Christ Did Return in A.D.70

Christ Did Return in A.D.70

By Kingdom Counsel
June 1989 Search The Scriptures

Written in response to Engbert VanderWerff's article, "did the Lord Return in 70 A.D.?, published in the Dec. 5,1988 edition of Christian News. It is obvious that he has taken some time to research what preterists really believe. Many critics have not done this. I want to deal with areas where he misunderstands our position.

The first of these unfortunate circumstances is that he refers to Preterists as "70 AD'ers". He should know that the term "Preterism"(or Fulfilled Eschatology)is more accurate and considerate. Of course, "eschatology" means the study of "last things", so "fulfilled eschatology" means that all last things have been fulfilled. Preterism is the belief that ALL prophetic Scripture has been fulfilled in the past (not necessarily at 70 A.D.), and some preterists go further to say that it was fully and finally consummated in the first century by the destruction of Jerusalem in the year A.D. 70. The opposite idea is, of course, Futurism. Futurists believe there are prophecies yet to be fulfilled. Whether they be Premillennialists, Post-millennialists, or Amillennialists, all futurists believe that much of the Bible's teaching on the last things is yet to be fulfilled. And, some who (inconsistently) call themselves Preterists are really futurist in some aspects of their beliefs, because they believe that the second coming, resurrection and judgment are still future. Amillennialists believe much prophecy has been fulfilled, but they are still Futurists because they believe the second-coming of Christ (and other associated events) are still future. True preterists believe that the complete consummation of God's Plan of Redemption and the establishment of the eternal Kingdom of God occurred by the time of the fall of the Jewish Commonwealth and the destruction of Biblical Judaism in the year AD 70. This includes the Parousia of Christ, the Resurrection, the Judgment, the end of the age (or 'world' as some translations say), and all other associated events.

Mr. VanderWerff stated in his article that if Preterism is accepted as the truth, then many hymns, 'creeds', and prophecies have to be reexamined in light of the parousia being a past event. This is absolutely true, and rightly so. If Christians have misunderstood the Scriptures' teaching on the last things for 2,000 years, then we should make the corrections and get on with the truth? We have misunderstood a great many things before, and it never seemed to bother us to alter our creeds and doctrinal statements. Most of us believe that much of medieval Roman Catholic doctrine was wrong, so just because the institutional R.C. Church did not like the resulting Reformation doesn't mean that reformed interpretations were wrong. The question is: What is the truth? What does the Bible really teach? Many Christians had to die for the Truth of the Cross. Can't we at least discard our traditions if we discover they don't have the support of the Bible? If we are willing to die for the Truth, will we not also be humble enough to make sure we understand the Truth? The same re-adjustments have occurred in every age when Bible Truths came to be better understood. What denomination hasn't revised its teachings and creeds AND HYMNS from time to time when it discovered inconsistencies? Let Truth always triumph over tradition and error!

Mr. VanderWerff implies that Preterists have gone to the opposite extreme because of our reaction to the fanatical futurists (i.e., premils and rapturists, etc.). He states that 'In America there seems to be a growing 70 AD'ism movement amongst former premils'. I was never a 'premil', and neither were many of the other writers for the Preterist view. Preterism, or Fulfilled Eschatology, is being accepted all over the world by individuals of all denominations. Most of these people have arrived at the view from their own study of Scripture, not prompted by other Preterists. As to the charge that Max King's book sets forth 'their' (our) views, they do no such thing. Max King's books set forth HIS views. His books and others are considered very helpful, of course, but are not regarded as the "final answer". It may take several more generations (or centuries) before we totally understand everything about Biblical prophecy and eschatology. The Bible, how ever, provides more than enough evidence to support the basic Preterist position. So, the issue is not WHO believes this view, or whether we like WHAT it teaches, but whether or not the Holy Scriptures really teach it.

Another important point in Mr. VanderWerff's article was to question the belief of Preterists that all NT books were written before 70 AD. When Preterists cite the names of numerous scholars who believed this, we think of it as important cumulative evidence, but not as final authority. Perhaps one of the reasons most scholars today are not Preterists is because they are too enamored with liberal theology or sectarian traditions, and they are too infatuated with the idea that the Israelis are somehow still God's chosen people (even though they totally reject their Messiah). No one but Preterists can be conservative and truly consistent on these issues. Some who teach that the New Testament was completed before 70 include J.S. Russell, David Chilton, Cornelius Vanderwaal and several other very conservative scholars. In fact, the traditional view that the New Testament was not completed before 70 is based more on liberal presuppositions than on internal textual evidences. It can not stand against Pentecostal claims that there are spiritual gifts today. It opens Pandora's box to all sorts of speculation about what is yet to come; and fails to satisfactorily explain why Christ did not return in the first century, as all the New Testament writers taught and first century Christians expected. If we don't teach that the New Testament was completed before 70, then we are begging the question as to exactly WHEN the canon was complete, and are allowing for the liberal ideas of multiple authors and source documents put together in the late first and early second century (form & redaction criticism). Was it when the last Apostle died, or was it when the last inspired writer died? Jude was not an Apostle, so since non-Apostles could be considered inspired, then how do we know when the last of these men died? And so on. Preterism gives us a definite YEAR in which we can know that God's revelation to Man was not only finished, but fulfilled. Preterism is really an extremely CONSERVATIVE view of Bible prophecy.

Mr. VanderWerff also claims that Preterists believe that Jewish persecution of the Church ceased after 70. Some may have said this, but others have not said this at all. What is most often meant when it is said that Jewish persecution ended is that there was an end to Jewish persecution which threatened the existence of Christianity. Prior to the fall of the Jewish system in 70, Christianity was viewed as simply another sect of Judaism, and was therefore subject to hostile treatment by the Jews (who had enough influence with Caesar to have Christians persecuted). When Christianity was forever separated from Judaism at 70 A.D., the existence of Christianity was no longer threatened by the Jews. Christianity had pretty well established itself as an independent group by that time, and were not under the Roman ban like the Jews were. I would refer Mr. VanderWerff and others who are interested, to Brandon's The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church is just one historical source which sheds light on all this. Ed Stevens', What Happened In 70 AD? lists several more historical sources which support this idea. Biblically speaking, the Kingdom of God was finally and firmly established by the taking away of that Kingdom from the Jews, and the giving of it to the Christians at 70 A.D. (see Jesus' parable about this in Matt.21:43, and parallels). The infant church was made mature, and nothing could prevail against it. After 70, the Jews no longer had the governmental power nor the armed might to suppress the spread of Christianity. Yes, there continued to be "persecutions", but the question of whether Christianity would survive was no longer in doubt. The year A.D. 70 marked a turning-point in the long-term viability of the church.

Mr. VanderWerff misunderstands the use of literal and figurative language (poetic language) in the Bible, and the differing definitions certain terms had in the first century as opposed to what we today take them to mean. For example, did Isaiah 13:10-13, "literally" come to pass when Babylon was destroyed? Of course not. Mr. VanderWerff seems not to see how and why such language was used. He thus believes that the 'heaven and earth' under discussion in texts such as Matthew 24:35 refers to the literal, physical heaven and earth. The 'Heaven and Earth' that was to pass away (Isaiah 51,65, Matthew 24, Revelation 21-22) is the same 'Heaven and Earth' under discussion in 2 Peter 3. The term is used in a sense that first-century Jews easily understood, but which we today have difficulty seeing unless we approach it as symbolic or apocalyptic language. Consider that in 2 Peter 3:12, the readers of this letter were expecting these things to occur. Verse 3 implies that the scoffers were ALREADY at work in those last DAYS (The same 'last days' Peter discusses in Acts 2). The end of the then 'present" heavens and earth was imminent.

[Note: Futurists use 2 Peter 3:8 as a justification for their belief that Jesus postponed his return. We are to consider days with God to be thousands of years in Man's time. But the point being made by Peter is not that this is literally true, but is meant to convince his readers that the scoffers in THOSE LAST DAYS were wrong, and that Christ's coming will be SOON, even if not as soon as the scoffers say he should have come. The fact that Peter had to discuss this topic shows that in the minds of the early Church, Christ's return was expected imminently. The day of the Lord would come as a thief (compare 2 Peter 3:10 with Matthew 24.43,44- The same 'coming' is under discussion in both texts). Therefore, 2 Peter 3 actually becomes a powerful text in support of Preterism.]

If Peter (in 2 Pet. 3) was speaking literally, then he was wrong (because no fiery end of the physical universe happened back then); but if he was speaking figuratively, then we need to understand what the phrase "heaven and earth" symbolized. The phrase represents the 'world' of the covenant Jews, their national existence, religious establishment, society and government. We can read the Old Testament to gain an awareness of how such symbolic language was used by the Jews in speaking of age-changing events, of which the fall of the Holy City in 70 A.D. is one. Whenever the downfall of a nation is under discussion, the prophets preferred to use symbolic language such as this to express the importance and awesomeness of it. Just reading the prophet Isaiah should be enough to convince one that the Old Testament seers related their visions using apocalyptic terms, in words that were not meant to be taken physically-literally. They represent something which would indeed happen, but not in a physical way. Why then do so many interpreters view such NT texts literally, when they know that Jesus, John the Baptist and the Apostles were Jews, familiar with the poetic and apocalyptic language used in their OT to describe events of great international or eschatological importance?

Mr. VanderWerff states that before the world ends, the gospel must be preached to all the world, which, he believes, has not yet been accomplished. Hasn't he ever read Matthew 10:23; Romans 1:8; 10:18; 15:19; 16:26; and Colossians 1:6; 1:23? Romans 10:18 says, 'But I ask, did they not hear? Of course they did: 'Their voice has gone out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world'.' And Colossians 1:23 says, '...This is the gospel that you heard and that has been proclaimed to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, have become a servant.'

The Gospel was indeed preached to all the world, meaning the 'world' of the Jews, the then-known Roman world, or civilized world at the time. In particular, the need to preach the Word to the Jews was most urgent in the minds of the Apostles. Salvation was promised to the Jew first (Romans 1:16), and there was exactly one generation of time allowed for the Word to reach the ears of every Jew, before the Jewish 'world' collapsed. This was the reason for the urgency in preaching the gospel to all the (then-known) world (Matthew 10:23 and 28:19), and it was to be done within one generation (Compare Matthew 24:14 and 24:34. The 'end' was promised in THAT generation). In fact, Jesus said they would not finish preaching to every city in Palestine before His return (Matt. 10:23). The Jews were about to have the Kingdom yanked from them, and given to a spiritual nation, but God did not leave the Jews out in the cold. They were given a time to repent, and this is the thrust behind Peter's words in 2 Peter 3:3-9 - these were JEWS he was talking about. THEY had forgotten about Noah. How many Gentiles would know about what happened to the world at the time of the Flood? Paul agonized over the plight of the Jews as well (Romans 1 1, for example).

This brings us to a question that Mr. VanderWerff asks: 'Is not the New Testament era (from the cross to the present) the last times, or the last days?' To which the right answer is, "certainly not!" If we wish to honor the principles of sound interpretation, we should take these words to mean what they appear to mean, unless there is a very good textual reason for doing otherwise. How can we say that the "last days" were really the "last centuries"? Attempts to bring the "day = 1,000 years" into the argument will not work, since the idea of "last days" stretching on and on for thousands of years is foreign to the meaning and use of that term throughout the OT (see footnote #1 again). No, the last days mean the last DAYS, which in Jewish eschatology was understood to be no more than one generation (the last waning years of a nation's existence), not eons of time.

Joel's prophecy quoted by Peter in Acts 2 gives us an idea when the last days began and ended, and they ended with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. Read Acts 2:20,21,40- Then consider Matthew 24 in light of what Peter is saying in Acts2. It should be evident that the same events concerning the Jews are under consideration. Joel predicted the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the manifestation of spiritual gifts throughout the last days. If the last days are still here, then the miraculous gifts must also still be here, and inspiration was one of those gifts. And if this is the case, where are the additional inspired books we should continually be adding to the 66 books of the Bible? After all, we've had 2,000 years of these gifts, which included the gift of prophecy as well. Where are our modern-day prophets? Are we ready to accept the Pentecostals' claim that the miraculous gifts are still in operation today (the Last Days)? Maybe the Preterist position deserves more serious consideration than we realize. Only the Preterist view can consistently refute the Charismatic position. All other (futurist) views leave the door wide open for Charismatic gifts and inspiration to still be around.

Let us consider the visions of Daniel and Revelation concerning the TIME in which the "End' was to take place. Notice that Daniel was told to seal up the vision he saw, for the time of the end was still a long way off (Daniel 12:4, 9). But, John was told to NOT seal up his vision, for the time (of the end, or fulfillment of these things) was at hand (see Rev. 22:10 and cf. Rev. 1:1-3; 22:6,7,12,20). God, in His revelation to Man, does not play language tricks with us. If we wish to understand His Word, then we must make an effort to know how He uses language, nations, culture, and the peculiarities of certain peoples (the Jews) to reveal His message. The time of the end which Daniel saw is the same time of the end which John saw. Daniel was told to seal, and John was told to reveal. What then was this end? Only one event in the first century fulfills the requirements of Daniel's vision. The 'End' which Daniel mentioned concerned his people (Daniel 12:1,7, and 10:14). It was the taking away of the age of Judaism, the end of the Old Covenantal (world) system, the completion of God's scheme of redemption. Daniel knew the vision dealt with the end of his people, and that's why he grieved. Thus, the "last days" were the last days of Biblical Judaism and the end of God's covenant with Israel as His chosen (elect) people. The church is God's elect people today. Those last days of the Old Testament era ended in 70 AD.

Mr. VanderWerff again errs when he makes Revelation 22:20 a warning that Christ could come at any time, rather than an explicit statement that Jesus was indeed to actually come soon. Jesus said, "Truly, truly, I say to you..." (See Matthew 24:34). He did not say 'Possibly', or 'Maybe'. He was explicit and precise, indicating that these things would SURELY come to pass soon, within that generation. And Revelation deals with the same subject Jesus expounds upon in Matthew 23- 25 (Compare Matthew 23:35,36 and 24:34 with Revelation 16:6 and 18:20,21,24). Once again, sound principles of interpretation demand that we include Revelation 1:1,3, and 7 (cf. Mt.24:30) in this scenario. Christ's parousia was at that time IMMINENT. Now, did He come, or did He delay, as Mr. VanderWerff seems to believe? If He delayed, then what can we believe if we can't believe the express statements of Scripture? If He came, we need to re-examine our traditional doctrines. Traditional Futurism has inconsistency problems here that Preterism will never have. The question of what can be believed (if express time statements can not) is a serious difficulty that 'delay' or "non-occurrence" theories fail to answer. And, futurists will have a very difficult time upholding the doctrine of inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures. If Mr. VanderWerffs concept of a delay is correct, the time statements force us to conclude that the NT writers were inaccurate in their predictions, and therefore not inspired. Preterism stands alone as a consistent support of the Bible's inspiration.

A brief look at some of the texts in the New Testament concerning the TIME of the Parousia is in order. A question to the Futurists: What TIME are the following texts dealing with: Are these texts to be allocated to future events, or with first-century events? With WHAT are they dealing?

Matthew 10:23
Matthew 16:27, 28 (and parallels)
Matthew 24:33, 34; and 26:64
Acts 2 (Pentecost/Joel's prophecy)
Romans 13:11
1 Corinthians 1:7, 8 and 10:11
Hebrews 1:2; 9:26-28; 10:25, 37
James 5:3, 7-9
1 Peter 1:20 and 4:7, 17
1 John 2:8, 17, 18
Jude 18, 19
Revelation 1:1-3 and 22:6-12, 20

Futurists become inconsistent at this point and place the fulfillment of some of these texts in the first century, and others in the future. This is like taking out pieces of a fishnet; you are left with a lot of holes, but texts dealing with "last things" are interwoven like a net. Bible eschatology can not be separated into both Jewish and Christian eschatologies. They are one and the same. The fate of the Jews was tied up with the fate of the Gentiles. There was neither Jew nor Greek; all were ONE in Christ Jesus. Paul's thought clearly shows this to be true. The Bible deals with ONE eschatology. Therefore, the eschatological texts of the entire Bible must be interpreted in their historical and grammatical context. To lift some out and leave others in situ is to end up with a totally inconsistent view of the Bible's teaching concerning the 'last things'. The net would be full of holes. Revelation is not a book totally unrelated to the rest of the NT. Yet that's the way most approach it. And that is why most people misunderstand it. The book of revelation becomes an easy book to understand when approached from a Preterist framework. It was written during the NT era by NT folk talking about the very events that were happening then. Apocalyptic language was used to veil their message from outsiders who might misunderstand the nature of this King and Kingdom and create more persecution of the church. We MUST employ a proper time hermeneutic in Bible interpretation, especially in regard to eschatology!

The coming of Christ, the complete establishment of His Kingdom, the 'end of the age, Resurrection and Judgment all occurred by 70 AD. Matthew 24 is the key, and it can clearly be shown to be dealing with the fall of Jerusalem. Matthew 25 is part of the same context, and so it too must have been fulfilled by the time of the fall of the Holy City. We must start reading Biblical texts in their first-century Jewish context, and stop reading them from our 20th-century perspective.

The Kingdom was removed from a single nation's possession (Matthew 13), and given to a spiritual people, forever. The former were the Jews, the latter were the Christians. When did this take place? At the Cross? At Pentecost? Will it take place in the future? The Bible says the Kingdom was removed when the harvest takes place. When was this harvest? At the end of the age (Matthew 13:39). When was the end of the age? Jesus equates the end of the age with the fall of Jerusalem in Matthew 24. (See also 1 Corinthians 10:11, 'upon whom the end of the ages has come, and Galatians 1:4 ). You can not have a new kingdom until the old is removed, and when the old city and the old temple perished in 70, the new city and the new temple were established, as Revelation 21 depicts. If the new did not come when the old was removed then we have existed for some 2,000 years without a new city, temple, sacrifices and covenant. I suggest that Mr. Vanderwerff read the letter to the Hebrews with these things in mind and pay particular attention to Hebrews 1:2, 11; 2:5, 8; 4:1, 9; 6:5, 11; all of 8; 9:27, 28; 10:1, 25, 37-39; all of ch. 11; 12:22-28, and 13:14. Not only was something going to happen soon after the book of Hebrews was written, but it related directly to the old covenant and its removal. What was this? It was the destruction of the Old Testament system (the old heavens & earth), and the establishment of the new covenant system (the new heavens and earth): manifested by the institution of the spiritual, invisible, eternal Kingdom of God (Christianity).

Preterism is much more conservative and consistent than Futurism. The TIME CONSTRAINT of the events of the last times is real, and Scripture is clear on the TIME of the end. No matter how Futurists try to explain it away, the Apostles taught (and the early Church believed) that the return of Christ was imminent, and would happen in their generation. More and more NT students are admitting this to be true. Most Christian denominations have never been forced to deal with this fact.

Only within the last two centuries has eschatological study begun to be pursued vigorously. As a result, truths not well-understood in early centuries are beginning to surface. Futurists have not fully realized that their ideas put the inspiration of the Bible into question. Honest and objective truth-seekers will take this issue seriously. Those who have compromised their faith with liberal theology will shrug it off as so much rubbish. But we believe that in the long-term, posterity will recognize Preterism as the only consistent, conservative and correct interpretation of NT eschatology. If we do not accept the obvious teaching of Scripture, then we must explain the "non-occurrence" (or delay) of these events and thereby put NT inspiration into question. Atheists and infidels use the imminency factor to discredit Christianity (i.e., if Christ did not return as promised, then the Bible must be uninspired). If we can't believe the express statements of the Bible regarding the 'End, then what CAN we believe about ANY doctrine? If Christ hasn't come within the time-frame He promised, then true faith must inevitably be shaken. This, then, is the bankruptcy of Futurism. Preterists are the only ones answering the charges of the Bible critics with a logical, consistent, and Biblically-supported solution, which satisfactorily addresses the imminency factor and substantiates the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

Not only does Preterism disarm the liberal attacks on the inspiration of Scripture, but it shatters the charismatic movement's claims for present-day gifts. And it more consistently deals with the Zionist problem than any of the Futurist positions. The Preterist position honors the Bible as inspired, consistent and true, and teaches that the Kingdom of God is fully established. What a positive world-view to live by, and such an incredible tool for evangelism!

Some day a more genuine discussion of the Bible teaching of the 'last things' can take place among Preterists and Futurists. Concentrated and honest study among those of differing views is needed, in place of the 'brush-off' which is most often given to Preterism. Preterist Eschatology is here to stay, and it is growing and being accepted by individuals all over the world. It is THE VIEW that will finally give Christians the ammunition we need to overcome all the philosophies and false religions of the world. It provides the only consistent and correct foundation for a truly Christian and Biblical world-view. Preterism is consistent and logical, and there is much more to it than most people see on the surface. Futurists will someday realize that truth-seekers are not convinced by 'brush-off' techniques and mere assertions. They want realistic, Bible-based answers. Only Preterists have a consistent Bible-based answer to the unbelievable Futurism and Millennial madness of date-setters making headlines today. Futurist ideas have been self-exposed as bankrupt. Only intense prayer, open Bible study, and a spirit of Christian freedom will get us back on track. We pray these matters will continue to be sanely, reasonably and lovingly investigated.

(Permission to Reprint Graciously Granted by Kingdom Publications)

Please See: Reply to Kingdom Counsel - By VanderWerrf

What do YOU think ?

Send an email with your comments to todd @ preteristarchive.com
Be sure to include the article name. They will be posted shortly upon receipt

Date: 22 Dec 2005
Time: 21:57:05

Comments:

christ was the 1st fruit, the wave offering, he went to God and came back just after he was resurrected, he told mary to not touch him he had not gone to the Father yet, if God accepts the 1st fruit offering[ jesus sacrfice] then the harvest[gathering of the saints] shall be good.