The Four Major Schools
of Prophetic Interpretation
By Ted Noel
2001
Preterists insist that Jesus’ use of "age"
(Matt 12:32, etc.) refers to the old and new covenant ages. They then say
that the new covenant age applies to the time after the second coming "in
AD70". As we have seen, if we apply their definitions, then the time does
not work out, so once again, the preterist schema fails.
Contents:
The Four Schools
Who Should You Believe?
If any person asserts that a particular
view of prophecy is correct, he will immediately find himself in opposition
to the majority of interpreters. This leads to a question. If there is so
much disagreement on what prophecy means, how can we be sure that any one
particular interpretation is correct? And, if we cannot be sure of our
interpretation, how can we be sure of the kingdom which is promised to us?
On the answers to these questions rides the fate of all who would claim the
promises of God.
While it is possible to break down the
various schools of thought in a host of different ways, they fall generally
into four major approaches. These four are Historical/Critical (H/C),
Dispensationalist/Futurist (D/F), Preterist, and Historicist. Most of the
remaining differences are minor subdivisions of the primary four. For
example, the Premillenial, Amillenial, and Postmillenial schools are
subdivisions of the D/F school, based on their understanding of Revelation
20, and do not materially affect the rest of the D/F schema, and so I will
not discuss them at length here.
The essential beliefs of the four schools
of interpretation are as follows:
The Historical/Critical school
believes that prophecies such as Daniel are not really prophecy, having
been written at a time later than stated in the text, and were designed
to act as encouragement to Israel rather than being true prophecy.
The Dispensationalist/Futurist
school believes that God has operated under different rules in different
"dispensations". The prophecies are to be interpreted exactly as
written, without any transformation from physical Israel to spiritual
Israel. They also believe that the seventieth week of Dan 9:24 has not
happened, and will be in the future. This leads to predictions such as
the restitution of literal Israel, with mass conversion of Jews, an
antichrist who forms a one-world government, peace treaties with the
Jews, and a physical battle of Armageddon.
The Preterist school believes
that all prophecy has been fulfilled. The book of Revelation was written
about AD60, rather than AD94 as many believe. Jesus came the second time
in AD70 at the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the "midst" of the
70th week of Daniel 9:24-27. This coming was a spiritual rather than a
physical event. In order to allow this interpretation, they maintain
that the entire NT after the gospels is to be interpreted spiritually
rather than physically.
The Historicist school believes
that prophecy has been in large measure fulfilled, but that the second
coming and events surrounding it have not yet happened. The physical
promises to physical Israel became spiritual promises to spiritual
Israel when the Jews rejected Christ. Rather than declare
a priori that all texts should be read physically or that all
texts should be read spiritually, historicists believe that the natural
reading of texts should have the greatest weight, but that such a
reading needs to take into account the linguistic and cultic elements of
the day of the writer, as well as the conditionality of prophecy
enunciated in Jer 18:5-10.
Before we move into the details of each
school, let us set the stage briefly. The Bible, in every page and every
verse, reveals the plan of salvation. The core of that salvation is the
atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Various authorities place the
prophetic content of the Bible at about one fourth of the entire Bible.
19 "From now on
I am telling you before
it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe
that I am
He. John 13:19
29 "And now I
have told you before it comes to pass, that when it comes to pass, you
may believe. John 14:29
There is only one purpose for the
voluminous prophecies of the Bible. In Jesus’ own words, they are to reveal
Him. Any interpretation which does not reveal the gospel is wrong.
There are three aspects to this
faith-building from prophecy. The first is that we learn again through the
fulfillment of prophecy of the reality and truthfulness of God. This is
foundational. Without such faith, anything said about God is merely words.
The second aspect is the expectation of both judgment and glory.
26 For if we go
on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there
no longer remains a sacrifice for sins,
27 but a certain terrifying
expectation of judgment, and the fury of a fire which will consume the
adversaries. Heb 10:26-27
14 I press on
toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.
Phil 3:14
The Christian is ultimately assured of
both his own victory and of the destruction of his adversaries. The third
element is in the present. By seeing the working of prophecy in the world,
the Christian can see the working of the Holy Spirit in
himself. It also allows each Christian to more clearly see the
actions of the enemy: Satan. This is a spiritual battle, and God has given
us temporal signposts for the progress of that battle.
If prophecy is interpreted in a manner
which does not show these elements, that interpretation is at best
worthless, and may actually obscure the truth of the gospel. Insofar as it
takes attention from the gospel, that interpretation is a lie, and a product
of the father of lies, Satan (John 8:44). It must be rejected. Without
further introduction, let us examine the four schools.
Historical-Critical School (H/C):
The H/C school is mentioned primarily for
completeness. Its interpretations carry no value whatsoever for the
Christian, since the foundation of this school is the denial of the
truthfulness and inspiration of the Bible. We will discuss one example only
to illustrate.
The book of Daniel states that it was
written in the times of certain Babylonian and MedoPersian kings who lived
in the sixth century BC. H/C scholars insist that this is false. They point
to passages in chapters 8 and 11 which some interpret as applying to
Antiochus IV Epiphanes. They say that these passages were written about
165BC, during the oppression of the Jews by Antiochus. H/C scholars insist
that this must be the case since "there is no such thing as predictive
prophecy." For additional evidence they point to six Greek words in the text
which, they insist, could not have been in the vocabulary of a sixth century
BC Jew.
As we can easily see, this position flatly
says that God’s inspired writer is lying. While H/C’s will deny this, their
position denies the deity of God. The logical conclusion, which they cannot
evade, is that the plan of salvation is a fraud. Only the sacrifice of Jesus
on the cross can save us from sin. If God is not who He says He is, then we
are without hope.
Fortunately for us, the H/C’s are wrong on
both counts. We know that God is real, and the evidence is conclusive. Those
six Greek words are in fact "loan words", which one language borrows from
another. Further, archeological research has found that the Babylonian and
MedoPersian kings had Greek mercenaries as their palace guards, since their
own people could not be counted on to avoid being part of the various
intrigues of the day. So Daniel is vindicated. (There are other points, but
they all have been resolved in favor of the truth of Daniel’s narrative.)
At this point, I feel a general comment
must be made on archeology. Massive efforts have been made in the middle
east to uncover the ancient cities of the Bible. In
every case, the excavations have shown the truth of the Bible
accounts. There are
no exceptions. Perhaps the most interesting is the recent discovery
of the true Mount Sinai (detailed in the book "The Gold of Exodus").
Satellite imagery has now shown the very path the Israelites took in their
escape from Pharaoh’s armies, and their entry into the Red Sea near Sharm el
Sheik on the Gulf of Aqaba (a northern arm of the Red Sea).
The views of the H/C’s deserve our
condemnation. By denying the deity of God, they deny His power and saving
grace. We should never allow them to divert us from the truth of the gospel.
At the same time, we should work to show them the wondrous mercy of our
Savior. He loves them as much as us, and is not willing that one of them
should be lost.
Dispensationalist/Futurist School (D/F):
Dispensationalists get their name from
their teaching that God used different sets of rules for different periods
(dispensations) in history. In prophecy they teach a strictly literal
understanding of the words of prophecy. Since prophecies use Jewish imagery,
they demand that prophecy speaks of a restoration of a Jewish state. A
separate key part of the D/F schema is a displacement of the seventieth week
of Daniel 9:24 into the future, where it is coupled with an antichrist who
forms a one-world government (reconstituted Roman empire) and signs a peace
treaty with the Jews. There is then a 3 ½ year tribulation of the saints
before the second coming.
We can already see that the D/F’s focus
not on the gospel, but on politics. This shows that at best, their
interpretations are suspect. Their key focus on the Jews denies the fact
that the Jews had the kingdom taken from them (Matt 21:43) and that they are
no longer the focus of prophecy. (This issue is explored at length in "Who
are the Jews", "The Moral Purpose of Prophecy", and "The
Hope of Israel" and will not be developed here.) A few key points need
to be explored to show the source of their errors.
Daniel 9:24-27 describes a "seventy week"
block of probationary time for the Jews. If they failed the conditions set
out in verse 24, the termination of their status as the favored people of
God would ensue. Verse 25 defines the decree that begins the 490 year
period. This decree of restoration was given in 457 BC (Ezra 7). Sixty nine
weeks (483 years) later, the Messiah was to be manifested. This occurred
with the baptism of Jesus in AD27. Verse 27 gives the time of the
crucifixion, 3 ½ years later, in AD31. The probation ended in AD34 at the
end of the 490 years, the gospel went to the Gentiles (Acts 8), and the
church became the "holy nation" (1 Pet 2:9). (For a detailed discussion of
this prophecy see my study of Dan 9.)
The D/F school begins by misunderstanding
the decree defined in Dan 9:25. They insist that it is a decree of
"rebuilding", and lean on modern mistranslations to support their position.
If they would look at the Word for what it actually says, they would learn
that the decree is a decree of "restoration". This fundamental error is the
pillar on which the rest of their interpretation rests.
By insisting on a decree of rebuilding,
the D/F’s are forced to accept the royal consent given to Nehemiah (Neh 2)
as the decree. This fails to meet Daniel’s specifications in all but one
respect. It does not
restore the people to the land. It does not restore their
self-government. It does not
restore their legal observance of God’s laws. It does mention
repair of walls and gates. On this slim thread hangs their entire
schema.
The timing of this event in 444BC causes
extreme problems for the D/F’s. If they count 483 years from 444BC, they get
to AD44, which is far beyond the time of Christ, who even they admit is the
Messiah. Since Dan 9 is a Messianic prophecy, the D/F’s have to call on
complex mathematical techniques to get the time span to end during the time
of Christ. They look in Dan 7:25 (and its repetitions in Dan and Rev) to
arrive at 360 day years. It does not concern them that the Jews never had a
360 day year, and no evidence exists that the Jews ever thought that
prophecy used 360 day years (The Jews used intercalated days and months to
adjust to an average 365 ¼ day solar year). This allows them to get more
years between Nehemiah and Christ. D/F’s insist that this recomputed number
of days extends
exactly from the day of the royal consent to the day of the triumphal
entry (others calculate to the crucifixion).
The problem resulting from this is
obvious. If the 69 weeks
end at the crucifixion (more or less), then the 70th week doesn’t fit
with the Messiah, since Jesus wasn’t around for the next 7 (or even 3 ½)
years. Having no possible match for the 70th week, instead of reconsidering
their foundation, the D/F’s throw it into the speculative future, where
literally anything goes. Their problem then compounds itself.
The next problem comes from Dan 2, and the
discussion of the ten toes. Daniel very clearly describes a progression from
the legs of iron (Rome) to the feet of iron and clay (the broken up Roman
empire) to the kingdom of God. This is an unbroken sequence, in which the
kingdoms resulting from the breakup of Rome "will
not adhere to one another" (Dan 2:43). Because the
D/F’s haven’t figured out what to do with that pesky 70th week, they look at
the fact that "he will make a
firm covenant with the many for one week" (Dan 9:27),
and figure that there must be some new character who in modern times makes a
peace treaty with (who else) the Jews. After all, don’t the prophecies of
the minor prophets refer to all nations coming to Zion to worship?
Therefore, there must be a reconstituted Roman empire, and its leader must
be the one who makes the treaty. But, there’s more!
Dan 7 refers to a little horn character
who persecutes the people of God. This guy comes out of the Roman beast, so
he must be the leader who makes (an breaks) the peace treaty with the Jews.
Behold! The Antichrist! Now they look at the deadly wound (Rev 13:3,12), and
tell us that he will be killed and miraculously resurrected. The story gets
more and more fantastic. Not one bit of it has anything to do with the
gospel. It serves purely as a diversion. But there is more.
Daniel 8 has another little horn
character. The D/F’s have decided that he is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a
notorious persecutor of the Jews. They don’t care that Antiochus simply
doesn’t fit the specifications of the prophecy, he is close enough for them.
They repeat this error in Dan 11.
Revelation does not get by without similar
abuse. D/F’s see a physical field of blood up to horses’ bridles (Rev
14:20), an amount several times greater than all the blood of all the people
who ever lived. There is a whore large enough to be seated on seven
mountains at once (Rev 17:9). Real exegetical abuse comes in the treatment
of the Jews. The millennium (Rev 20) becomes a time when Jesus comes and by
the force of His presence, converts the entire Jewish nation. Even greater
liberty is taken with Armageddon (Rev 16:16).
D/F’s see Armageddon as a great physical
battle in which the forces of evil will take on Jesus’ troops. Yet, in the
text, there is not one hint of actual battle. Satan "gathers his forces",
then the seventh angel pours out his bowl and declares "it
is done" (Rev 16:17). Rather than fight Jesus, the
wicked will actually hide from His presence. It is instructive to look at
this same point in time as pictured in Rev 6.
15 And the
kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich and
the strong and every slave and free man, hid themselves in the caves and
among the rocks of the mountains;
16 and they said to the mountains
and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who
sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;
17 for the great
day of their wrath has come; and who is able to stand? "
Rev 6:15-17
The sort of liberties taken with scripture
by the D/F’s are so egregious that one must wonder how anyone can actually
believe these stories. They not only have nothing to do with the text, they
have nothing to do with the gospel. They are nothing more than fantastic
fortune telling which ignores the mighty truths which Jesus inspired His
servants to write for our instruction. And beyond this, they actively draw
our vision
away from Christ.
Allow me to review the key issues.
First, The D/F’s insist on a literal interpretation of prophecy. This is
totally arbitrary, and simply ignores the mass of OT evidence that the Jews
WOULD lose their favored position with God. It further ignores the NT
evidence that the Jews DID lose that status.
Second, the D/F’s refuse to properly understand Dan 9:24-27. Rather
than reconsider their position when the dates will not work out, they twist
the Word until they force it to fit their interpretation. This leaves them
unable to accept the unity of the prophecy, and the D/F’s then engage in
flights of fancy regarding the far future.
These arbitrary and capricious distortions
of God’s Word must be condemned. They are not simply differences of opinion
between honest men. They are active deceptions which must be avoided by
Christians. They take attention away from the Great Controversy between
Christ and Satan. In doing so, they blind us to the nature and person of
Satan’s agents. This restricts our ability to combat evil.
We must pray that the D/F’s who have been
so deluded by a slick presentation can begin to see the truth. God is "not
willing that any should perish" (2 Pet 3:9 KJV), and
neither should we. We must confront the evil, and rescue the evil-doer.
D/F’s need to see that all prophecy reveals God’s power and providence.
The Preterist
School
The Preterist school is probably the most
difficult of all schools to discuss, for its members are careful scholars,
rejecting the facile excesses of the D/F’s, yet arriving at conclusions
which seem strange to most Christians. Their fundamental claim is that the
second coming
was a spiritual event occurring in AD70, and that we now live in the
kingdom of God, and are full recipients of all the promises of God in the
here and now. As one of them has written:
"You can know the joy of having
received
all the promises the OT saints were eagerly awaiting. You can
acknowledge the fact that you are a
full-fledged child of God living in His eternal kingdom right
now, and enjoying the benefits of a fully accomplished
salvation! ...
"You can also have the confidence
of knowing that you are living in the Kingdom age (you can call it
the "Church age" if you like), and that it is
everlasting in its duration!"
Kenneth J. Davies, What the Heck
is a Preterist (and Why Would I Want to Become One)? (excitement
in the original)
The preterists begin their hermeneutic by
taking a rigid position toward the NT "imminency" statements.
34 "Truly I say
to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take
place. Matt 24:34
This, and a host of texts like it, point
to a second coming within a few years (40 by their calculation). Simply put,
either the second coming was in the first century AD, or God is a liar.
Since God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and there was no
physical second coming, the only possible answer is that it was a
spiritual event. This leaves the preterists with a problem (one of
several), since 2 Peter 3 has a decidedly physical tone, speaking of the
destruction of the world by fire (vv. 7, 10, 12). They fix this difficulty
by declaring that the entire NT after Acts 1:10 refers to
spiritual truths, which have no physical element. This appears
to deal handily with such difficulties such as being "seated" with God (Eph
2:6), and the "fire" of 2 Peter 3.
With their careful approach, why shouldn’t
we believe the Preterists? A full discussion of this would take a book, so
we will hit a few high points here. The first issue to consider is whether
prophecy is unconditional.
5 Then the word
of the LORD came to me saying,
6 "Can I not, O house of Israel, deal
with you as this potter
does?" declares the LORD. "Behold, like the clay in the potter's
hand, so are you in My hand, O house of Israel.
7 "At one moment I
might speak concerning a nation or concerning a kingdom to uproot, to
pull down, or to destroy
it;
8 if that nation against which I have spoken turns from
its evil, I will relent concerning the calamity I planned to bring on
it.
9 "Or at another moment I might speak concerning a nation or
concerning a kingdom to build up or to plant
it;
10 if it does evil in My sight by not obeying My voice,
then I will think better of the good with which I had promised to bless
it. Jer 18:5-10
In this passage, God makes it very plain
that prophecy is dependent on good behavior. There are a couple of
objections to this. First, apocalyptic (end time) prophecy is written in an
unconditional style. This would seem to negate conditionality. However,
there are examples of "unconditional" prophecy which were reversed. The
story of Jonah contains no indication of conditionality, yet, when the
people of Nineveh repented, God relented and they were spared. A second
point comes from the apocalyptic prophecies themselves.
Daniel 8:14 contains a prophecy which
projects forward to 1844 from 457BC. Dan 9:24 defines a 490 year period
which also begins in 457BC. This period is probationary, and if the Jews
behaved properly, the second coming could have been shortly after this
period expired in AD34. Since both of these time periods began at the same
moment, if the Jews satisfied their probation, 1844 would never have
happened. Likewise, a second coming in AD70 would have eliminated 1844. On
the other hand, because of the Jews’ bad behavior, the implied benefits of
satisfying their probation did not happen. In
any case, an apocalyptic prophecy is necessarily conditional.
This presents the preterists with another
problem. If they accept the plain word of God regarding conditionality,
their entire schema evaporates.
The NT imminency statements are no more or less the word of God than any
other word of God. If the other "unconditional" prophecies are in fact
conditional, then so are the imminency statements. The difficulty which
requires a spiritual second coming evaporates. We now have the option of
considering the possibility that the early church failed to carry out its
commission, and that the early return had to be postponed. The preterists do
not accept this, and one of them declared that by making this point, I was
denying the inspiration of scripture.
At this point, we need to look at another
aspect of the 2,300 days of Dan 8:14. As we noted, this prophecy extends to
1844. If the preterists are correct, then the prophecy is wrong. No
prophecy, in their view, has a focus beyond AD70. Therefore, they are forced
to accept less than correct understandings of prophecies in order to make
them fit their schema. This is improper. But, even if we allow them their
understanding of the 2,300 days, Dan 11:22 leaves them without an excuse.
22 "And the
overflowing forces will be flooded away before him and shattered, and
also the prince of the covenant. Dan 11:22
The "prince of the covenant" can be no one other than Jesus, the Messiah. Daniel had
already used this term to refer to Jesus in Dan 9:24-27. Therefore, the
remaining half of the chapter, with references to events that occur far
after AD70, stands in stark contradiction to the preterist schema. This
problem cannot be avoided. Prophecy projects its view far beyond AD70.
Because of this fact alone, the preterists cannot be correct.
Let us now review, in no particular order,
a few other problems which the preterist must confront.
The book of Revelation is commonly thought
to have been written about AD92-95. This date is 20+ years after the
proposed second coming. Preterists challenge the late date of Revelation,
and make some very cogent arguments for a date in the AD60’s. If the late
date is correct, it is fatal to their arguments. If the early date is
correct, it allows their position, but proves nothing.
9 And after He
had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and
a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10 And as they were gazing
intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white
clothing stood beside them;
11 and they also said, "Men of Galilee,
why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up
from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched
Him go into heaven."
Acts 1:9-11
The story of the translation of Jesus into
heaven is very physical. Jesus disappeared into a physical cloud. There is
not the slightest hint of a spiritual event. The disciples were "gazing
intently", a physical action. The angels, without equivocation or
qualification state that Jesus will return in exactly "the same way". The
only logical conclusion is that "the same way"
means a physical, not a spiritual return.
Jesus was resurrected physically. In fact,
Jesus made a point of having Thomas (John 20:24-28) touch Him in order to
prove the physical nature of His resurrection. Even the primary definition
of the word is physical.
386 anastasis {an-as'-tas-is}
from 450; TDNT - 1:371,60; n f
AV -
resurrection 39, rising again 1, that should rise 1,
raised to life
again + 1537 1; 42
1) a raising up, rising (e.g. from
a seat)
2) a rising from the dead
2 a) that of Christ
2 b)
that of all men at the end of this present age
2 c) the
resurrection of certain ones who were restored to life
In the face of this, and in the absence of
any statement whatever which would substitute a spiritual resurrection for
physical resurrection, the preterists insist that the resurrection is
spiritual. They declare that when a person converts to Christianity he is
"resurrected" "from death into life", using a metaphor commonly used by
Paul.
12 Now if
Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some
among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if
there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your
faith also is vain. 1 Cor 15:12-14
Unfortunately for the preterists, their
position simply cannot stand up to the plain language of Paul. Verse 13
equates Christ’s resurrection with the "resurrection of the dead". Christ’s resurrection was from physical death, and
therefore the "resurrection of
the dead" must also be
physical, not spiritual. This brings us to another
hermeneutical error made by the preterists.
Preterists, being careful students,
explore the meaning of words carefully. Words such as "generation", "age",
"life", and "death" get explored at length. Unfortunately, a blind spot
develops in these studies. Once a word usage is determined, it is stated to
be the
only use of the word. One such example is "death".
Paul uses "death" in a spiritual sense in
many places.
5 even when we
were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ by
grace you have been saved, Eph 2:5
As we saw in the example above, this is
not the only way he uses it.
38 For I am
convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities,
nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39 nor height,
nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us
from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Rom 8:38-39
In this text, if "death" means
spiritual death, then Paul’s statement is gibberish, since
spiritual death means separation from Christ, and Paul has said that "death" cannot
separate us from Christ! Therefore, "death" in this
text must be
physical. For us to take the primary meaning of "death" as spiritual in this text is arbitrary and unjustified. God
did not inspire the scriptures in a way designed to hide meaning from us. He
inspired them to reveal Himself to us. To arbitrarily change the meaning of
a word, without support from scripture, is to declare that our understanding
is higher than God’s. We should condemn such an assertion. We must learn
what God put in the scriptures, not what man would like to put in them.
Various words are used in different ways
depending on context. "Death" is not the only one. If we look at Paul’s use
of the word "fulfill", we will find more than one use, depending on the
context. Is there any reason to expect that the word "age" should be any
different? Yet the preterists require that there can only be two "ages": the
"age" of the Jews and the Kingdom "age". They say that the age of the Jews,
the old covenant, ended with the destruction of the temple in AD70. To show
the error of their system, let us re-examine the prophecy on which this is
based.
Dan 9:24-27 predicts the arrival and
crucifixion of the Messiah. 483 years after the decree of Artaxerxes I (Ezra
7), the Messiah would appear (v25). The Messiah would then strengthen the
covenant "for one week", or seven years (v27). That
would be the
end of the 70 weeks. The destruction of Jerusalem is also predicted
(vv. 26-27), but the time of that destruction is left open. That is, the
destruction of Jerusalem had no fixed relationship to the end of the
covenant at the end of the 70 weeks.
The decree was given in 457BC, Jesus was
baptized in 27AD, and the end of the 70 weeks was in 34AD. This was the end
of the old covenant, the covenant with the Jews. We can see this in the book
of Acts. After the crucifixion the disciples continued in Palestine,
preaching to the Jews. This continued up to the stoning of Stephen in AD34
(Acts 7). This act of rebellion finished the 70 weeks, and the old covenant
with the Jews ended. The very next chapter (Acts 8:4) begins the preaching
of the gospel to the gentiles. This was the beginning of the new covenant.
Preterists deny this conclusion, and state
that the old covenant was in force until the destruction of Jerusalem
brought about the end of the sacrificial system foretold in Dan 9:27. Their
foundation for this is suspect.
27 And he shall
confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the
week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, Dan 9:27a (KJV)
The "midst" of the week
points to the cross, which was at the middle of the seven year period. This
is the time when the sacrifices and offerings ("oblations") of the
Mosaic sanctuary system stopped
in God’s eyes. Once Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was complete, God
signified the end of all blood sacrifices by tearing the veil shielding
public view from the Holy of Holies (Matt 27:51). The fact that the building
still stood was irrelevant. We had a "better
sacrifice" (Heb 9:23-28) which took the place of all
the other sacrifices. It can be unequivocally be said that all sacrifices
ended
at the cross, exactly as foretold in Daniel. Further, since the end
of the probationary 490 years was in AD34, every day after that was part of
the new covenant, or church age. The old covenant had ended. Any
interpretation which extends the old covenant to AD70 must therefore be
rejected. The Jews broke the covenant repeatedly (Is 24:5, 33:8), and God
finally ended their probation in AD34.
Preterists insist that Jesus’ use of "age"
(Matt 12:32, etc.) refers to the old and new covenant ages. They then say
that the new covenant age applies to the time after the second coming "in
AD70". As we have seen, if we apply their definitions, then the time does
not work out, so once again, the preterist schema fails.
A full detailing of all of the failings of
the preterist schema would require a book. Let us review a few final texts
to show what will truly happen.
21 Now He who
establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God,
22 who also
sealed us and gave
us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. 2
Cor 1:21-22
The word translated "pledge" is an
interesting one.
728 arrhabon {ar-hrab-ohn'}
of Hebrew origin 06162; TDNT -
1:475,80; n m
AV - earnest 3; 3
1) an earnest
1 a) money which
in purchases is given as a pledge or down payment that the full
amount will subsequently be paid
The Holy Spirit is the earnest money which
is paid to guarantee later full payment of an obligation. God, through
Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, has guaranteed us full participation in His
kingdom as kings and priests. God is obligated to come through with His end
of the bargain so long as we keep up ours by trusting fully in Christ.
Preterists insist that this debt is already paid. Yet, they are unable to
tell us what we have now that is any different than the disciples had at
Pentecost.
-
They had the Spirit: So do we.
-
They suffered physical death: So do
we.
-
They had a less than perfect communion
with God: So do we.
-
There was sin all around: There still
is.
In fact, there is NO CHANGE in the members
of the church which can be identified as happening in AD70 (or later for
that matter). Where is the glory the preterists claim? It doesn’t exist. We
do not see God "face to face" as
promised! (1 Cor 13:12) Further, the "eternal" life we
are promised seems to them to be simply some sort of communion with the
Eternal God in this physical life, and not one of them with which I have
communicated is able to suggest what happens after physical death in this "eternal" life.
In other words, the statements regarding
our full receipt of the promises overlooks the fact that there is no
fundamental change which has occurred in Christians since outpouring of the
Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, AD31. To say that we literally "reign"
now, but in some other realm of which we have no perception is a sophistry
without meaning. It becomes a hollow claim without substance, and takes away
the hope which still awaits. The scriptures detail that hope for us.
1 Cor 15:12-14 (quoted earlier) identifies
the "resurrection of the dead"
as a physical event, just as Christ’s resurrection was physical. Therefore,
we look forward to a physical resurrection into life which is eternal in
duration, not just in spiritual character.
5 For when they
maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God
the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out
of water and by water,
6 through which the world at that time was
destroyed, being flooded with water.
7 But the present heavens and
earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of
judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 2 Pet 3:5-7
This passage sets a physical stage, noting
the physical creation of the heavens and earth and the world’s physical
destruction (of its surface and inhabitants) by water. The second part of
the parallel then says, "the present heavens and earth … are
being reserved for fire". Peter, having set out to
make a physical statement, completes that physical statement. At that day of
judgment, all of the "ungodly men" will
be destroyed physically by fire. Before we see the confirmation of this in
Revelation, let us note that the presence of "ungodly men" today
confirms that the second coming has not happened, because they are to be
destroyed at the second coming. Let us now look to Revelation.
8 "But for the
cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral
persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part
will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is
the second death." Rev 21:8
Combined with 2 Peter 3, we can now
clearly see that everyone who has died will be physically resurrected, and
the wicked will be thrown into the lake of fire to be killed the second and
final time. This is very physical. And it has not happened.
We could pursue many other avenues to show
the shortcomings of the preterist position, but space prevents it. I believe
that we have adequately shown that the preterist position rests on shaky
pillars.
-
A rigid spiritualization of the NT
yields as faulty a result as does a rigid literalization of the OT.
-
A rigid use of word studies
without context yields faulty results.
-
A failure to understand the
conditionality of prophecy leads to a fixed conclusion which is at
odds with the remainder of scripture.
-
A failure to properly accept the
long range view of OT time prophecies allows the preterist to avoid
seeing the contradictions in his position.
The preterists appear to be faithful
Christians, but, contrary to their fervent protestations, they are without
hope. Such a position destroys the glory of the final victory of the gospel,
and turns away the believer from the truth. This is to be rejected. We must
not allow ourselves to be deluded by "cunningly devised fables" (2 Pet 1:16 KJV).
A proper understanding of prophecy and
methods of study will allow the preterists to see the glory that awaits. We
should pray that they can come to see the true focus of the gospel. We will
literally, physically, and spiritually become members of the heavenly
kingdom. As believers, we hold title to that position. At the second coming,
we will be able to exercise the privileges of that title.
The Historicist
School:
After reading through my scathing rebukes
to the other three schools of interpretation, you would suspect that I find
the historicist school to be correct, and you are right. However, I caution
the reader to examine each historicist exposition very carefully, because
there are many interpreters of historicist bent who do not exercise the
level of care appropriate to their task. I will give examples later, but
first, allow me to lay out the foundation of historicism.
I do not believe that anyone will
seriously dispute the fact that the Great Controversy between God and Satan
is spiritual, not physical.
12 For our
struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against
the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the
spiritual
forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Eph 6:12
Even so, this battle is fought on a
physical stage, for the hearts of physical beings. As a result, prophecy is
necessarily a physically framed panorama of the spiritual war. Prophecies
give temporal beings temporal signposts in the spiritual drama.
19 "From now on
I am telling you before
it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe
that I am
He. John 13:19 (see also John 14:29)
Historicists rejoice in the moral purpose
of prophecy, which begins with a backward look at fulfilled prophecy which
confirms the deity of God. This confirmation gives us faith in the future
fulfillment of prophecy. And both of these facts allow us to see the working
of prophecy in the present, both around us and in us. Such a clear picture
allows the identification of the actions of the devil through his "seducing
spirits" (1 Tim 4:1), and gives the Christian the
tools to avoid Satan. Only the historicist position is fully compliant with
the moral purpose of prophecy.
Context is the key word in the historicist
method. Before we can determine how to understand a particular statement in
prophecy, we must understand its context. This includes not only the grammar
of a given text, but the setting provided by the verses around it, and the
historical setting of the writer. The historical setting includes not only
the time, but the language, location, and culture of the prophet. Only when
all of this is taken into account will a proper understanding be gained. A
brief excursion into Dan 9:26 is illustrative.
26 "Then after
the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and
the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the
sanctuary. Dan 9:26a
Many interpreters look at the destruction
of Jerusalem with modern eyes. They take the "people" to be the
army of Titus, which physically destroyed Jerusalem, and then make Titus the
"prince who is to come".
This error comes from a failure to look at
all of the context. The first level of context is the surrounding
texts. The preceding verse introduced "Messiah the Prince"
who "is to come" at the end of the 69 weeks. Therefore, the "prince
who is to come" is Jesus.
This leads to a conclusion which is
strange by western thought. Jesus’ "people" were the
Jews, but the Romans physically destroyed Jerusalem. Unfortunately, many
interpreters stop here. They reject the correct conclusion because of a
western thought pattern. We have to go further back in the chapter to see
the true context and meaning.
12 "Thus He has
confirmed His words which He had spoken against us and against our
rulers who ruled us, to bring on us great calamity; for under the whole
heaven there has not been done
anything like what was done to Jerusalem.
Dan 9:12
In this verse we see the complete context.
The Jews had rebelled against God, and their disobedience led God to destroy
Jerusalem the first time. Therefore, the Jews were responsible for the
destruction of the city. Physically, the Jews did not carry out the
destruction. Neither did God, in any direct physical sense such as at Sodom
and Gomorrah. Nebuchadnezzar’s army actually destroyed Jerusalem. But the
Jews were
responsible for the destruction because of their disobedience, and in
Jewish thought,
they destroyed the city. Daniel was a Jew, and his writing confirms
that he was part of this tradition. When this context is understood, we can
clearly see that in 9:26 the "prince" is Jesus, and the "people" are the
Jews. Daniel is pointing out the fact that the Jews will be responsible for
the destruction of their holy city.
By using context carefully, the
historicist is able to avoid the excesses of the rigid literalism of the
D/F’s and the tunnel vision of the rigid spiritualism of the preterists. The
careful historicist will use all of the tools available, including the word
study employed by the preterist. However, he will be careful not to misapply
the word study the way preterists do. Let us look at one example.
Daniel 9:24 refers to anointing "the most holy".
Interpreters debate whether this refers to anointing the sanctuary or
anointing Jesus. Word study helps us here. The Hebrew
qodesh translated
"holy", is used over 300 times in the OT. It is used in repeated form in
9:24 and about 40 other places. In all of the other places (with only one
disputed exception), it is used to refer to an object rather than a person.
This means that Daniel is referring to a "thing". When we then consider
"anointing", we find that the only "thing" which was ever anointed was the
sanctuary. Only one conclusion is possible: "the most holy"
refers to the sanctuary.
We can see that while proper study can be
demanding, the rewards are substantial. By adherence to proper principles of
study, we can gain a clear understanding of the prophet’s message, and we
can become "a workman who does not need to be
ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." (2
Tim 2:15) Proper study will always be uplifting, bringing new light to the
student, revealing again and again the beauty of the gospel.
This is not the place to do a detailed
study of any prophecy, but, to show how even those using presumably correct
methods can err, let us examine two texts.
15 And the four
angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year,
were released, so that they might kill a third of mankind. Rev 9:15
Certain historicist interpreters take the
phrase "the hour and day and
month and year", and apply the "year for a day"
principle to it. In doing so, they come up with a period slightly over 400
years, which, depending on how you view certain details, happens to equal
the duration of the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately for these exegetes, their
level of care is not up to the proper standard, because the phrase in
question does not refer to a
duration of time. This phrase begins in both English and Greek with
the definite article "the". Therefore, the phrase is a formulaic literary
way of saying that the angels were prepared for that specific
point in time. When the error is corrected, a different understanding
of the prophecy emerges.
1 And when He
broke the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an
hour. Rev 8:1
This is another place where the year for a
day principle gets applied overzealously. Some interpreters multiply out the
half hour to become seven days, and say that it is the "time of flight" for
Jesus in transit from heaven to earth at the second coming. While this
fanciful exercise may be satisfying for some, it ignores the context.
John was a devout Jew. He grew up steeped
in Jewish traditions, and the apocalypse is totally filled with such
imagery. The half hour of silence is part of that imagery, not a significant
point of exegesis.
17 "When he
goes in to make atonement in the holy place, no one shall be in the tent
of meeting until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself
and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel. Lev 16:17
The half hour of silence is part of the
conclusion of the day of atonement ritual! At the time noted in Lev 16:17,
the entire camp was to move out of the tabernacle. They waited in silence
until they heard the bells on the high priest’s robe tinkle when he left the
holy of holies. The sound of the bells showed that God had accepted both the
high priest and the cleansing sacrifice he presented. Unfortunately, this
little bit of "trivia" is not in scripture. It is, however, well documented
outside of scripture. Its omission from holy writ has led many interpreters
to overlook the fact that it is simply part of the day of atonement tapestry
in Revelation 8, and they give it significance it does not deserve.
Conclusion:
It is vitally important, when studying
prophecy, to use a proper study method, or hermeneutic. Failure to do so
will give results which are not only incorrect, but which destroy our view
of the gospel. At the same time, that hermeneutic must be properly applied.
Those of us who read the work of others must carefully examine each writer’s
use of scripture to be certain of the truth of his conclusions.
First, a rigidly literalistic or
rigidly spiritualistic application of scripture is to be condemned. The
complete context must be respected to properly understand the writing of
the prophet.
Second, the complete voice of
scripture must be heard on any particular point. All scripture will be
in agreement, and one part of scripture will amplify another.
Third, the complete prophecy
must be kept in view. An interpretation which bypasses "inconvenient"
details bypasses the truth. God states that "all
scripture" (2 Tim 2:15) is for our benefit. This includes all prophecy,
including those "inconvenient" details.
Finally, the complete gospel
must always be kept in view. Any interpretation which does not more fully
raise the gospel into our view must be rejected. God has prepared His
kingdom of glory for us where there will be no more sin, no more tears, and
no more struggle. We must always keep our eyes focused on "the
prize of the upward call of God" (Phil 3:14). No one
will enter that kingdom based on his heritage or his merits, but only by his
dependence on the cleansing blood of our Savior.
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
..Will Be Spam
Filtered and Posted Shortly..
- Date:
- 12 Jan 2002
- Time:
- 23:50:31
Comments
you evidently haven't done enough research into the full preterist views.., as in your camp there are those who don't quite see fully as of yet . if you were there and could testify that Christ was not visibly/physically watching from the clouds (personally I don't think you were ) you're words might have substance , but since you are not old enough your statement on the physical 2nd coming have no foundation. I think your understanding of ressurected bodies needs to be corrected.., I believe the bible says " it is sewn a physical body ..,and raised a spiritual body , again .., mortal (flesh) will put on immortality (glorified ) .., If Christ body was just physical how was he able to appear and disappear in front of people as the word clearly states he did ? it was his body , but something more also, thus is the reward of the faithful.., preterist do say we are enjoying the fullness of the (promised kingdom) here on earth but I think you misunderstand the preterist view on what exactly that is & the timeline as to when it was delivered .Christ said many times within his visitation to his own that accepted him not that the kingdom was within/among (present tense ) them, evidenced by the works of the father wrought by himself.., that was the beginning (birth ) of the kingdom of faith, not the upper rooms of penticost . This new kingdom (covenant relationship ) had to grow .., through many trials/tests to victory , by the willing of the father the persecutors of his new creation had to be delt with. The jews, those who murdered the vineyard owners servants & son. Until those who would threaten the existance of his chosen/elect were done away with the kingdom was not fully realized . This was done in 70 A.D. the new temple church ) could not be established until the old temple was destroyed (the bible ). the saints of the 1st century were ressurected in their spirit by the revelation of God in his son Jesus (Those before 70 A.D.).., at the destruction of Jerusalem the old testament faithful Israel(all of Israel ) & the already martyred new covenant believers were resurrected into their glorified existence, met christ in the air,proceeded down with Him (as correct understanding of text reads ) , were with him during the destruction , went back to Heaven to be with Christ always .., (remember it is not stated that man will see this )( re-read the Gideon story and see if God's armies are visable/physical ) & the rest of the dead were judged into forever darkness.., also the ones remaining to the coming (parasia ) were spiritually made alive thus continuing the kingdom on earth, awaiting only death to recieve their glorified existance ( Christ did say " If you believe in me you will NEVER die " ) .., your comments on the promised kingdom are futher misunderstandings of God's word.., He nowhere promised a physical earthly utopian society!!the Jews were wrong to believe this also. misuse of correct methods of interpretating prophetic writings causes many errors.., IE: heavens and earth mean different things in prophecy that differ from their normal usages .., as do elements/principle , clouds , fire , world ,etc...etc... I'm sure you know these thing already and you have chosen your interpretation to be what you believe is right but misrepresentation of the matured/perfect preterist view is not warranted.., thanks
- Date:
- 14 Mar 2002
- Time:
- 23:46:47
Comments
i am still stuck on luke 21 and the like scriptures, i have not yet found any dispensationalists or futurists theory that does not require the ignoring, or interpreting the words of christ to mean the opposite of what he said. so at this point i am a bulldog clamped onto the words of christ for what they say as written. i refuse anything that tries to divert me away from his words. therefor all the twisting and turning through scripture to refute the words of christ i reject as invalid as i beleive god is not a lier. so far the df position requires christ to be wrong or misquoted and he meant something else. so does the historist veiw if i read you correctly. now you pointed out a lot of flaws in the preteist veiw, so i must belive in another option than the 4 presented here. i dont yey know all the details of it but it will not contradict the words plainly spoken by christ.
- Date:
- 28 Oct 2002
- Time:
- 18:06:35
Comments
You say "the only thing which was ever anointed was the sanctuary." See Isaiah 61:l and I John 2:27. Why do you not follow your own rules of prophecy interpretation?
- Date:
- 13 Aug 2003
- Time:
- 13:43:41
Comments
When Jesus ascended to Heaven at the end of the Gospels - the Angel affirmed that he would return as they saw him depart - visibly and in the clouds. He himself says his return will be as lightning - from end to end of the heavens. This seems to contradict the preterist view of a second spiritual coming in AD70. Paul also warns of those who taught that the resurrection is past and overthrow the faith of some. This is enough of a warning to me to avoid placing the resurrection in anything other than the physical, global and cataclysmic context in which such appears. Dick Hayes
- Date:
- 31 Oct 2003
- Time:
- 03:55:21
Comments
One aspect of your preterist refutation comes from Dan 8:14 and the 2300 years commencing from the rebuilding of temple in 457B.C. Your math checks out and 1844C.E. is the expected resultant. So what? What prophetic fullfillment or significance came to man in 1844, other then it must had provided ample fodder for the doom and gloom crowd of that period. Seems to me this is just as well a a "hallow claim" without substance - at least without development on your part. Yes, Christ was physically seen and touched by His apostles after the resurrection. But, didn't he also pass through walls? Sounds like He might had been a Spirit to me. Am leaning to the partial preterist position, but can accept using either the CE year 34 or 70 as the fini of the Jewish convenant. What the future holds for Christians is for me the crux of the issue. Full Preterism is unacceptable to me because I wish to have a security blanket in knowing that Christ will return in final glory and settle things once and for all. Guess I like the dramatic effect.Without this, can't relish the thought that mankind's existence might ungloriously end by way of nuclear war or asteroid impact.
Date: 11 Nov 2007
Time: 20:56:26
Comments0:
The most important thing that I can note here is that the amillenial is not
represented accurately by the description and critique offered here. What is
offered here under the D/F (Dispensationalist) view is dominantely features
of the premillenial view, and the amillenial view is not a subdivision of
that view because it is contrary to it in many respects. More work needs to
be done to understand the amillenial view correctly. I have not the time to
give a complete outline here and now. But firstly the amillenial view
(meaning "no millenium" or "no thousand year period") only means that the
thousand years of the premillenial position is not believed in. The various
1,000 year periods spoken of in the book of Revelation may refer to various
metaphorical periods where 1,000 is a metaphore (of what I do not know, but
it is clear that the Bible uses numbers as metaphores, 2 meaning "work", 3
meaning "purpose", 12 is highly significant, 13 means "unexpected", etc...).
Some elements are spiritual such as the antichrist and the abomination of
desolation standing in the holy place, and when we see that, run to the
mountains. All this roughly meaning when you see people worshiping the
antichrist in church, run to the mountains, don't stop to take anything out
of your house. The "mountains" is a metaphore of God or perhaps the Bible.
The antichrist is not a physical man, but Satan is typified as a man
metaphorically.
The prophecy of the fig tree comming into leaf in Matthew 24 is Israel
becomming a nation again in May of 1948, so Christ is at the gates; but I
agree that many other things in the premillenial view (not the view I am
representing here) are too political.
The final tribulation is felt by the believers and yet is spiritual, it is
trauma that the true gospel is being put aside and the false gospel is being
accepted.
Two promises were made to Abraham, one to his seed, and one to him and his
seed, the latter is the new heaven and new earth, this comes after Judgement
Day, the promis to his seed has already been fulfilled in 1400/1399 AD when
Israel inherited the land. So this distinction is made in the amillenial
view, but not the premillenial view.
Conclusion, in the amillenial view Judgement Day is soon because Christ is
at the very gates, and then there will be a new heaven and new earth. The
Bible is very clear that the rapture is just before the end. The timing of
the rapture is an essential point of debate in eschatology.
The D/F view represented here does not agree with the amillenial position,
which is somewhat like the way the Historicist view is represented, but I
have tryed to cover what I could about the amillenial view.
I would have to classify the amillenial view as a separate school, or in the
Historicist school of thought.
The Jews did not reject Christ, the Nation of Israel rejected Christ. The
spiritual promises are not dependent on the breaking of the relationship to
the messiah. God is the God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob, God is a God
of the living, not of the dead. The promises of the new heaven and the new
earth have always existed.
| 
