|
|
"Preterism" comes from the English word "preterit" which simply means "past, bygone, former." With regard to Bible Prophecy, a preterit viewpoint would be one that puts the fulfillment of a particular passage in the past as opposed to the future. By this simple definition, many Christians have a preterist viewpoint on several prophetic passages (for example: all Christians believe that the virgin birth prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in the first century). But "preterism" in regard to eschatology (the study of the last things) is a system that places the fulfillment, of most, or all of Bible prophecy in the past. More specifically, and most shockingly, "preterism" puts the Second Coming of Christ in our past, not our future! As heretical and shocking as this may sound, it is actually an extremely hard point to argue with scripturally. Those who hold to this view of Scripture are called "preterists" by most, "heretics by some. Be that as it may, preterism is soundly rooted in Scripture and is a formidable foe if one is of both a futurist persuasion and a lover of truth. Most honest students of the Bible already realize that the New Testament paints an imminent picture of a "soon-coming" Christ from a first-century viewpoint. All real students of the NT will admit this. All will admit Paul and the apostles surely expected Christ to return in their lifetime. But a futurist will then add, "but it didn’t happen." The preterist simply doesn’t add anything and just accepts that the NT expectation was fulfilled plainly as stated. In so doing, this presents a preterist with some major rethinking to do on modern "Second Coming" expectations that have been painted by today’s so called "prophecy experts." But preterists gladly sacrifice modern-day "prophets" for the emphatic time statements of the NT. As with all viewpoints of eschatology, preterism is not without its pitfalls. But one cannot lightly push it aside by simply saying "that’s crazy," or "its heretical." One of the problems with preterism is NOT with the plain meaning of texts like Matthew 16:27-28, 10:23. All other forms of eschatology generally struggle with texts such as these. A preterist just simply affirms that before the last apostle died, Jesus indeed did come into His kingdom. Basically, the problem with all NT eschatology is a struggle between what to do with the time statements and the nature of Christ’s return. For example, one has to choose between the following: 1. The time statements are literal and Christ's return is
physical. A futurist commonly must pick #3 or #4. Most, of course, pick #3. The time statements are said to be "God’s Time," or they are said to be written so that "every generation of man would expect Christ’s return." Also it is emphasized, "no man knows the day nor the hour." Therefore, the futurist likes to call himself a "literalist" concerning the nature of Christ’s return, but when faced with the time statements of the NT, they are clearly not literalists. It is common, because of their expectation of a physical return of Christ, to have to explain the time statements. Thus, the NATURE of Christ’s return in their eyes determines the TIMING. A preterist commonly must pick #1 or #2 above. Most, of course, pick #2. The nature of Christ’s return is said to be "seen" or "fulfilled" in the destruction of Jerusalem of 70 AD by the Romans. This is strongly suggested in the Olivet Discourse of our Lord in Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13. Therefore, a preterist likes to call himself a "literalist" with regard to the time statements, but when faced with the nature of Christ’s return, they are clearly not literalists (i.e., physical in this case). It is common, due to their understanding of the timing of the return of Christ, to have to explain the nature of the event in a different way. Thus, the TIMING of Christ’s return in their eyes determines the NATURE. Now we all know that both views, of course, cannot be correct. Each side has its "proof texts." Clearly neither side would deny the Lordship and Deity of Jesus Christ, or His bodily resurrection. Nor does either side of the equation differ very much or at all on salvation issues. Therefore, neither can call the other a heretical view. One may be more popular than the other, but popularity does not constitute truth. The question a preterist would ask a futurist is, "Was the NT expectation of the return of Christ true?" Then he would probably proceed to show the futurist that if the NT writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit to expect Christ’s return in their lifetime, then the expectation was real and had to be fulfilled, or else we are left saying that they taught false doctrine. This denies the Divine inspiration of the NT and makes its writers out to be false prophets, something with which no Christian can live! The question a futurist would ask a preterist is, "If Christ really did return in 70AD, then what about this, and this…?" Questions are so incredibly numerous and hard to answer. What about resurrection? What about the New Heavens and New Earth? Is this all there is? What’s left? Etc., etc… However, if given half a chance, preterism will challenge the most adamant of its opponents, and rightly so, for it is firmly based on logic and simple understanding of the time statements of the NT. If Jesus said it would all be fulfilled in one generation, then so be it. If anything, preterism will make a Noble Berean out of you! If this is new to you, check out these key texts and start searching! Some will be quite challenging. For a real treat ask your pastor! Also note that none of these say that the coming of Christ COULD happen in their lifetime (as today’s "prophecy experts say"), but rather that the coming of Christ WOULD happen in their lifetime. Big difference! Enjoy! Mat 10:23; 16:27,28; 24:34 Greg Kiser |