seventy years. If God can group together that which was divided (2 Chronicles 36:21), He can certainly DIVIDE that which is grouped together. We must however have compelling reasons for inserting gaps into Biblical time periods. Yet, even in our legal system and educational systems we sometimes often do not run literal sets of years consecutively.  

I (along with Govett, Pember, etc. ) hold that Revelation 17 is Rome, and that Revelation 18 is literal Babylon. Babylon will be destroyed again by the Mede's in the Tribulation period, of which ancient history was only a firstfruits example. The Kurds of Iran, etc. are the modern descendants of the ancient Medes. They will destroy Babylon once it is rebuilt and becomes a worldwide new-age Mecca. Babylon means "Babylon" unless the text shows us that it is figurative.  

Forgy concludes by saying that Christ was "not affirming a future Elijah" in Matthew 17:11. He obviously thinks that whatever he asserts is therefore true. The Lord gave His statement AFTER the death of John the Baptist. The statement is clear: Matthew 17:11 "And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly SHALL first come, and restore all things."

As to the parable in Matthew 21, the religious leaders in Israel who rejected the Messiah are the husbandmen in verse 38. There was a partial fulfillment of the destruction in verses 40-41 upon Israel's leaders in A.D. 70. (without the "coming"). Yet, Jesus implies that some of the murderers in that specific generation of Israel (who did not repent) will be resurrected to experience in FULL DETAIL the wrath of the coming of the Lord with fire and brimstone in the future Tribulation period (e.g. Matthew 26:64, Revelation 1:7, Luke 11:51, etc.). Such resurrections are no more "incredible" than those who arose and appeared to many when Christ arose (Matthew 27:52-53). But for those not ready to embrace such a view, it is also true that many in the present nation of Israel will again persecute "Jesus" by persecuting Christians (see Acts 9:5). Thus, the parable will be fulfilled literally in regard to the Lord's future coming. As a double application passage, it will have both historic and future LITERAL fulfillments. As in Isaiah 7, etc., some literal details would apply to the near fulfillment, and the rest of the literal details would apply to the future fulfillment. In regard to parables, the JUDGMENTS are always ultimately literal, though the other details are often figurative.  

In conclusion, there are sometimes varying possibilities of interpretation within consistent literalism. And at times, the prophecies interpreted literally might appear amazing. Yet, with God, all things are possible! And there is much light yet to be gleaned from His Holy Scriptures. But, while one might have to exercise one's faith in the face of devilish creatures and many other amazing prophecies yet to be fulfilled, nothing that the most aggressive futurist-literalist might put forth can ever compare to the dark absurdities of believing that Jesus has already returned, and that there will be no literal resurrection, and that we are presently in the New Heavens and the New Earth! Preterism is simply UNBELIEF under a new name. Flee it, and sharply rebuke it in love! 

NOTES:

1. Ray Strachey, "Group Movements of the Past and Experiments in Guidance, Consisting of Extracts from the Papers of Hannah Whitall Smith...," (London: Faber & Faber Limited, 1928).

2. Mark Holloway, "Heavens on Earth," (Dover Publications, 1966).

3. Ibid.

4. George N. H. Peters, "The Theocratic Kingdom," (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1957), Vol. I, Prop. 4.

5. http://www.geocities.com/WestHollywood/Heights/7608/sodom.htm

6. John Wilkinson, "Israel My Glory," (London: Mildmay Mission, 1894).