Laurence A. Justice, the former pastor of Victory Baptist Church in Kansas City, Missouri from 1994-2017, wrote the article “Preposterous Preterism” on January 29, 2012. I am providing an antidote. I use the word “antidote” in its literary meaning – a “word against”. It does not necessarily mean a substance to counter poison, although it could.
Justice’s article appears in its entirety in the smaller normal paragraphs. My response is the larger bold type. This format was used by John Calvin on occasions and I find it to be a very effective way to respond to error.
Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
INTRODUCTION
I have in my possession a postcard I recently received in the mail. Superimposed on a background of a beautiful sunset are the words “The Second Coming Of Jesus Christ Already Happened.” My first reaction to this card was “What? What wacko sent this and who would even print such a thing?” After looking into the matter I found that the person who sent this card is no isolated loony with too much time on his hands.
Instead he is one who has been caught up in an error that is having increasing influence on modern Christians. This error is called preterism, P-R-E-T-E-R-I-S-M, and those who believe this way are called preterists.
Laurence Justice begins by calling Preterism an error. He admits that it is having an increasing influence on the church. The reason for that growing influence is because Christians are sick and tired of the unfulfilled predictions of the modern prophecy teachers. They are tired of the premeditated failure of the church and of her abandonment from her task while waiting for the big escape – the Rapture. It’s driving them back to the Scriptures to check up on these self-proclaimed prophecy experts. Surprise! They learned that we have been hoodwinked for generations. The Bible actually teaches something else, and that something else is Preterism. Because Laurence has called the truth an error and those who hold to the truth “wacko” and “loony”, with “too much time on [their] hands”, he must be challenged. I call on you, the reader to check your Bible and see who is actually teaching error.
I don’t want to leave you at the mercy of one who seems to know very little about the things of which he makes bold assertions. I’m keeping my response as brief as possible, as I am now writing a book that will go into much more detail. But I want to give you enough information so that you can make an informed decision on what to believe and to have a foundation for further study.
Some time ago I preached a message which I called “Bible prophecy And The Year 2,000” in which I pointed out that as the new millennium approaches, there will be a tremendous upsurge of emphasis on and interest in Bible prophecy. The first ripples of this surge came in 1987 with publication of the book “Eighty Eight Reasons Why The Rapture Will Come In 1988.” Now larger waves of this interest and emphasis are beginning to swell and Preterism is part of these larger waves.
The debate started long before 1987. Way back in the early 1970’s Hal Lindsey, in his bestseller, The Late Great Planet Earth, made the prediction that the generation that saw the rebirth of Israel in 1948 would be the one to see the second coming. After pointing out that a biblical generation was about 40 years, he predicted that the second coming could happen by 1988. He then subtracted 7 years for the Great Tribulation Period, putting the rapture in 1981. That might have been easy to say in the early 1970s, but we are now nearing the end of the second generation since 1948 and Jesus hasn’t returned visibly yet.
In fact, the closer we got to the year 2000, the more people began to question what they had been taught. It was failed predictions like 88 Reasons that piqued an interest in Preterism. People found a reasonable biblical alternative to the misinformation that they were previously taught.
It is quite odd how he associates Preterism with 88 Reasons since those are diametrically opposed to each other. The impression is that they are “birds of a feather”. This is very problematic. Preterism is not simply a part of a renewed interest in Bible prophecy spurred on by the modern prophecy gurus, but it has been around much longer than the Pretribulational, Dispensational Premillennial view which Justice espouses. That view actually began in 1830.
In this message we want to consider Preterism and measure it by the word of God. First of all,
WHAT IS PRETERISM?
The word preterist and its relative preterit means simply, past or by-gone. When this word is used of a verb tense it refers to an action as being perfectly past or finished. When used to refer to a person, a preterist is a person who is primarily concerned with the past.
According to the “Random House Dictionary Of The English Language” when this term is used of a person’s view of biblical prophecy, a preterist is “one who maintains that the prophecies in the Apocalypse have already been fulfilled.”
Not all Preterists believe that all “the prophecies of the Apocalypse have already been fulfilled”, regardless of what the Random House Dictionary of the English Language states. That general description just doesn’t line up with the facts, as anyone knows who has ever read Preterist literature. He gives wrong first impression, even though corrects this definition in a few paragraphs. That is very misleading.
Preterism includes one’s views, not only of the book of Revelation, but of all other biblical prophecy as well. Preterism is the opposite of and contrasts with futurism which sees the books of Daniel and Revelation and much other biblical prophecy as having its fulfillment still in the future rather than in the past.
Little words have a great impact on meaning. He insinuates that all Preterists believe that “all” other biblical prophecy has been fulfilled. He appears to be using any means possible, including exaggeration, to get his readers as negatively inclined toward Preterism as he can.
The options available in looking at Bible prophecy are that prophecy is either basically predictive or basically descriptive. The preterist relegates that which is to be future to the past.
He has now shaped the argument. He assumes some prophecy “is to be future” that Preterists have relegated to the past, but the final authority in the matter is the Word of God. The Bible actually determines what is to be future. Our sole question is, “What does the Bible really say?”, and it is its own best interpreter.
It is very important to understand that there are different kinds and degrees of preterists. There are what are sometimes called full preterists and there are what are called partial preterists. Full preterists believe that all prophecy in scripture has already been fulfilled. Partial preterists believe that only some of the prophecy in scripture has already been fulfilled. This matter becomes confusing when we realize that there are partial preterists among premillennials and among amillennials and among post millennials. Hal Lindsay and Jack Van Impe who call themselves premillennials make good money mixing preterism and futurism in their books on prophecy.
Here he admitted that there is a difference, but it is misleading as well to say that there are “degrees of preterists”. An honest evaluation of Preterism should acknowledge, not that there are “degrees of Preterism”, but that there is a great gulf fixed between the camps of Partial Preterists and Full Preterists. Both consider each other to be heretical. Failing to acknowledge that chasm is very misleading to the readers, and very unfair to partial Preterists. Unless otherwise stated, when I refer to the position of Preterists, I am referring to Partial Preterists. But here is where this article really departs from reality. Unbelievably, he mixes Hal Lindsey and Jack Van Impe with Preterism! They are mortal enemies of Preterists. Jack Van Impe went out of his way to mock Preterism. [He never did actually refute it.] And Hal Lindsey is the “poster boy” of Dispensational Premillennialism! That is just as offensive to Hal Lindsey and Jack Van Impe as it is to Preterists. They didn’t make their money by mixing Preterism and futurism, but by sensationalism – predicting the soon return of Jesus and pretending to know all the minute details. We by nature love to know what’s in our future, and they feed that lust. But to say they use Preterism in their books to make money is so hilarious.
Now where did this type of thinking come from? Well, preterists base many of their theories on the non-biblical apocryphal book of I Maccabees. This book claims to be a history of the Maccabean wars in which Israel struggled to be free from the successors of Alexander the Great who were called the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. I Maccabees 1:54 declares that Antiochus Epiphanes, a Seleucid king, was the little horn of Daniel and was the one who actually set up the abomination of desolation of which Daniel 12 speaks.
First correction: they’re not theories. He seems to be implying that we could never have come to our conclusions by reading the Bible itself. That is a terrible misconception. And even if our view did come from 1 Maccabees, at least 1 Maccabees is mostly verifiable history, even though not inspired Scripture. If our views came from 1 Maccabees, they would not be “theories”.
However, for the second correction, our view does not come from 1 Maccabees. I have been reading Preterist materials for decades and never heard anyone refer to 1 Maccabees. I have never even read 1 Maccabees. To be honest, I’d be shocked if 1 Maccabees taught Preterism, as it has nothing to do with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70.
Furthermore, we do not believe that the abomination of desolation was fulfilled in the Intertestamental Period. Jesus told us what the abomination of desolation that was spoken of by Daniel is: when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near (Lk.21:20). That was fulfilled at the destruction of the Temple in A.D.70.
Preterists also love to quote Josephus as an authority for their thinking. Flavius Josephus was a Jewish army general and historian who wrote an eyewitness history of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem between 66 and 70 AD. Josephus, an unregenerate, unbelieving Jew, who was not in sympathy with the cause of Jesus Christ, declared that Daniel’s writings were fulfilled in the Roman general Titus’s conquest of Jerusalem in 70 AD.
Preterists do not hold Josephus up as “an authority”. Justice has made a logical fallacy called “False Cause”. He claimed that because Josephus discussed the same events that we know actually happened, that our view was birthed by him. Preterists admit that Josephus was an unconverted Jew and even that he was prone to exaggeration. However, the fact that he was one of very few who wrote as an eyewitness to the destruction of Jerusalem does give us some reason to pay him some attention.
Justice also seems to believe that because someone is unconverted, they can offer us nothing of value. By that “reasoning”, if we discount Josephus’ account of the Jewish Wars, simply because he was unconverted, then by the same standard, we would have to discount almost everything written about all history, since it was written, with rare exception, by the unconverted. How would we know anything? As for Josephus, it’s like the saying, “Every once in a while, even a blind squirrel gets a nut”. In Christ, all things are ours. Even Paul quoted unconverted poets. This is a very weak argument against Preterism.
Eusebius, the so-called father of church history, who lived in the fourth century AD also bought Josephus’ interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy as being fulfilled by the Romans. Because of its heavy reliance on the views of First Maccabees and Josephus, preterism may properly be called Maccabeanism or Josephusism.
Wrong again. We use these historians as illustrations. Josephus describes numerous events during the Jewish Wars that read very similar to what Jesus predicted in the Olivet Discourse. I doubt that he ever read Matthew. To call Preterism “Maccabeanism” and “Josephusism” is bold-faced deception! Preterism did not originate from the writings of Josephus, but Josephus describes, as an eyewitness, how the events Jesus predicted unfolded, and he wasn’t even trying to do so. We’re simply saying, “Notice how history supports the Preterist view”. How is that holding him up as an “authority”? I don’t care what Josephus wrote about the fulfillment of Daniel. Our concern is what he wrote concerning the “Jewish Wars”. Justice is critiquing Preterists by a false statement by Josephus that we don’t even agree with. Where is the logic in that?
In fact, that’s even how Protestants have viewed the books of Maccabees. We do not regard them to be on par with Scripture, but at the same time we do view then as a more or less accurate historical account of the events they portray. Are we Protestants, including Baptists, all now Maccabean? The idea is absurd. What Laurence Justice says of Preterists is just as absurd.
But I seem to see something else happening here. This is only my guess, but Justice seems to be implying that Preterism is somehow related to Roman Catholicism. I assume that, as a former Baptist pastor, he is very anti-Catholic. Of course, I agree in principle here. But associating Preterism with the book of 1 Maccabees smacks of an affinity with Catholicism, since Catholics are the ones who accept the Apocrypha as Scripture. In Baptist circles, like his target audience, those are negative buzzwords. Why else would he make those wrong associations? I won’t be the judge of that.
There is also another confusing thing here. Did Josephus believe that Daniel’s prophecies were fulfilled by the Maccabees or by the Romans? Justice states that Eusebius “bought Josephus’ interpretation of Daniel’s prophecy as being fulfilled by the Romans”, yet he claims that Josephus believed that they were fulfilled by the Maccabees, yet the last sentence implies that Preterists agree with Josephus. After all, he refers to some mythical “heavy reliance” on Maccabees, to the point of calling our view “Maccabean and Josephusism”. Why the double talk? Justice seems to be a very confused man.
Most Bible historians today recognize the Jesuit priest Alcasar who died in 1613 AD as being the originator of modern preterism. Other fairly well known preterists include F.W. Farrar, an Anglican clergyman who lived from 1831 to 1903 and was Chaplain to Queen Victoria and who in 1879 wrote “The Life & Works Of St. Paul” which is still studied today. Philip Mauro who worked and wrote in the early years of the twentieth century has been very influential among preterists. Leading Contemporary preterists include Max King and Ed Stevens who are both Campbellites.
Now he is associating Preterism with the Jesuits – a “dark side” of Catholicism. Let me be blunt; Jesus is the originator of modern Preterism, not Alcasar. If Jesus were not a Preterist, I would not be either. The Preterist view is based solidly on Scripture, though reading articles like this, people would never guess that it were possible. Laurence Justice is not giving an accurate enough review for anyone to make an informed decision. I once again refer you to my upcoming book, Bible Prophecy Like You’ve Never Heard It Before . . . but Should Have. [That is the title as I am writing it, but it may be subject to change, depending on the publisher.] I go into much more detail there.
Again, notice the attempted association of Preterism with Anglicans – very negative to Baptists. If that weren’t bad enough, he also associates Preterists with Campbellites, and that through full Preterists’ teaching! His bottom line seems, “Preterists are bad, bad, bad! They encompass everything evil!” Brother Laurence, in case you never noticed it before, as a Presbyterian, I am actually further removed from the Campbellites than you are as a Baptist. Probably the majority of Preterists are Presbyterian, though I don’t know that for sure. Should I call you a Campbellite because as a Baptist, you believe in baptism by immersion? My conscience wouldn’t allow me to do so. What’s wrong with your conscience?
Alarming to me is the fact that the present day upsurge of the twisted thinking of preterism is taking place largely, though not exclusively, among those who call themselves Baptists. Probably the most visible and vocal preterist today is John L. Bray of Lakeland, Florida who is a Southern Baptist evangelist. Bray’s book “The Rapture Of The Christian” is being mailed free to Southern Baptist pastors around the country and somehow a copy of it has fallen into my hands and I have recently finished reading it.
By the way, the post card which I mentioned at the outset of this message is actually an advertisement for something called the SOVEREIGN GRACE PRETERIST SEMINAR in San Diego, California, July 31-August 1, 1998 and the address for those with questions is KINGDOM OF SOVEREIGN GRACE in Sacramento, California.
I am not at all surprised that Preterism is gaining momentum in Baptist churches. Having once been a Baptist, and even a Baptist pastor, I know that Baptists are people of the Word. But you can’t get that close to the word and not start to see what it really says as opposed to what we were taught. Justice’s Baptist friends are finally getting it!
WHAT PRETERISM TEACHES
There are three major things preterists teach at which we shall look here. First, preterists teach That the prophecies of the book of Daniel have already been fulfilled. Preterism views Daniel 11 as being a history of Alexander the Great’s successors up to and including the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes in verses 21-32. Preterism says that Antiochus Epiphanes was the little horn of Daniel’s visions.
Preterism is not monolithic. Since Preterists are in many denominations, it may be so that some believe that the abomination of desolation occurred in the Intertestamental Period, but most believe the words of our Lord when He said in Matthew 24:15, When you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains.
Compare that to Luke 20:21&22 – But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled.
Preterists believe in a 1st Century fulfillment of Daniel, when, as quoting Jesus above, all things which are written will be fulfilled. It is not “preposterous” to believe Jesus’ words.
Whenever anyone says Antiochus was the fulfillment of any part of the book of Daniel, that person is either a preterist or has been influenced by preterism. Preterism rejects the application of Daniel’s writings to the second coming of Christ. Preterists find fulfillments of Daniel’s prophecies in persons and events which preceded even Christ’s first coming. Preterists would close the book of Daniel for good and keep it closed.
I’ve already dealt with straw man presented here. Preterism has little or nothing to do with Antiochus. The association is false.
But he ends this paragraph with a low blow. Believing that all Scripture is given by the inspiration of God, we do not “close the book of Daniel for good and keep it closed”. But interestingly, Daniel himself is told to conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time (Dan.12:4). Again, these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time (v.9). Then John is told, Do not seal up the prophecy of this book, for the time is near (Rev.22:9). Yet these are both describing the same events. Daniel was told to seal it up, because it’s about events that are going to happen in the end time, but John is told not to seal it up because it’s now near. 400 years is a long time compared to 5 years. So the remaining question is, “What is Revelation really about?”, which leads to Justice’s next point.
Secondly preterists believe that the prophecies of the book of Revelation have already been fulfilled. They don’t see any prophecies in the book having to do with a future coming of Jesus Christ. Instead these people hold that the book of Revelation is a record of the conflicts of the early churches with Judaism and paganism.
Here again, Justice is misleading us as to what Preterists believe. Yes, we do, with good reason, believe that the events of Revelation have already been fulfilled, but it is not true that we “don’t see any prophecies in the book having to do with a future coming of Christ”.
F.W. Farrar believed that Revelation was written in the summer of 68 AD and he actually said that the third section of the book, the “things which shall be hereafter,” all took place between 68 and 70 AD surrounding the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. According to Farrar everything in chapters 4 through 19 of Revelation took place in the troublous times when Nero began to persecute Christians in 64 AD.
That seems about right, though most Preterists lean toward an A.D.65 writing. What’s a few years difference? [Just an aside, it is improper to refer to it as 70 A.D. The proper way is A.D.70.] But most unlikely is the traditional A.D.90 writing. That is based on very scant evidence: one statement made by Iranaeus that didn’t actually say that Revelation was written in A.D.90, and we don’t really understand with certainty what he meant. Conversely, there is so much evidence for the earlier writing that I am just going to refer you to a book on that subject. I suggest you read Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, by Kenneth Gentry. I don’t want to rewrite his book here.
John L. Bray says in his book “The Rapture Of The Christian” that the tragic holocaust of 67 to 70 AD when the Romans crucified thousands of rebellious Jews was the great tribulation. Farrar saw the beast of Revelation 13 as being the emperor Nero and most shocking of all he said that “. . . the fall of Jerusalem (in 70 AD) was in the fullest sense, the Second Advent of the Son of Man . . .”
The late John Bray was right. [Just for the record, John Bray died in 2016 at the age of 94. ]And so is Farrar. Of course, that needs some explaining.
First of all, the terms “second coming” and “second advent” appear nowhere in Scripture. Go ahead, get out your Strong’s Concordance and see that for yourself. Jesus often referred to His “coming”. There are many passages throughout Scripture where God refers to His coming, but He never personally showed up. The question here is, “What did Jesus mean by His coming?”. Jesus referred tothe destruction of Jerusalem as His “coming”. But He also comes again at the end of time at the final resurrection, on what Jesus calls the last day. Both the destruction of Jerusalem and the final resurrection are referred to as “comings”. The difference is determined by the contexts in which the word is used. The “coming” Jesus refers to in the Olivet Discourse is the destruction of Jerusalem.
Actually, in his book, Matthew 24 Fulfilled, John Bray did a very good job explaining this. If I may say so myself, my upcoming book covers the topic very comprehensively. But if you can’t wait for its release, I suggest Bray’s book. Laurence Justice would never tell you how Preterists explain it. He would be shooting himself in the foot. If you can’t wait for the release of my book and you really want to know, let me suggest some other books to you.
-He Shall have Dominion, by Kenneth Gentry.
-Paradise Restored, by David Chilton.
-Last Days Madness, by Gary DeMar.
-If you want a good verse by verse commentary on the book of Revelation, I
suggest The Days of Vengeance, by David Chilton.
I’m merely trying to keep this work as short as possible by suggesting these books. I urge you to read them before passing judgment based on what others have said about them. See the other side that Laurence Justice is hiding. The Scriptural support is very strong.
Just briefly, the context of the Olivet Discourse of Matthew starts in Matthew 23. After Jesus pronounces judgment on the temple, His disciples ask about that as they were leaving the temple. Remember, the words “Chapter 24” were not in the original. The context is the desolation of the temple. Read the other books mentioned to get the whole picture of how the disciples were not asking three separate questions. In that context, they had no reason to ask about the end of the world (COSMOS), but the end of the age (AEONOS). In that same context, Jesus said, This generation will not pass away until all these things take place. With that statement, Jesus became the founder of Preterism.
I ask one favor: before you slough off what I just said, read the books I mentioned. Remember, it’s a strong case and I’m trying to be brief.
Farrar and other preterists say that the reason we know that Revelation has already been fulfilled is because of the word “quickly” which is used in Revelation 2:5,16,3:2,11:14 and 22:20. Let’s look at two of these uses of the word “quickly” just to see what these preterists are talking about. Look at Revelation 11:14. John is writing about the great Woes of the tribulation here when he says, “The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.” Now look at Revelation 22:20. “He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.” Preterists reason that if the Lord said he would come quickly He certainly would not have waited 2,000 years to come back.
I don’t know if the oversight was a convenience or not, but in his references to “quickly”, he left out the very beginning of the book, 1:1-3, where we are told twice within the first three verses of the book that the events would be soon. Verse 1 says, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place. Then in verse 3 He says, for the time is near. The first step toward understanding the book of Revelation is to believe it. If God wanted to talk about things that would soon take place, how else should He have said it?
Yes, Laurence, “if the Lord said he would come quickly He certainly would not have waited 2,000 [sic.] years to come back”. What would His words have meant to the 1st Century readers if they were about something 2000 years into the future?
Preterists teach that Jesus Christ returned in the year 70 AD when the Roman army conquered and destroyed Jerusalem. Here’s what John L. Bray in his book, “The Rapture Of Christians” says: “I have come to the conclusion that the event which we have termed ‘the Second Coming of Christ’ actually took place in the first century during that generation of people who lived in the time of Christ, according to the prophecy and predictions of both Jesus and the writers of the New Testament. All teaching, therefore, concerning the resurrection and judgment connected with the second coming of Christ must be studied and understood in the light of this context.”
Jesus did return in A.D.70, but not for the final time, as I mentioned above. But unlike Bray, who unfortunately, after writing some excellent books, became a full Preterist, partial Preterists do not include the resurrection and judgment. So please, Laurence, don’t put words in my mouth.
Here’s another quote from the same book: “When Christ came in 70 AD he raised all the Old Testament saints (from the dead) . . . the dead were raised then and the living Christians did not precede them. The living Christians also would be resurrected but at the time of their death, not at some long, distant, future time away . . . dead Christians were resurrected when Christ came in AD 70 . . .”
It’s tragic how far Bray fell from his previous position. We are told in Matthew 27:52&53, The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the tombs after His resurrection they entered the holy city and were seen by many. It did not say “all” Old Testament saints were raised.
“What happens to a Christian when he dies? He leaves his old body and receives his resurrection body at that time . . . Christians no longer have to wait until a future second coming of Christ to obtain their new bodies.”
Bray, if that is an accurate quote, seems unfamiliar with John 5:28 &29 that I cited earlier. There can be many days referred to as “last days’ (plural), but only one can be called the last day (singular), which is when Jesus said He would raise all those whom the Father gave Him (John 6:39, 40,44, 54).
The main point of all of John L. Bray’s writings seems to be that Jesus Christ returned as the Roman army to destroy Jerusalem in 70 AD. Joe V. Thomas said in the above quoted letter to pastors that “The judgment day occurred at the Second Coming in 70 AD.”
Here again, if this is an accurate quote, I do not agree with Joe V. Thomas. Let’s not erroneously assume that he speaks for partial Preterists. Justice wants to link us all together and present us as unorthodox. Partial Preterism is widely accepted in many conservative denominations, including the one I am presently in, the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). [This does not imply that I am forever remaining with the PCA.]
Preterists try to make Matthew 16:28 mean that Christ was predicting the time of his second coming to be in 70 AD. Note this verse. “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”
We don’t “try”. Did you notice that this is a very strong argument in favor of Preterism? If Jesus hasn’t come yet, where are these 2000 year old people hiding today? If He has not yet come and established His kingdom, these people he mentioned must still be alive! Yet Jesus Himself stated while still on earth, if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has come upon you (Mt.12:28, also in Lk.11:20).
In his book “Matthew 24 Fulfilled” John L. Bray says that the Lord Jesus was saying here in Matthew 16:28 that he would come back before some of his disciples died. Matthew 24:34 is a favorite proof text of preterists for teaching that Christ Himself said that he would return in 70 AD. Let’s turn to it. Matthew 16:28 Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. The Lord is speaking of his Second Coming here and He says, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”
Here again, Laurence has some explaining to do. Once you see that Jesus did actually refer to the destruction of Jerusalem as His coming, though not final, all the pieces fall into place. Many died by the time 40 years had passed, but not all. Some standing there lived to see those events.
Preterists reason that a generation is a period of forty years and since the Lord said that that generation would not pass away until all the things he had been saying about his return should be fulfilled, and since a generation was a period of forty years, forty years from the time the Lord made this statement would put the time at about 70 AD, therefore preterists conclude that the Lord Jesus was predicting that his return would be in 70 AD.
Jesus was indeed referring to the events of the Olivet Discourse as His coming. But that context does not include the final resurrection and judgment. He was referring to the 1 st Century signs leading up the thing they were asking Him about – the destruction of the temple that was being left to them desolate.
It is very true that Jesus made those statements about 40 years before the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70. Coincidence? I think not.
Along these lines John L. Bray says in the above quoted book, “Where do we get it from that there is yet in our future to be a Second Coming of Christ? Why would God put off for thousands of years into the future that which he promised would take place in that generation? It doesn’t really make sense does it? . . . Jesus and the writers of the New Testament clearly taught that the Second Coming of Christ would occur in their generation in that century.”
I believe I’ve already said enough to lay this issue to rest. John Bray, toward the end of his life, did not speak for all Preterists.
Finally and most importantly in this message on preterism is the matter of
WHAT GOD’S WORD TEACHES
First of all let us consider what the Word of God teaches about the book of Daniel. Prophetic events in this book have most definitely not all been fulfilled. As we have seen in our Sunday evening studies in Daniel, especially those in chapters 7, 8 & 10-12, these prophecies pertain to “the end” climaxing in the Second Coming of Christ, the destruction of the little horn or Antichrist, the restoration and conversion of Israel, the resurrection of the dead, the rewarding of the righteous and the reign of Christ on the earth. Events in Daniel 10-12 are specifically stated to be yet in the future. They are said in Daniel 11:40 to be “at the time of the end.”
There is a lot here to deal with! What we have here is a classic presentation of Pretribulational, Dispensational Premillennialism. I can’t do a study on five chapters of Daniel, but let me look at one point. The Bible, contrary to popular belief, never makes a connection of the little horn and Antichrist. Some may want to refute this, but they won’t be able to. It’s simply not there. In fact, while you’ve got out that Strong’s Concordance that I sent you to earlier, look up the word Antichrist. Only the Apostle John uses the term, and he doesn’t even use it in Revelation. In fact, you will notice that it never refers to a particular individual. John said to his 1 st Century readers that it was the last hour, and proof of that was the presence of many antichrist already present – IN THE 1 st CENTURY!
Also, you’ll notice that there is no connection of antichrist with the beast of Revelation. It’s just not there! How somebody who doesn’t really exist as a person could become the leader of a 10-nation European Confederacy is way beyond me.
Briefly, I will explain what is meant by at the time of the end. In the gospels and Acts, a major theme is the dissolving of Judaism and the establishment of the Church. We could say that it started with the announcement of John the Baptist’s birth and ends with the destruction of Jerusalem. In the Bible, that is referred to as the “end times”, “last days”, and so forth. [Honest, they are! My book and the others I mentioned prove it.] The reason is because they were the last days of the Old Covenant system: Judaism, temple worship, ceremonial law, etc.
Because it marked the end of Judaism, it was for Israel the “time of Jacob’s trouble”. It was “the Great Tribulation”. Read the books. See for yourself. Even John referred to himself as a fellow partaker in the tribulation (Rev.1:9). There is a definite article; don’t change the Bible.
This is decisive in denying preterist attempts to find Antiochus Epiphanes in this part of Daniel because Antiochus died 163 years before Christ came the first time. Also the Lord Jesus specifically states in Matthew 24:15 that the setting up of the abomination of desolation was still future when He (Christ) was living on earth. Turn to it. “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)” Antiochus could not possibly have set up the abomination of desolation in 164 BC because Jesus Christ, 194 years later, spoke of this event as still being future. No, the Lord Jesus Christ rejected the preterist view concerning the book of Daniel and nowhere do those who try to make Daniel entirely history fail more miserably than here in Daniel 10-12.
He’s attacking a non-existent enemy here, as I’ve already stated that that is not what we believe as Preterists. I don’t know why Justice is so fixated on Antiochus Epiphanes. Preterists aren’t.
Next let us consider what the word of God teaches about the book of Revelation. As we have pointed out, preterists teach that the prophecies in this book have all or mostly been fulfilled already. Revelation is a book of prophecy! Seven times the word prophecy is used to describe the contents of this book. Revelation 1:3 is one example. “Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” The other six instances are in Revelation 11:6, 19:10, 22:7,10, 18, 19.
There. He quoted it himself: the time is at hand. That requires an explanation that Justice did not supply. He comes close later on, but he still doesn’t really answer the dilemma.
His argument that it must be future because it’s “prophecy” is really found wanting. When it was written in A.D.65, it was prophecy. By A.D.70, it was fulfilled. Pointing out that Revelation is prophecy does no damage to the Preterist position.
Prophecy means two things: 1. It means forthtelling or proclaiming God’s message and 2. it means foretelling. Much prophecy is purely predictive. Chapters 4-19 of Revelation refer to the same seven year period as does the seventieth week of Daniel 9:20-27, the tribulation. This part of Revelation had not been fulfilled as of the writing of the book of Revelation because Revelation still speaks of the tribulation as being future at the time when Revelation was written.
He once again had made some connections that the Bible never made. Dispensationalists refer to the Great Tribulation Period as the 70 th week of Daniel. They made that up; the Bible never made such a claim. Scripture nowhere separates the 70 th Week of Daniel from the rest.
The Lord’s great prophetic discourse in Matthew 24-25 which has much to say about the coming tribulation is also mostly still future as far as its fulfillment and thus is in harmony with the book of Revelation. Everything from the fourth chapter to the end of the book of Revelation is still future but preterism renders both Daniel and Revelation meaningless to us because it makes both of these books speak only of events which took place in the far distant past either in the Inter Testamental period or in the first century after Christ.
Now he is really babbling. Just because the prophecies were fulfilled does not make them meaningless. No part of Scripture is meaningless. This is all about our spiritual heritage as Christians.
However, a futurist view makes the prophecies “meaningless” to all the generations up to ours. What “blessed hope” was the rapture for 50 generations of Christians up to ours, especially those who went through times of intense persecution. But if we interpret prophetic events properly, it does become the blessed hope for all believers in all centuries, because we all have hope that there will be a final resurrection of our bodies. [There’s more in my upcoming book and in the suggested books.]
Thirdly let us consider here what God’s word says about the Second Coming of Christ. The book of Revelation is all about the Second Coming of Christ, His personal appearing. Seven times Revelation states that Christ will come again. Revelation 1:7, 2:25, 3:3, 3:11, 22:7, 12,& 20. The book of Revelation opens with “he cometh” in 1:7 and closes in 22:20 with “Even so, come Lord Jesus. The apostle John actually wrote the Revelation in 95 or 96 AD, 25 years after the preterists say that Christ returned in 70 AD. Something is wrong with their dates, fatally wrong as far as their system is concerned.
Nobody is doubting that Jesus said He would come again. Nobody is doubting that He will come again. But that is never called the “second” coming, or third or anything else. The book of Revelation is not all about the “second” coming of Christ. It is not about His personal appearing. It’s about His coming in judgment – a very biblical theme throughout Scripture.
He is in error about the dating of Revelation. The only support for the late writing of Revelation is one obscure statement by Irenaeus. We don’t even know for sure what he meant, and he never actually stated that Revelation was written late. But there is an abundance of internal evidence in the book of Revelation to warrant an A.D.65 writing. I’ve read the books, and I’ve seen it. You should do the same. It’s overwhelming.
Turn to Revelation 1:7. “Behold, he cometh (or is yet to come – future tense) with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.” Acts 1:11 says that when the Lord Jesus ascended into heaven after his resurrection his disciples saw him as he went and the angel told them the the Lord would come back that very same way as they had seen him go. “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”
If Christ came back in 70 AD, why did no one see Him? If some did see Him why did they not say that they had seen Him? Why didn’t anyone see him come back if he came the same manner in which he went away? Revelation 1:7 says that when Christ comes back every eye shall see him but nothing like this happened in 70 AD nor at any other time from that day till this. How will we know when the Lord Jesus comes back? God’s word says that we shall see Him and if we see Him we won’t have to be told that he has come back. How in the world can preterists expect us to see the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD as the Second Coming of Christ?
Justice is confused over the word “coming”, but I believe I’ve already explained this. When He came back in judgment, everyone did see him. They saw the Roman armies and the destruction of Jerusalem.
But that’s not as good as what is going to happen at the end of history on the last day. Every eye will see him, because every eye will have been resurrected and they will all be standing before Him. He will then be here bodily.
Several verses promise that Christ’s coming will be “quickly.” For example the Lord Jesus says in Revelation 22:7, “Behold, I come quickly . . .” Because of such statements preterists say that this just adds to the evidence that Christ came back within forty years from the time he said this. Well, it may not appear to us that the Lord is coming quickly or shortly because 2,000 years have elapsed since these words were spoken and still they have not been fulfilled. But II Peter 3:8-9 answers these “quickly” arguments. Here the scripture says, “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. The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long-suffering to us- ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” Peter says here that God measures time differently than we do and time means nothing to Him. What seems like an eternity to us is but the blink of an eye with Him. In Matthew 24:34 where the Lord was talking about His return and events surrounding that return He says, “Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.”
It sure does add to the evidence that Jesus has come back.
By Justice’s “reasoning”, the Millennium will be only one day long. After all, Peter didn’t just say that one day is as 1000 years, he also said that 1000 years is as a day. You say, “How ridiculous!” And you’re right. God is communicating truth to finite man. Just because God is infinite doesn’t mean that He plays the “eternity card” with us in communicating with us. If that were so, we couldn’t know anything the Bible was saying.
Peter wrote that a day is as 1000 years, not is 1000 years. Peter is here referring to those who were skeptical concerning Christ’s return. A short time after that, the skeptics were silenced. He came, and it was brutal.
But when something as exact as this generation enters into the scenario, it changes everything. We would not be saying that Jesus didn’t know, but that He was wrong. I believe the words of Christ; He came in that generation.
The word generation does not, as the preterists claim, refer to a period of forty years time. Instead it refers to what we call a progeny or offspring or issue. Often in his earthly ministry the Lord Jesus spoke of a wicked, perverse, crooked, adulterous generation or progeny meaning people with the same attributes and character. “Generation” in Matthew 24:34 does not mean forty years of time but progeny. This progeny, this wicked offspring with these wicked characteristics, shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled.
Dispensationalists have been jumping through this hoop for a long time. Get out that concordance. Or better yet, get out a Greek concordance. How does the Bible use the word generation? Justice is making the same error as his predecessor C.I. Scofield. The word for “generation” is GENEA. The word for “race” is GENOS. If Jesus wanted to use the word “race”, He would have said GENOS. But He said GENEA. Try to apply the word “race” to all the places where the word GENEA is used. It just doesn’t work. Did Jesus suddenly change the meaning of the word in Matthew? We are not allowed to change the meaning of Bible words to make them fit into our own ideologies.
Now look at Mark 13:32. Here the Lord Jesus says in speaking of his return, “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” Here the Lord says that during his earthly ministry not even He Himself knew the date of his return. But the preterists contradict the Lord Jesus and say that he actually did know when he would return and that he actually predicted what they call the “time frame” of his coming. Listen, a forty year “time frame” is still a time. It is still a date so the preterists have the Lord predicting the time of his return even though he had said that he did not know that time.
A 2000 year time frame is still a time. And Jesus really did say this generation. Here Justice is actually implicating Jesus! A time frame is not a day or hour. Pastor Justice, learn the difference.
It also appears that Justice is trying to associate Preterism with all the loonies that set dates for Christ’s return. Some of the most outspoken people against setting dates are the Preterists. If He had actually read Preterist materials, he would have known this.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, preterism tends to destroy any future significance of Bible prophecy and reduces that prophecy to little more than a literary or historical curiosity with little if any meaning for today.
He is so far off the mark here. The Bible has a lot to say about what is still future. Just because we understand certain prophecies to be Preterist, we do not disregard the other things.
And since when is there no significance to history? The destruction of Jerusalem was when the kingdom of God was taken away from Israel and given to the Church. That is very significant history! It gives saints today their covenant relationship with God as His people.
Worst of all, preterism takes away the blessed hope from God’s people and thus robs God’s people of their comfort and encouragement as they face the difficulties and trials and troubles of this old wicked world.
As I said earlier, Justice has no problem taking away the blessed hope from all generations up to ours, but don’t you dare take it away from us!
In light of the clear statements of God’s word then, preterism is truly preposterous!
Far from being preposterous, Preterism is the only way to make sense out of many Scripture passages. Laurence Justice has referred to the truth as being “preposterous”. He should not be taken seriously.
MY CONCLUSION
Laurence A. Justice, posting an article like this publically was very unethical and does much harm to the body of Christ. Shame on you! You are unnecessarily dividing the body of Christ with false teaching. We are told to keep your eye on those who cause dissensions . . . and turn away from them (Rom.16:17).
If this were merely a difference of biblical interpretation, I would not use such strong language. It is all your unsubstantiated accusations and misrepresentations that are the problem. It is clear that you did not read your source materials very carefully, if at all, or you would have written quite differently. In fact, you may have even become a Preterist.
Those of us who name the name of Christ are obligated to tell the truth. You may be a very nice person and I hope you were used greatly in your years as a pastor. But I believe that you owe many brothers in the body of Christ an apology.
And for Victory Baptist Church, you should remove this article from your website. With all of its misrepresentations and errors, it is very misleading. Removing it would be the ethical thing to do.