GOSPEL ESCHATOLOGY
A “BETTER RESURRECTION”
JESUS PROMISED
TO RETURN IN THE LIFETIME AND GENERATION OF THE INSPIRED N.T. WRITERS - IN A.D. 70 HE KEPT HIS PROMISE!
By: Michael
J. Sullivan
Copyright Notice: Copyright 2005. All rights reserved by Michael
J. Sullivan. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any way without the written permission of the author.
This work is still in process and has not been edited. Although I plan to offer this book free online I would still appreciate
the Christian reader to cite my work properly and legally. Thank you for your understanding and love in Christ. In the past
I myself have not properly cited my sources and having taken the time to write my own book I now understand the importance
in giving respect to those who have taken a lot of time and effort to read, research, and document their hard
work.
109
Sovereign grace
GOSPEL ESCHATOLOGY
A “BETTER RESURRECTION”
“And you will be
hated by all for My name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. "When they persecute you in this city,
flee to another. For assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel
before the Son of Man comes” (Mt.10:22-23).
“For the Son of
man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 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” (Mt.16:27-28).
“Verily I say unto
you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” (Mt.24:34).
“But the
end of all things is at hand: be ye therefore sober, and watch unto prayer.”
“For yet a little
while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry” (Heb.10:37).
“The Revelation
of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass;
and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John” (Rev.1:1).
1) THE QUESTION TO “END”
ALL QUESTIONS: WHO’S REALLY “CONFUSED,” “MISTAKEN,” OR “IGNORING” THE DISCIPLES
QUESTIONS ABOUT “THE END OF THE AGE” – THE DISCIPLES OR JOHN MACARTHUR, THOMAS ICE, KENNETH GENTRY, R.C.
SPROUL, N.T. WRIGHT…?
Virtually every futuristic eschatological view
interprets the Olivet Discourse to be addressing two prophecies: 1) The destruction of Jerusalem
and her temple in A.D. 70, and 2) A future return of Jesus to destroy the planet, end time, or bring an end to the current
Christian age. Because they all fail to consistently take the discourse in its original context and see that the judgment
upon Jerusalem and the destruction of her temple in A.D. 70 is the same thing as the end of the old covenant age,
they can never agree on what verses address AD 70 events and what verses address alleged future ones. A classic example of
this futuristic confusion over identifying which events speak to A.D. 70 events and which ones are alleged future events can
be found in the written debate between premillennial dispensatioanalist author Thomas Ice and reformed postmillennial partial
preterist author Kenneth Gentry in the their book, THE GREAT TRIBULATION PAST OR FUTURE? I will be interacting with
both of these authors throughout my interpretation of the Olivet Discourse since they have both sought unsuccessfully to disprove
exegetical preterism or my favorite term – Gospel Eschatology. I will also be refuting my former Pastor, College President,
and author John MacArthur. MacArthur has also come out in print attempting to disprove my view and the view of another former
pastor and friend of mine Ward Fenley. Therefore, I will examine MacArthur’s claims that Jesus “virtually ignores”
the disciples questions about the destruction of the temple and his eisegesis of the discourse in general. I will be interacting
with a wide rage of positions and authors but primarily Thomas Ice, John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar,
and N.T. Wright.
As far as a flow and topics to be considered
in our exegesis of (Mt.24:3), I will be answering the question of whether or not the disciples were “confused”
on associating Christ’s return with the destruction of the temple and thus identifying what “end of the age”
they were asking about in light of Jesus prediction of the destruction of the temple. In identifying what “end of the
age” the disciples are asking about it is imperative to go back through Matthew’s gospel to identify what Jesus
taught them concerning the time frame of His return (Mt.10:17-23; Mt.16:27-28) and the declarations of Jesus’ ministry
of an “at hand kingdom.” It is at this point that the theme of John the Baptist’s declarations of an “at
hand” kingdom, judgment, and harvest/resurrection will be woven in and out throughout this section.
My exegetical propositions and presuppositions
for debate with any of the authors I cite and refute in this book are as follows:
1. The
disciples were not confused in associating the return of Christ
with the destruction of the temple and the end of the age. Nor did Jesus “ignore” their questions or interject
a second topic – the end of the physical planet or the end of time. Nor did Jesus go on to discuss something that they
never asked about – the end of the planet earth and time as we know it.
2. In
the immediate context, the “end of the age” in association with the temples destruction is speaking
to the end of the old covenant age or the mosaic age of the law and not the end of the Christian age.
1. The
context of Daniel’s prophecy predicted the abominations and desolation or destruction of the temple as the time when
the judgment, tribulation, inheriting the kingdom, and the resurrection of the dead would be fulfilled (Dan.7; Dan.9:24-27;
Dan.12:1-7).
2. According
to Jesus and Daniel, these texts were predictions dealing with the “holy people” and the destruction of their
temple as the point in redemptive history that would mark the “the time of the end” (not the end of time!),
and would consummate all of the eschatological promises made to Israel
in the law and prophets (Mt.24:15-34; Lk.21:20-32).
3. The
“end of the age” was predicted to occur by Jesus within the contemporary “this generation”
of the first century church (Mt.24:34).
3. Theologically
and contextually, the phrase “end of the age” or similar N.T. phrases NEVER speak to the end of the Christian
or new covenant age but always to the end of the old covenant or Mosaic age of the law. Jesus’ “this age”
judgment and harvest/resurrection in (Mt.13:49) is the identical “at hand” judgment and harvest/resurrection John
had warned of earlier in the gospel of Matthew (Mt.3:2; 10-12).
4. Therefore,
what was LITERALLY “at hand” for John the Baptist as the Elijah to come to prepare the way for the “great
and dreadful day of the Lord” was likewise LITTERALLY “at hand” in the N.T. writers day and spoke to Christ
returning in judgment in A.D. 70 (Jms.5:7-9; 1Pet.4:5; 7; 17; Heb.9:26-28/Heb.10:37). The “at hand” coming of
the messianic kingdom at the “end of the age” was neither “postponed” nor different than the kingdoms
arrival at the “at hand” second coming. The time statements in the gospel’s and the N.T. are addressing
a literal “near” fulfillment and are not to be spiritualized away based on a twisting of (2Pet.3:8). Nor are the
time statements to be “projected” past A.D.70 (1Pet.1:4-12; 1Cor.10:11). Any attempt to do so is to “go
beyond what is written.”
I will have to deal with a wide rage of futurists
errors over what age would end at Christ’s parousia and which one would take it’s place. Because futurists can’t
agree upon what verses are A.D. 70 events and which ones speak of an alleged future return of Jesus and they seem to be divided
at times as to the meaning of the “end of the age,” it will take some time to sort through the various views and
point out the flaws in each of them. Most futurists cannot deal with the straight forward statements of Jesus in the discourse
that state “all these things” would be fulfilled in Jesus’ “this generation.” And for those
futurists that have attempt to take a biblical definition of “this generation” in the Olivet Discourse as speaking
to A.D. 70 events -- are then forced to interpret “all these things” as “some of these things”
or they end up with the doctrine of two second comings, one to destroy Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (Mt. 24:1-34) and another one
in the alleged future (Mt. 24:36f.). At this point the reader is saying, “Man this is going to be confusing!”
And yes, thank you for making my next point which is, the interjection of a topic that isn’t in the text to begin with
- “the end of the Christian age” or planet earth, as opposed to the end of the OC age, makes the discourse very
difficult to understand let alone explain, chart out, and refute the many faulty approaches that have sought to interact with
preterist theologians.
Upon reading Paradise Restored
on one of my breaks from The Master’s College I traveled to David Chilton’s home and began asking him many questions
as to why he seemed to divide the OD into two different comings of Christ. I struggled why David didn’t go any farther
in the OD in his writings than he did and I struggled with his lack of an answer to my straight forward questions. David didn’t
even bother answering the questions I gave him on any exegetical level let alone had much to say about them, but simply smiled
and said, “It sounds to me like you need to read a book by James Russell.” Of course I wasn’t real impressed
with the interaction of my new eschatological hero at the time, but I did take his advise and began to read Russell’s
exegesis of Mt.24 – 25 and felt like a burden rolled off my back! Here was a man that had written an exegesis of Mt.24
– 25 that was not divided into two different comings of Christ – but one. So in honor of him and David Chilton
who eventually made it through the smile of being a partial preterist in writing but a closet full preterist in conscience
and then eventually in writing and public testimony as well, I shall quote Russell here at length in order to identify what
“end of the age” the disciples asked about and what “end” is consistently discussed throughout the
discourse and the rest of the N.T for that matter:
“It is not easy
for the ordinary reader to follow the ingenious critic through his convoluted scheme; but it is plain that the disciples must
have been hopelessly bewildered amidst a rush of crises and catastrophes from the fall of Jerusalem
to the end of the world. Perhaps we shall be told, however, that it does not signify whether the disciples understood our
Lord’s answer or not: it was not to them that He was speaking; it was to future ages, to generations yet unborn, who
were destined, however, to find the interpretation of the prophecy as embarrassing to them as it was to the original bearers.
There are no words too strong to repudiate such a suggestion. The disciples came to their Master with a plain, straightforward
inquiry, and it is incredible that He would mock them with an unintelligible riddle for a reply. It is to be presumed that
the Saviour meant His disciples to understand His words, and it is to be presumed that they did understand them.
3. The interpretation
which we are considering appears to be founded upon a misapprehension of the question put to our Lord by the disciples, as
well as of His answer to their question.
It is generally assumed
that the disciples came to our Lord with three different questions, relating to different events separated from each other
by a long interval of time; that the first inquiry, ‘When shall these things be?’—had reference to
the approaching destruction of the temple; that the second and third question—, ‘ What shall be the sign of thy
coming, and of the end of the world?’—referred to events long posterior to the destruction of Jerusalem, and, in fact, not yet accomplished. It is supposed that our Lord’s reply conforms itself to this threefold inquiry, and that
this gives the shape to His whole discourse. Now, let it be considered how utterly improbable it is that the disciples should
have had any such scheme of the future mapped out in their minds. We know that they had just been shocked and stunned by their
Master’s prediction of the total destruction of the glorious house of God on which they had so recently been gazing
with admiration. They had not yet had time to recover from their surprise, when they came to Jesus with the inquiry, ‘When
shall these things be?’ etc. Is it not reasonable to suppose that one thought possessed them at that moment—the
portentous calamity awaiting the magnificent structure, the glory and beauty of Israel?
Was that a time when their minds would be occupied with a distant future? Must not their whole soul have been concentrated
on the fate of the temple? And must they not have been eager to know what tokens would be given of the approach of the catastrophe?
Whether they connected in their imagination the destruction of the temple with the dissolution of the creation, and the
close of human history, it is impossible to say; but we may safely conclude, that the uppermost thought in their mind
was the announcement which the Lord had just made, ‘Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon
another which shall not be thrown down.’ They must have gathered from the Saviour’s language that this catastrophe
was imminent; and their anxiety was to know the time and the tokens of its arrival. St. Mark and St. Luke make the question
of the disciples refer to one event and one time—‘When shall these things be, and what shall be
the sign when all these things shall be fulfilled?’ It is not only presumable, therefore, but indubitable, that the
questions of the disciples only refer to different aspects of the same great event. This harmonises the statements
of St. Matthew with those of the other Evangelists, and is plainly required by the circumstances of the case.
4. The interpretation
which we are discussing rests also upon an erroneous and misleading conception of the phrase, end of the world, (age) [sunteleia
ton aiwnov]. It is not surprising that mere English readers of the New Testament should suppose that this phrase really means
the destruction of the material earth; but such an error ought not to receive countenance from men of learning. We have already
had occasion to remark that the true signification of aiwn is not world, but age; that, like its Latin equivalent
aevum, it refers to a period of time: thus, ‘the end of the age’ [sunteleia ton aiwnov] means the close
of the epoch or Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those passages which
speak of ‘the end’ [to telov] ‘the end of the age,’ or, ‘the ends of the ages’[h sunteleia
tou aiwnov ta telh twn aiwnwn], refer to the same consummation, and always as nigh at hand. In #1Co 10:11, St. Paul says ‘The ends of the ages have stretched out to us;’ implying, that
he regarded himself and his readers as living near the conclusion of an aeon, or age.
So, in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, we find the remarkable expression: ‘Now, once, close upon the end of the ages’ (erroneously rendered,
The end of the world), ‘hath be appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself’; {#Hev 9:26} clearly
showing that the writer regarded the incarnation of Christ as taking place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period.
To suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to
make him write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true in fact; for the world has already lasted longer
since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. It
is futile, therefore, to say that the ‘end of the age’ may mean a lengthened period, extending from the incarnation
to our own times, and even far beyond them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The aeon, of which our Lord
was speaking was about to close in a great catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a definitive and
culminating act. We are compelled, therefore, to conclude that the ‘end of the age,’ or [sunteleia ton aiwnov]
refers solely to the approaching termination of the Jewish age or dispensation.1
We all know that in archery
if one is the slightest bit off in his aim of the target at the outset, by the time the arrow reaches the point of destination
it is quite removed from the bull’s-eye. In the case of futurism in claiming that the Olivet Discourse and the destruction
of the temple is somehow describing the end of the church age instead of the “end” of the OC or Mosaic age of
the law, futurists aren’t even attempting to aim at the bull’s-eye but are rather shooting into the crowd and
maiming anyone attending their performance. To miss the context and bulls-eye of identifying the “end of the age”
with the OC age and the one to replace it as the “age about to come” as the NC Christian age, is to miss THE TIME
FRAME AND MEANING OF EVERY ESCHATOLOGICAL PASSAGE IN THE BIBLE. I will go one step further and say if one misses it here on
their eschatology, they have missed it in the soteriology as well. Are you sitting there thinking to yourself, “Hey
man I’m a Calvinist and understand my soteriology! Maybe I’m still working through my eschatology but that’s
okay.” No it’s not “okay” and if you don’t adhere to gospel eschatology, you not only do not
consistently believe in the sovereignty of God, but you proclaim a Christ who FAILED. I reject the Christ of Arminianism who
cannot save all He came to save, and I reject the futurist Christ who cannot save all He came to save WHEN He promise to save
them! One cannot separate their soteriology from their eschatology – this kind of thinking has surfaced from a systematic
theology approach to Scripture rather than developing a progressive redemptive approach.
The futurists first and most crucial
error in seeking to defend that the OD is about the end of the planet and church age and not the OC age, other than just assuming
it, is to try and create a problem that isn’t in the text and they will go on to “fix” that problem
with their particular brand of futurism. They state that the disciples were “confused” in thinking that
the destruction of the temple they were looking at and the one Jesus is stating will be destroyed in their generation - A.D.
70 has anything to do with his parousia or the “end of the age.” If they can persuade their audience that the
disciples were “confused” in thinking that the destruction of the temple somehow meant the end of the planet earth,
then they can come along a “fix” their confusion for us – thereby slipping in this alleged second topic
(the end of time) into the discourse at this early stage. I will demonstrate that this is a purely an eisegetical assumption
that cannot be proven and rips the OD out of it’s immediate context and the context of the entire Bible for that matter.
But first let’s examine those who are guilty of this folly before giving an answer to them lest they think they are
wiser than the disciples and our Lord in the Discourse. Let’s take a look at how a “PhD” “prophecy
expert” attempts to make the case that the Olivet Discourse is addressing two prophesied events and not one. Please
pay close attention at how these writers create a problem that is not in the text and then their approaches to “fix”
it. Within these quotes are some excellent admissions that I will use later on:
“However, they (the disciples) were wrong to relate the impending judgment upon
Jerusalem and the Temple with
the return of Messiah.”
“The disciples apparently thought that all three elements - the destruction
of the Temple, the sign of Christ’s coming, and the
end of the age - would occur at the same time. Yet this is not what Jesus was saying.”
“The disciples asked Jesus, “Tell us, when will these things be…? (Matthew
24:3). Thus, the first question relates to the destruction of the Temple
in A.D. 70.” 2
"J. Dwight Pentecost
tells us: 'The questions showed that they had arrived at certain conclusions… To these men Christ's words concerning
the destruction of Jerusalem was the destruction predicted
by Zechariah that would precede the advent of the Messiah. In Jewish eschatology two ages were recognized:
the first was this present age, the age in which Israel was waiting for the coming of the Messiah; the second was the age
to come, the age in which all of Israel's covenants would be fulfilled and Israel would enter into her promised blessing as
a result of Messiah's coming.'3
"Stanley
Toussaint echoes this notion: 'This sequence is so clearly in view that Luke records the question concerning the destruction
of Jerusalem only (Luke 21:7). That is, the
disciples took the destruction of Jerusalem to be completely
eschatological. Therefore, Luke records this question only, as though Jerusalem's
destruction would mark the coming of the King to reign. Bruce is correct when he asserts, 'The questioners took for
granted that all three things went together: destruction of temple, advent of Son of Man, end of the current age"
“While the disciples merged these three events into a single time period, Christ
did not. In fact, Matthew and Mark do not deal with the destruction of Jerusalem
in their accounts of the Olivet Discourse (what?!?). Rather, they focus upon the future days of tribulation leading up
to Christ’s return. Only in Luke’s account do we find Christ’s comments about Jerusalem’s impending destruction (21:20-24). But Luke goes on to deal with future
days of tribulation and Christ’s return as well (21:25-36). For whatever reason, Matthew and Mark’s entire focus
is upon Jesus’ answer regarding “the sign of [His] coming, and of the end of the age.”4
According to Ice’s erroneous presuppositions
that he imposes upon the text, the disciples ask “mistaken” questions that for “whatever reason”
(Ice’s dispensational “reasons”) Jesus doesn’t address at all in Matthew or Mark but arbitrarily does
in Luke! He admits that in Matthew and Mark the disciples ask about the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem in regards
to “when will these things be…”, but then states that Matthew and Mark in their accounts NOT ONCE
deal with the A.D. 70 “these things” which are GRAMATICALLY LINKED to “…and what will be the
sign of your coming and the end of the age?” It is impossible to separate the phrase “these things”
from “the signs” “the coming” and “the end of the age” that the disciples asked about!
Jesus clearly goes on to discuss in Matthew, Mark, and Luke the “when will these things be” and they are
inseparable linked with “the end” (“end of the age”), the signs, and Christ’s coming! And “all
these things” would be fulfilled in the contemporary generation of Jesus and the disciples (Mt. 24:34, Mrk. 13:30, Lk.
21:32). This is a deplorable attempt at exegesis of the parallel harmony of the Olivet Discourse among the gospel writers
indeed.
To suggest that the “these things”
in Luke’s account is not the same “these things” in Matthew’s and Mark’s is simply untenable
and we will cover this faulty approach more when we get to that section of the discourse but I can’t help but cover
some of it here. Ice realizing that he has to find some reference to the A.D. 70 prediction to the disciples question “when
will these things be…,” arbitrarily decides that Luke’s desolation and the flight of the Jews from
Judea in that account is a DIFFERENT desolation and flight from Judea than the ones recorded
in Matthew and Mark’s accounts. In Luke Jesus says that the flight and desolation He speaks of is in fulfillment of
“all of the prophets.” In Matthew and Mark’s accounts, Jesus says it’s in fulfillment of Daniel’s
prophecy. How in the name of reason can one make these speak of two different events separated by thousands of years?!?
Obviously “Daniel’s prophecy” is included in “all of the prophets!” According to Jesus
did Daniel foretell two “time of the end” abomination of desolations in which the disciples were to flee
the city when they saw it’s approaching fulfillment with the Zealot or Roman armies (Dan. 9:27, 12:11; Mt.24:15f.; Lk.21:20f.)?
The pure exegetical observation and obvious reading of the text is that He did not. It doesn’t take a PhD to figure
out that Luke describes the same abomination of desolation and flight that Matthew and Mark do, but differently do to his
gentile audience. And before leaving this issue, somehow the “you” throughout the Olivet Discourse in Matthew
and Mark according to Ice’s eisegesis is not an audience related to the disciples or their contemporaries, nor does
the “you” speak of them in Lk. 21:8-19, only does “you” take on a contemporary meaning in (Lk.21:20
- 24), and then magically “poof” from (vss. 25f.) they somehow refer to people 2000 + years away.
John MacArthur in his book attempting to refute
preterism or gospel eschatology, makes similar assumptions upon the text and Jesus’ reply to the disciples that I find
disturbing not only on an exegetical level, but on a moral level:
“Whether they fully realized
it or not, the disciples were actually raising multiple questions in Matthew 24:3. “When will these things be?”
refers to the destruction of the temple and the events surrounding that catastrophe. “What will be the sign of Your
coming, and of the end of the age?” deals with a larger eschatological subject – the question of how Christ’s
victorious coming as Israel’s Messiah
fits into the whole prophetic timetable.
As we shall see in chapters to come,
Jesus’ answers by no means erased all the mystery from those questions. The interpretation of the Olivet Discourse
is no easy undertaking.5
Hence according to MacArthur,
“…Christ’s only
explicit remarks about the destruction of the temple are those recorded in verse 2, as Jesus and the disciples were departing
from the temple (v.1). In the Olivet Discourse itself He makes no clear reference to the events of A.D. 70. His entire
reply is an extended answer to the more important question about the signs of His coming and the end of the age. Virtually
ignoring their initial question, He said nothing whatsoever about when the destruction of Jerusalem
would occur. That is because those events were not really germane to the end of the end of the age. They were merely
a foretaste of the greater judgment that would accompany His return, previews of what is to come ultimately.”6
Wow, Jesus “ignores” their question
and does not tell the disciples when the destruction of Jerusalem
would occur because it wasn’t really that important!?! The only “mystery” here is how MacArthur can’t
see that the OT prophets taught that when the temple was destroyed and judgment rendered upon Jerusalem
was the event that would mark and bear witness of “Christ’s victorious coming as Israel’s Messiah!” The “end” that the disciples are asking
about in regards to the destruction of the temple and the “end” that Jesus discusses throughout the discourse
(hardly “ignoring” it!), is found in (Dan.9:24-27; Dan.12). When judgment of the “Holy
City” and thus the abominations and a desolation of Her temple occurs is when
Messiah comes in His victory and consummates ALL not some of Israel’s
salvation promises! Therefore MacArthur with some eisegetical slight of hand seeks to minimize the destruction of the temple
in A.D. 70 (Jesus allegedly “ignoring it”) so that he can replace the temple that is under discussion
by Jesus and the disciples with the destruction of another future temple associated with a future tribulation period
somewhere at the end of the Christian age which he obviously has to read into the context with his dispensational “previews”
of things to come. It is very clear at this early point that John MacArthur is imposing his carnal dispensational system upon
the text and thus violating all sound and normal rules of hermeneutics. John’s statements are not just completely removed
from the context of Jesus bring up the temple, the context of the disciples question about that temple, the context of Jesus
answering their question, the context of Daniel’s prophecy, but the context of all the OT prophets - because they ALL
predicted their fulfillments to come in the disciples day and generation (Lk.21:22/Mt.24:15/1Pet.1:4-12/1Cor.10:11) and were
NEVER described as “foretastes” or “previews” of something more “ultimate” to come! As
Christian’s apparently we are in need of ANOTHER BIBLE, The MacArthur Study Bible to teach us these things since
we can’t seem to be finding them from the teachings of Christ or His inspired writiers of the NT!
The disciples were not “mistaken”
nor did Jesus “ignore” their questions per Ice and MacArthur, for they and Jesus understood that the destruction
of the temple they were looking at would bring an “end” to the Jewish or OC age. Ice is quite correct though in
quoting Dwight Pentecost when he states that the Jews understood from the prophets that there were only two ages -
“this age” (the OC age), and then the one to come - ushered in by Messiah (the NC age). Daniel clearly prophesied
it and Jesus reinforced Daniel’s teaching. Both Daniel and Jesus clearly taught that when the “time of the
end” which was also described as when “the power of the holy people was completely shattered” [the temple
and judgment upon Jerusalem], was when “all of these things”, that is all of the eschatological things [The judgment,
abomination of desolation, great tribulation, & resurrection would occur (Dan. 12:1-7à Mt. 10:17-23à Mt. 13:40-49à Mt. 24:15-34=Lk. 21:20-32). So no the disciples
were not “mistaken” in either understanding Daniel’s prophecy or Jesus’ teaching leading up to His
Olivet Discourse concerning the “end of the age.” Jesus clearly asked the disciples if they understood His teaching
on the parables concerning the kingdom and the “end of the age” and they stated:
“Jesus said to
them, Have you understood all these things? They say unto him, Yes, Lord.” (Mt. 13:50)
It is clear that the disciples understood Jesus’
teaching about the resurrection and kingdom occuring at then end of “this age” (v.40) as the OC age - the one
in which they were living and the one that was experiencing the harvest/resurrection (Jn.4). According to futurists the NC
age (their alleged “this age”) hadn’t even begun yet so how can “this age” even remotely be
considered the Christian age!?! The only ones “mistaken” and “confused” on the identity of the “end
of the age” are futurists in their various degrees.
In dealing with the Dispensationalists statements
and to a certain degree partial preterists, the variations of the questions in Matthew are due to his Jewish audience as even
the additional use of parables (over that of Mark and Luke’s accounts) would validate. Any good Jew knew that according
to Daniel's prophecy the destruction of the temple and the coming of the Son of Man would be the "time of the end."
If Matthew is recording a second and separate question [per futurist and some partial preterists such as Greg Bahnsen and
others] regarding a completely different topic “and the end of the age/world,” then this would portray Mark and
Luke as fools to miss such very important information on Christ's teaching in the Olivet Discourse. More importantly,
the Holy Spirit would have only brought back to remembrance Jesus' teaching concerning “things to come” for Matthew
but failed to bring them to Mark and Luke's remembrance in regard to a major question introducing the alleged “second
topic.” Besides if according to Thomas Ice Matthew and Mark are in harmony in predominately addressing only the future
second coming associated with the end of the planet, then why doesn’t Mark like Matthew record this from the beginning
in the form of the question? According to Ice’s unsound theory, if it were to be recognized, we might consider Luke’s
omission of “and the end of the age?” (Since he is the only one allegedly dealing with some A.D. 70 events - per
Ice) but if Matthew and Mark are so in tune with each other in regard to post A.D. 70 second coming events then we would expect
that harmony in the form of the questions as well.
Remember we today have the privilege of reading all three
accounts but most likely the readers of Mark and Luke had to rely on those accounts alone. Mark and Luke correctly gave
their readers the accurate information - that the disciples only wanted to know when the temple would be destroyed and what
signs would precede it's destruction. No other separate subject was in view and therefore needed to be given.
Matthew's account of the questions agrees with Mark's and Luke's except adds Jewish overtones to the destruction of
the temple, which would be when the "coming of the Son of Man" would occur thus the "end" of her "age/world." Therefore,
no separate subject matter in Matthew is added outside the destruction of the temple context for the destruction of the temple
is equivalent to the end of the OC age and thus perfectly harmonizes the same subject matter in all three accounts.
When
we acknowledge this we can see that in the case of synoptic gospel parallel’s all three accounts are accurate and no
vital information is lost to the respected audiences. Matthew’s account of the Olivet Discourse in using
“and the end of the age” is not introducing a new topic (the end of the planet), but this phrase and Greek word
for “end” is used only in His gospel account (Mt. 13:39, 40, 49; Mt. 23:3; Mt.28:20). The only other example of
a complete synoptic parallel is found in the great commission (Mt. 28:20, Mk.16, Lk. 24:47). When we examine these texts I
don’t see anyone concluding that Mathew’s use of “end of the age” is addressing a different time frame
or subject matter than the variations of the same teaching in Mk and Lk’s accounts. Just as there is no reason to do
it in regard to the great commission, there is no need to do here in the OD. The only other place this word or phrase is used
is in another Jewish audience setting found in the book of Hebrews (Hebs. 9:26) which is addressing the superiority of the
in-breaking spiritual new covenant age/kingdom upon and over against the physical old covenant age/kingdom and has nothing
to do with the planet earth or time ending at Christ’s return! Taking these matters in consideration, Matthew is only
communicating that “the end” and destruction of the temple are equivalent with each other and describing the end
of Israel’s OC age!
We shall examine another futuristic brand that
seeks to portray the disciples as “bewildered” - even postmillennialist partial “preterist” Kenneth
Gentry in his debate with Thomas Ice in their book, The Great Tribulation Past or Future? claims the disciples were
confused and likewise divides the discourse into two prophetic subject matters:
“In these questions we sense once again the bewilderment among the disciples
at Jesus’ teaching—a bewilderment such as is seen elsewhere in Matthew, as in their confusion about the “leaven
of the Pharisees” (16:6-12), Christ’s death (vv. 21-23), the purpose of the Transfiguration (17:4-5), Christ’s
interest in children (19:13-15), and the nature of kingdom service (20:20-25). Quite clearly Christ divides their question
into two episodes in His answer: (1) He speaks about the coming Great Tribulation resulting in the destruction of Jerusalem
and the temple in A.D. 70 (24:4-34, which is in “this generation,” v. 34); and (2) His distant future second coming
at the end of history (24:36-25:46, which is after a “long time,” 25:19).”7
And joining hands in the fundamental error of
Thomas Ice Gentyr writes,
“As House and Ice admit: “It is probably true that the disciples thought of the
three events (the destruction of the temple, the second coming, and the end of the age) as one event. But as was almost always
the case, they were wrong.” Thus, Christ divided up the events for them. The coming “tribulation”
(24:36; 24:34; cp. 1Thess. 2:16) and was to be foreshadowed by certain signs (Matt. 24:4-8). But the Second Advent was to
be at “that” far day and hour, and was not to be preceded by particular signs of its nearness, for no man can
know it (24:36).”8
But according to another partial preterist R.C.
Sproul, Gentry is the one who is confused and not really arguing within preterist hermeneutic or frame work. Sproul when he
points out the error of John Calvin on the disciples question in regard to the “end of the age,” likewise refutes
fellow partial preterist Gentry whom he quotes extensively in his book. Sproul writes,
“Calvin regarded as erroneous
the disciples’ assumption that the destruction of Jerusalem
would coincide with the coming of Christ and the end of the world. This means that Jesus was answering a question that
contained false assumptions. The preterist view of J. Stuart Russell differs sharply from the view of Calvin. Russell
argues that the disciples’ assumption was correct – with one crucial qualifier: the disciples were asking not
about the end of the world, but abut the end of the age. This distinction is critical not only to Russell, but to virtually
all preterists. The end in view is not the end of all time but the end of the Jewish age.”9
Hence,
“Fundamental to preterism
is the contention that the phrase “the end of the age” refers specifically to the end of the Jewish age and the
beginning of the age of the Gentiles, or church age. J. Suart Russell begins his exposition of this concept by referring to
the content of Matthew 13:”
“…Kosmos in ver. 38, 40,
refers to a period of time, and should be rendered age or epock… It is of the greatest importance to understand correctly
the true meaning of this word, and of the phrase “the end of the aion, or age.” Aion is, as we have said, a period
of time, or an age. It is exactly equivalent to the Latin word aevum, which is merely aion in a Latin dress; and the phrase,
sun-teleia tou aionos, translated in our English version, “the end of the world, should be “the close of the age.”1
Russell argues that the end of the
age signals not merely an “end,” but a consummation of one age that is followed immediately by another. This was
part of the traditional view of the Jews with regard to their Messiah. The new age that would be called the “kingdom
of heaven.” The existing age was the Jewish dispensation, which was drawing to a close. This idea was central
to the preaching of John the Baptist, who spoke of the time that was “at hand.”10
Sproul is saying that according to “virtually
all preterists,” himself and Gentry included, the disciples are not asking questions with false assumptions.
In other words the disciples are not confused or need “correction” (per Gentry and Ice) in associating “the
end of the age” with Christ coming to bring judgment upon Jerusalem
and lay waste her temple. We wish that Mr. Sproul were correct on this point but partial preterist Kenneth Gentry apparently
does not consistently admit or make the “critical distinction” that needs to be made in order to cease
from falsely accusing the disciples of being confused – and thus promoting his confusing “exegesis” of the
discourse. And if Sproul sees no false assumptions made by the disciples in the form of their question(s), then how does Sproul
justify Christ teaching a future return of Himself to bring an end to the planet or end to the current Christian age when
this was never the topic to begin with? No matter what version of the partial preterist position you take (which is confused
futurism), you have the introduction of an end of an age and coming of Christ that is not in the context (or in the OT for
that matter) and thus the partial preterist is just as guilty of eisegesis (reading something into the text) at this early
stage of interpreting the Olivet Discourse as is the premillennialist (historical or dispensationalal), amillennialist, or
postmillennialist.
N.T. Wright has become a popular and controversial
N.T. scholar over the last 10 years or so and has made some helpful comments regarding the context, harmonizing the gospel
accounts of the questions, allowing the disciples to have a more Jewish and apocalyptic understanding of the OT Scriptures
than is commonly admitted, and identifying the age to come with Christ’s parousia in A.D.70. I will quote his comments
on the OD and the disciples questions about the end of the age and likewise quote some more of his statements about the “end
of the age” that he has made elsewhere in the gospel of Matthew and briefly critique them. He states:
“The questions the disciples
ask Jesus are explicitly related to this prediction. In Mark (13.4) there is no unclarity about this: ‘When will this
be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to happen?’ In Luke (21.7) it is even clearer: ‘When
will this be, and what will be the sign when this is about to take place?’ We have already seen that Matthew’s
use of the word parousia is not a sign that he has altered this meaning…” “…that has given scholars,
and popular readers and preachers, the idea that the discourse is really about the end of the space-time universe. There was
no reason, either in their own background or in a single thing that Jesus had said to them up to that point, for it even to
occur to them that the true story of the world, or of Israel, or of Jesus himself, might include either the end of the space-time
universe, or Jesus or anyone else floating down to earth on a cloud. They hand not yet even thought of his being taken from
them, let alone that he might come back; nor did they have any idea of another figure, earthly, heavenly, or something in
between, who would one day come on a literal cloud.102 Had Jesus wished to introduce so strange and unJewish an idea to them
he would have had a very difficult task; as often find in the gospels, their minds were not exactly at their sharpest in picking
up redefinitions even of ideas with which they were already somewhat familiar.
The disciples were, however, very
interested in a story which ended with Jesus’ coming to Jerusalem
to reign as king. They were looking for the fulfillment of Israel’s
hopes, for the story told so often in Israel’s
scriptures to reach its appointed climax. And the ‘close of the age’ for which they longed was not the end of
the space-time order, but the end of the present evil age (ha’olam hazeh), and the introduction of the (still very much
this-worldly) age to come (ha ‘olam haba’) – in other words, the end of Israel’s period of mourning
and exile and the beginning of her freedom and vindication.103 Matthew 24.3, therefore, is most naturally read, in its first-century
Jewish context, not as a question about (what scholars have come to call, in technical language) the ‘parousia’,
but as a question about Jesus ‘coming’ or ‘arriving’ in the sense of his actual enthronement as king,
consequent upon the dethronement of the present powers that were occupying the holy city.104 The disciples were pressing Jesus
to give them details of his plan for becoming king, as David had become king, in the city that was at present still rejecting
him. They were longing for their own version of the great event for which all Israel
had been on tiptoe. Matthew is not, in other words, out on a limb from Mark and Luke at this point.105 The question at the
start of all three versions, seen from within the story the disciples have in their minds, must be read to mean: When will
you come in your kingdom?106 When will the evil age, symbolized by the present Jerusalem regime, be over?”11
In another work of Wright’s he states of
the “age to come,”
“The final promise, that Jesus
will be with his people ‘until the close of the age’ (hoes tes synteleias tou aionos), belongs closely within
the ‘two-age’ structure of chronology which we have seen to be characteristic of mainstream Pharisaic/rabbinic
Judaism, and also of early Christianity, particularly Paul.42 The point here is that the ‘age to come’ has now
been launched with Jesus’ resurrection, and that the risen Jesus represents and embodies this new age, and hence becomes
the human bride between it and the present one. His promise to be ‘with you always’ is thus at the same time the
fulfillment of the Emmanuel promise, and with it of YHWH’s promise to be with even a small group of worshippers as though
they were actually in the Temple itself.43 It is also the sign that in him the eschaton has come to birth, so that his people
are guaranteed safe passage through the present age and into the long-awaited age to come.” Footnote 42 reads, “On
‘the close of the age’ in Mt., cf. 13:39f., 49; 24:3 (where it is linked with the fall of Jerusalem and the parousia of Jesus). See too Heb. 9:26; 1 En. 16.1; 4 Ezra 7.113.”12
Futurist N.T. Wright is correct here in identifying
Christ’s parousia in the OD with the dethronement of the then present powers of the holy city and thus Christ coming
into His kingdom. However, Wright and others such as Gary DeMar paint themselves into a corner and violate the analogy of
Scripture when they separate the time frame of Jesus’ parousia in the OD from Paul’s parousia in (1Cor.15:23).
Wright and DeMar play Paul against Jesus when allegedly Paul is now discussing a different parousia, a different “end,”
and covering a different time period of Christ ruling over His enemies than Jesus predicts in the OD. But according to Jesus,
ALL the OT prophets and the N.T. inspired ones, bore testimony to a fulfillment no further than the contemporary generation
or lifetime of the first century church (Lk.21:20-32/1Pet.1:4-12/1Cor.10:11).
How can Wright claim that Paul like Jesus identified
“this age” with the OC age and the “age to come” with the NC age of the Church and then seek to
defend at the same time that they are teaching two completely different resurrection/harvests at the end of the same “this
age” – one in A.D. 70 at the end of the OC age in (Mt.13) and then a second resurrection/harvest taught by Paul
some 2000 + years away in (1Cor.15) that none of the OT prophets predicted or Jesus discussed in relation to His teaching
on the time frame of His parousia? Wright states the parousia, judgment, and resurrection/harvest in (Mt.24-25 and Mt.13)
are the same and occurred at the end of the OC “this age” in A.D. 70. The problem with this is that Jesus is referencing
Daniel 9 and 12 in both of these passages and if the resurrection had occurred in A.D. 70, then the ENTIRE fulfillment of
the 70 weeks has been fulfilled. This of course is what I believe as well, but for Wright to admit that the resurrection in
(Mt.13) occurred at the end of the OC age in A.D. 70, is to admit that the resurrection Daniel foretold occurred at this time
as well (Dan.12:2-3/Mt.13:42-43). To admit this is to admit that everlasting righteousness and an end to sin came in A.D.
70. To claim that the parousia and resurrection in Mt.24, Mt.13, and Dan.12 happened in A.D.70 is to claim that ALL of the
70 weeks prophetic events occurred at that time as well. Therefore, exegetically and logically, to say that (Dan.12 and Mt.13)
were fulfilled at the end of “this age”—the OC age in A.D.70, is to believe that Christ “put an end
to sin” and that ALL prophecy has been fulfilled – “seal up vision and prophecy.” But to believe that
Christ put an end to sin at His parousia in the OD is to believe that Christ at the same time would bring the victory over
the sting of death which was SIN, and thus the victory over the power of SIN which was THE LAW (Dan.9:24-27/1Cor.15:55-57).
To believe that Dan.9 and Dan.12 were fulfilled at the end of the OC age in A.D.70 is once again to claim that all prophecy
contained in the law and prophets has been fulfilled. But wait, isn’t (Dan.7, 9, 12; Ps.110; Isa.25:7-8 and Hos.13:14)
of which Paul quotes or echoes in (1Cor.15) apart of the “jots and tittles” of the “law and prophets”
(Mt.5:17-18)?!?
Wright cannot claim that Israel’s
prophecies found in the law and the prophets were all fulfilled by A.D. 70 and then claim at the same time that (Isa.25:8,
Hos.13:14) have yet to be fulfilled and are prophecies predicting the end of the Christian age. Were not these resurrection
passages that Paul quotes in (1Cor.15) made too and thus included into “the hope of Israel” (Acts 24, 26, 28:20)?!? Was it not Paul’s testimony and
defense that he said no “…other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come”
(Acts 26:22)? This destroys the partial preterist (futurist) position that try’s to dichotomize between resurrection
promises made to Israel that ended her OC age at “a” parousia of Christ in A.D. 70; but then invents another resurrection
promise to occur at the end of the current Christian age at another or “the” parousia of Christ. This is an eisegetical
myth propagated by those “scholars” who want to keep their high paying jobs funded by creedal employers and their
financial supporters but having nothing to do with being faithful to the Gospel Eschatology of Scripture. However, we should
thank Mr. Wright in at least having the boldness to correctly identify the “end of the age” or “this age”
in (Mt.13) with A.D.70 even if it’s in a footnote. To Wright’s credit, by at least addressing (Mt.13) and making
this A.D. 70 admission goes farther than most partial preterists as we will now take a look at.
Popular partial preterist speaker
and author Gary DeMar admits that the “end of the age” in the OD refers to A.D.70 and does a fair job of developing
the context:
“The “woes”
of Matthew 23 and the destruction of the temple and the city of Jerusalem were a result of all that John the Baptist and
Jesus had been warning the scribes, Pharisees, and chief priests regarding the judgment that would come upon them if they
did not repent. “All these things,” Jesus cautioned, “shall come upon this generation”
(23:36). It is after hearing about the desolation of their “house” – the temple – that the disciples
ask about the “temple buildings” (24:1). Jesus answered the disciples’ questions relating to the time and
signs of Jerusalem’s destruction, always with the background
of Matthew 23 in view, since His comments in that chapter had precipitated the questions (24:3). The Old Covenant order
would end with the destruction of Jerusalem. This would be
the “sign” of the “end of the age,” the end of the Old Covenant, and the consummation of the New Covenant.”13
Gary does a good job of laying the immediate
context of the OD by discussing Jesus’ prediction in (Mt.23) and likewise the impending “at hand” kingdom
judgment that John the Baptist warned was coming in (Mt.3). In this same book Last Days Madness, Gary DeMar also attributes
the coming of Christ and judgment of (Mt.10:22-23; Mt.11-12; Mt.16:27-28; Mt.21:33-45) as referring to A.D.70. But did you
notice something? There is absolutely no reference anywhere in his book where he discusses the end of “this age”
in (Mt.13:36-51). Notice in the above quote how DeMar italicizes “this generation” and applies it to AD
70 but avoids a discussion of (Mt.13:40) “this age” when identifying “the end of the age”
in (Mt.24:3) as A.D.70! DeMar elsewhere in his book claims that had Jesus intended the generation under discussion to be speaking
to a future generation some 2000+ years away he would have stated “that generation.” Apparently partial
preterists want to make the argument that “this generation” is referring to Jesus contemporary audience
but when it comes to the resurrection occurring in Jesus’ contemporary “this age” it just can’t
be so – for the creeds don’t allow it! DeMar is also deficient in (Mt.3:10-12) in only acknowledging an “at
hand” judgment but what of the harvest/resurrection?!? I challenged Gary publicly on (Mt.13:40/Mt.24:3ff.) and it’s
inseparable time frame link with (Dan.12:1-7) on the Preterist Archive web site and Gary just said, “I’m still
studying Daniel 12” and that he “didn’t have time to pursue these things with preterists.” This is
after what, at least 15 years of being confronted by full preterists on these issues! Gary DeMar has had more than
enough time he just sees the contradictions in his hermeneutics and doesn’t want to face them. We will later discuss
the teaching of N.T. Wright and Gary DeMar in their attempts to claim that (Mt.24 & 25) were fulfilled in A.D.70 and continue
to be fulfilled but that the resurrection was not associated with that parousia of Christ. While Kenneth Gentry is another
partial preterist who doesn’t go as far into an A.D.70 fulfillment as Gary DeMar, he nonetheless has mastered the art
of avoiding these questions and texts and has been “ducking” a formal debate with exegetical or full preterists
for years now.
Now getting back to the question of the disciples
and their alleged “confusion” about the “end of the age” in relation to the temples destruction. Granted
the disciples were amazed at Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of their temple but they also knew that according
to Dan.9:24 and Dan.12:7 that Israel’s
“end” would be when “the power (that resided in the temple sacrificial system) of the holy people has been
completely shattered.” As I will soon demonstrate and supported by the comments above by futurists N.T. Wright and indirectly
and directly stated by R.C. Sproul, and Gary DeMar, by the time we reach (Mt.24) the disciples correctly understood that
judgment upon Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple
would be the end of their OC age and no other!
What Gentry, Ice, and other futurists don’t
tell their readers is that Jesus clearly asked the disciples about His teaching on the kingdom parables concerning the “end
of the age” (Mt.13:49) or “ THIS age” in (Mt.13:40) and if they understood and they answered, “yes
Lord” (Mt. 13:51). The only “bewilderment” here is how Gentry deceitfully overlooks the disciples understanding
that the parable was speaking to the end of their “this age” as to the OC age and then try’s to give the
reader some “proof texts” that the disciples experienced “bewilderment” over this phrase in (Mt.24:3)
because of their history of “confusion” elsewhere in the gospel of Matthew. In other words Gentry is likewise
guilty of trying to create a problem in the text that isn’t there. He wants to “prove” the disciples confusion
at this point to justify the Olivet Discourse teaching a second topic - the end of the planet/history Second Advent
(Mt. 24:36f.) into it’s discussion. How can any discussion of whether the disciples were confused or not confused
over the term “end of the age” in (Mt.24:3) be taken seriously when futurists deliberately do not examine the
rest of Matthew’s teaching on this phrase let alone a passage where the disciples are explicitly asked whether or not
they understand Christ’s teaching on the “end of THIS age” (Mt.13:40)?!? In Gentry willfully passing
over this crucial text he likewise passes over a crucial hermeneutical step, and then goes on to pretend that he is doing
some kind of thorough exegesis of this phrase and whether the disciples were confused or not when they asked Jesus about it.
Enough said on what Gentry obviously can’t deal with and now on to what he seeks to deal with in order to “prove”
his case of the disciples “bewilderment.” Will these “proof texts” that Gentry offers prove his case
or strengthen mine?
The first text Gentry cites is (Mt. 16:6-12)
where the disciples were confused over the “leaven of the Pharisees.” The text clearly states that they didn’t
understand and thought Jesus was talking about literal bread (v.7) and then Jesus rebukes and corrects them (vss.8-11). From
there Matthew tells us that they then understood (v.12) “then they understood.” So on the first “proof text,”
it only proves our case in that when the disciples are confused about something Matthew explicitly states it!
The second text Gentry cites is (Mt. 16:21-23)
where the disciples are confused over Jesus’ statements of His impending crucifiction. The text clearly explains this
confussion in the words of Peter trying to correct Jesus and then the following rebuke of Jesus (vss.22-23). Again, where
there is confussion or error Matthew clearly points it out.
The third text Gentry cites is (Mt.17:4-5) concerning
the disciples confussion over the transfiguration. Again, the text states their error of seeking to pitch tents for Moses
and Elijah because the Father rebukes them (v.5). I will have more to say on the transfiguration later. The first part of
the disciples confussion was in their seeking the abiding (“let’s make tents”) of the glory of the OC (Moses
= law & Elijah = the prophets) with the EVERLASTING NC (Jesus = NC), (cf. Also 2Cor. 3 & 4; Mt. 24:35). The second
thing they were confused on was why Jesus didn’t want them to speak of the vision (vss.9-10)? After all wasn’t
Elijah coming in the vision a fulfillment of prophecy they asked (v.10)? Jesus corrects their understanding of this by pointing
out that Elijah’s prophecy had already been fulfilled in John (vss.11-12). Then Matthew the narator clearly tells the
readers that then they “understood” (v.13).
The fourth text that Gentry gives is the disciples
being rebuked by Jesus because they were rebuking those who were brining children to Him (Mt. 19:13-15). Jesus rebuking them
makes it clear in the text that the disciples were in error and then He instructs them on the kingdom using the children.
Again, the text is clear.
The fifth example Gentry gives is that of the
disciples understanding of being great in the kingdom (Mt. 20:20-25). Jesus clearly states, “You do not know what
you are asking,” (v.22). Then He proceeds to instruct them that there can be no crown in the kingdom without suffering
first (vss.22-23). Then He follows this with instruction on humility (vss. 24-27).
To conclude these “examples” in Matthew’s
gospel we are forced to a DIFFERENT conclusion than Gentry. For in each of these Matthew is a very responsible narrator and
explains when there is confussion on the part of the disciples and when there isn’t. When we come to the one question
broken down in three parts in (Mt.24:3) there is no hint at all from Matthew that the disciples were confused let alone Jesus
“correcting them” or “ignoring” (MacArthur). At this point Gentry is just as an irrisponsible “exegete”
as MacArthur and Ice and has read his personal creedal confussion of the second coming into the Olivet Discourse. We
should however thank Mr. Gentry for taking the time to go over these passages that explain when the disciples were confused
over something for in doing so Gentry has proved too much and made our point! And that is according to Matthew’s
gospel if the disciples were confused in the OD Matthew would have pointed it out to his readers as he does everywhere
else. But on the topic of “bewilderment” I should ask some questions in regard to Mr. Gentry’s statements
quoted below where he seeks to speak out of the other side of his mouth and be a “preterist” in addressing the
“end of the age,”
“Christ’s teaching here is extremely important to redemptive history. He is responding
to the question of His disciples regarding when the end of the “age” (Gk., aion) will occur (24:3). In essence,
His full answer is: when the Romans lay waste the temple…”14
And that,
“The change of the age is finalized and sealed at the destruction
of Jerusalem; allusions to the A.D. 70 transition abound: “Assuredly, I say to you tht there are some standing here
who will not taste of death till they see the kingdom of God present with power” (Mark 9:1)”15.
And therefore this “change
of the age” judgment in the context of the gospels is to be found earlier on in John the Baptist’s teaching,
“Matthew records John’s warning that “the axe is already laid at
the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (3:10).
Here John draws his imagery from God’s judgment against Assyria (Isa. 10:33-34): that sort of judgment soon will break
upon Israel. Indeed, “his winnowing
fork is in his hand” already (Matt. 3:12).”16
Gentry unconsciously or consciously opposes another
partial preterist and his mentor Dr. Greg Bahnsen because when I asked Dr. Bahnsen when I invited him to the Master’s
College in the early 90’s where he saw the introduction of a different coming of Jesus than the one on Jerusalem to
allegedly destroy the planet and to end time in the Olivet Discourse he stated, “In the disciples question – ‘and
the end of the age?’” At least Bahnsen was seeking to be a consistent futurist at this point and interpret
“the end of the age” to the church age but in reading Gentry one get’s the feeling that he can’t make
up his mind what arguments he wants to use - preterist ones or futurist ones, especially when he agrees with Ice in claiming
that the disciples were confussed in understanding all of the things they asked about to be fulfilled in one event ie. the
destruction of Jerusalem. It is clear that Gentry then begins
speaking out the other or preterist side of his mouth by telling us that the destruction of Jerusalem is the “full answer
to the disciples question” in regard to “end of the age” and identifies it with the end of the Jewish or
OC age. Well, WHICH IS IT? If the destruction of Jerusalem
marks the “end of the age” (OC age) per Gentry, and that was the age the disciples asked about, then how does
that make the disciples confused again?!?
The only reason Gentry has to agree with Dispensationalist
Thomas Isce and others that the disciples were allegedly confused is because Gentry like Dispensationalists has to SLIP in
or read into the text the end of the Christian or NC age (Mt.24:35ff.) to justify a future (to us) second (or third
– per partial “preterism”) coming that IS NOWHERE IN THE DISCUSSION - either in the form of the disciples
question or in Jesus’ response to their question.
EXAMINING
THE PARTIAL PRETERISTS (FUTURIST) ADMISSION OF (MT.3:2, 10-12; MT.10:22-23; MT.16:27-28) AS SPEAKING TO AN AD 70 FULFILLMENT
COMING AND JUDGMENT OF CHRIST
We are told by Kenneth Gentry, Gary DeMar, N.T.
Wright, and R.C. Sproul that prior to Jesus’ teaching in the OD that He instructed the disciples He would return in
the their contemporary generation: “in this adulterous and sinful generation,” to rewarded every
man according to what they had done at the fall of Jerusalem in (Mk.8:31 - 9:1/Mt. 16:27-28). Therefore, if He returned
with His angels and “rewarded every man” at “the end of the OC age” which was the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then why is the judgment scene in Mt. 24:36 -
Mt.25 linked to a different coming of Christ and a different judgment?
In regard to Gentry’s statements of John’s
declaration that an “at hand” time for Israel’s harvest and judgment of “unquenchable
fire” and Sproul’s earlier quote in linking John the Baptists preaching of the kingdom of heaven with the end
of the OC age and the fall of Jerusalem; we must ask these men how and why is this fire judgment and harvest resurrection
different than the one pictured in (Mt.13; Mt. 24:36 - Mt. 25; Rev. 14; and Rev. 20)?!? And if according to Gentry when he
is speaking out of the preterist side of his mouth - that Jesus’ “full answer” to the disciples question
as to when the “end of the age” in Mt.24 was going to take place was when the Romans would “lay waste the
temple,” then how does this prove that the disciples were “bewildered” again?!? I think the real “confusion”
here lies in the question of wether Gentry wants to be a preterist or futurist? According to R.C. Sproul a four point “Calvininst”
is really “a confused Arminian.” I would agree with that statement but would add to it that a “partial preterist”
such as Gentry, DeMar, Wright, and Sproul are really “confused futurists.” And as the Arminian gospel proclaims
a Christ who fails to save whom He wants, so the partial preterist gospel fails to save all He came to save WHEN and HOW He
promised too!
Since Sproul sees no confusion on the part of
the disciples question I challenge him to produce the exegetical evidence that demonstrates that Jesus goes on to talk about
the end of another age (the end of the Christian/Church or NC age) which is not associated with the temples destruction
(per partial preterism) and in which it is allegedly taught will bring an end to the planet earth – per Gentry, Sproul,
and “orthodox preterism”? I publically ask and challenge these men with the question - “Does not the
abominations and destruction of the temple mark the “end” to ALL and not some of the eschatological “things”
predicted by Daniel’s prophecy (Dan.9:24-27, Dan.12:1-7)?!? And is not the resurrection that Daniel foretold included
within the list of “these things” that would occur when the abomination of the temple would take place?!?”
If partial preterists such as R.C. Sproul, Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, and the like, admit that John the Baptist and Jesus
early on in the Gospels are discussing Israel’s “at hand” kingdom/age, and thus Israel’s “at
hand” judgment and harvest/resurrection, and that the “full answer” to the “end of the age”
in (Mt.24) is the end of the OC or Jewish age, then, why is the “end of the age” in Mt. 24 different from
the “end of this age” as found in (Mt. 13)? Partial “preterism” becomes unraveled at an exegetical
level when these questions are asked.
It seems that Gentry arbitrarily uses
the “end of the age” to be both the end of our current Christian or Church age, and the end of Jerusalem’s
/ OC age both at the same time in some places and however he feels like using it in others to satisfy “Mother Church”!
If John the Baptist’s “at hand”
kingdom, judgment, and harvest/resurrection for Israel was understood by the disciples to be speaking to their day in (Mt.3),
then how would they not understand Jesus’ kingdom parables of judgment and harvest at the “end of this
age” as anything other than the end of of the age in which they lived – the OC or Mosaic age? Since there is consensus
among futurists whereby they agree that the prophets, the Jews of Jesus’ day, and the NT writers only taught two redemptive
ages “this age” and the “age about to come,” and that the “this age” would give way to
Messiah’s ETERNAL age/kingdom to come, why would Jesus be teaching, or the disciples to be understanding Him to teach
- an end to an age and kingdom that the OT prophets predicted would have no end? Is Jesus such an irrisponsible communicator
and exegete of the OT Scriptures - or Matthew such an irrisponsible narrator that their use of the phrase “end of the
age” or the “end of THIS age” mean two totally different things in (Mt.24) and (Mt.13)?!? Only in the confused
presupostional world of futurism – no matter what form it is found in.
I should press the matter further by asking partial
preterists Gary DeMar, Kenneth Gentry, R.C. Sproul whom admit (Mt.10) discusses a “near” kingdom that is associated
with Christ’s “coming” to bring and “end” to the OC kingdom in A.D.70 (Mt.10:7; Mt.16-23) why
and how when we come to (Mt.24) do the terms the “end” and “coming” of Christ get arbitrarily chaned
to the end of the Christian age? Approaching (Mt.24) there was nothing in Jesus’ earlier teachings about the kingdom,
His coming, judgment, the “end,” harvest/resurrection, etc. that would warrant them being “confused”
about the time frame of His parousia in associating it with the “end of this age” or “end of the age”
as being anything other than the end of the age in which they were living – the OC or Mosaic age. Jesus does nothing
but explain the spiritual nature of the kingdom throughout Matthew for those who have “eyes to see” and
“ears to hear” and emphasises it’s “at hand” appearance and judgment when He further bears witness
to John’s ministry - stating very clearly that John was the predicted Elijah to come (Mt.11). John came to “prepare
the way” not just for Jesus’ earthly ministry but for the judgment coming of Christ which is described as the
“great and deradful day of the Lord” (Mal.3-4, see also context of Isa.40 – time of rewards and judgment).
The phrase to “prepare a way” was a military phrase. If you saw someone outside your country preparing a way and
laying level ground (Isa.40:4) it meant that they were making a road to come and concour you. When we hear the word “way”
we tend to only think in salvation and blessing terms such as a “highway of holiness” or “I am the Way…,”
but in Isaiah and the theological context of John being the Elijah to come before the “great and notable day of the
Lord” this phrase marks a conquering “way” of judgment for those who had pierced and rejected Him as their
King.
After going into a “far country”
first, Christ would come back to this city as a victorious king to destroy those murderers in avenging Himself and his disciples.
Although His kingdom and attended judgment was still very much “at hand” it would not occur “immediately”
for He would come again and bring vengeance upon those “murderers” and “citizens” of the OC kingdom
who questioned His authority to rule over them. He would do all of this by destroying and burining their city and thus transfering
the OC kingdom/nation to the NC kingdom/nation within their existing generation – ie. AD 70 (Lk.19:11-27; Mt.21:33-45;
Mt.23:29-36). Granted some of the people who had heard Jesus teach an “at hand” kingdom and judgment thought
it to come “immediately” so Jesus corrects this notion in the parable of the pounds (Lk.19:11f.). Both premillenial
dispensationalist Thomas Ice and postmillennialist partial preterist Kenneth Gentry error in thinking the parable of the pounds
along with (Mt.24:48 and Mt.25:5, 19) teach a 2000 + year “long time delay in Christ’s return.”17
These texts however teach no such notion but
do exhibit how an audience could get confused as to an “at hand” kingdom coming judgment to mean something that
could happen “immediatly” when the truth was that “some standing here will not taste of death,” and
“this generation” or 40 year period was actually a “long time” to someone who was in their 20’s
or 30’s when Jesus made these predictions. There is no inconsistency here for Scripture or the one defending gospel
eschatology or preterism.
In terms of redemptive history a period of forty
years was “at hand” but in terms of those who thought these events would transpire “immediately” in
their lifetimes, forty years may also be considered a “long time” to them. Thus when the lifespans of the
original audiece is consistently adhered to, “at hand” and “long time” are easily and exegetically
reconciled.
WERE THE
SOVEREIGN PURPOSES OF GOD IN ESTABLISHING HIS KINGDOM OR “AGE TO COME” “POSTPONED”? COULD THE CONTINGENCIES
OF MAN’S ALLEGED “FREE WILL” POSTPONE THE KINGDOMS “AT HAND” TIME FRAME EITHER IN HIS FIRST
OR SECOND COMING?
Why do the nations
rage, And the people plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, And the rulers take counsel together, Against
the LORD and against His Anointed, saying, "Let us break Their bonds in pieces And cast away Their cords from us." He who
sits in the heavens shall laugh; The Lord shall hold them in derision. Then He shall speak to them in His wrath, And distress
them in His deep displeasure: "Yet I have set My King On My holy hill of Zion." "I will declare the decree: The LORD has
said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You. Ask of Me, and I will give You The nations for Your inheritance,
And the ends of the earth for Your possession. You shall break them with a rod of iron; You shall dash them to pieces like
a potter’s vessel.’" Now therefore, be wise, O kings; Be instructed, you judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with
fear, And rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest He be angry, And you perish in the way, When His wrath is kindled but
a little. Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him. (Ps.2, cf. Act 2- 4).
“My
covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.
Once have I sworn by
my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall
be established for ever as the moon, and as a faithful witness in heaven. Selah.”(Ps.89:34-35)
"Declaring
the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all
my pleasure,'" (Isaiah 46:10)
He will not fail nor be discouraged, Till He has established
justice in the earth;
And the coastlands
shall wait for His law." And “Behold, the former things have come to pass, And new things I declare; Before they spring
forth I tell you of them." (Isa.42:4,9)
"And in the days of
these kings (The Roman Empire) the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never
be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms,
and it shall stand forever. (Dan.2:44)
And
at the end of the time I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my understanding returned to me; and I blessed
the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever: For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom
is from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing; He does according to His will
in the army of heaven And among the inhabitants of the earth. No one can restrain His hand or say to Him, "What have You done?"
(Dan.4:34-35)
“While we were
still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly”.(Rom.5:6)
“But
when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law,to redeem those who were under
the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.” (Gal.4:4)
“as a plan
for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. In him, according
to the purpose of him who accomplishes all things according to the counsel of his will, we who first hoped in Christ
have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory. In him you also, who have heard the word of truth,
the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee
of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.
(Ephs.1:10-11)
In relation to the real “confusion”
on the part of the disciples - they like modern day dispensationalists, were “slow of heart” (Lk.24:25) to understand
how the cross fit in with the OT Messianic kingdom plans. They like dispensationalists thought the cross defeated and brought
an end to Christ’s “at hand” declarations. In dispensational theology the declarations of an “at hand”
kingdom and parousia judgment to usher in the eschatological “end” in (Mt.3 and Mt.10) were intentioned and decreed
by God to take place then, but then somehow the God who declares that He is not like man to change His mind (1Sam.15:29) actually
ends up doing just that and opts for “Plan B” – a postponed kingdom. And the God that says no one
can restrain His hand in the outworkings of His kingdom plans among the nations and men (Dan.4:35) ends up getting restrained
by the “sad” rejection of His Son. Apparently if dispensational theology is correct Jesus’ declaration of,
“The time is fulfilled, the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel (Mrk.1:15),”
should be changed to, “the time is potentially fulfilled, the earthly and literal
kingdom of God might be at hand if everyone of you accepts my gospel offer…” I have yet to find
a translation of this verse that fits dispensational theology. Nor when going through the gospels studying “fulfilled”
do I ever see a “potentially fulfilled” concept! The kingdom’s “at hand” fulfillment was never
conditioned upon the entire nation of Israel
accepting Jesus as their Messiah! The “at hand” time frame of the kingdom not only predicted the coming salvation
pictured as the harvest resurrection gathering into the barn of those who would believe in Him as their Messiah, but likewise
predicted the “at hand” and currently “in hand winnowing fork” that would burn up those who would
reject Him (Mt.3:2-12). Somehow in the mind of dispensationalists, “refusal” to have Christ reign over them in
means that Christ postpones His “at hand” kingdom plans of salvation for the remnant and judgment for the “rejectors.”
Not only are some of them confused on the “rejection” aspect of the “at hand” kingdom and judgment,
but some have a hard time admitting the what the clear statement of “at hand” even means,
“When Christ presented
Himself as Israel’s king, it was
incumbent upon the Jews to repent of their sins in order for the messianic rule to begin. The issue of repentance overrides
such expressions as “the kingdom of God is at hand.” However, even with this expression, the more basic idea is that
the coming of the kingdom of God
is certain to come someday.”18
Mr. Mal Couch in the quote above
seeks to make an unscriptural dichotomy between repentance and the kingdom
of God being “at hand” and then tries to even get rid of
“at hand.” Mr. Couch refuses to see the context of judgment in John the Baptist’s “at hand”
kingdom promise thus establishing the context for those who would not repent! Nor does he or any dispensationalists see that
the rejection that brought about the cross as God’s means of establishing the kingdom in the pages of the NT -- hardly
postponing it!
John MacArthur claims to believe
in the sovereignty of God and likewise states that he believes that (Ps.89:27-37) teaches a yet future literal kingdom on
earth through the Davidic covenant.19 Yet (vss.33-34) discuss how nothing will deter God from His great love
for His people and He states, “I will not break nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Once
I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David…” But if God predicted that the kingdom would be established
during the time of the Roman Empire, and Jesus said that the time of it’s arrival had
been fulfilled, to postpone the kingdom is to “alter” the promise. The rejection of the Jews would hardly
postpone Israel’s “at hand” kingdom promises, their attempts only hastened their judgment and God “laughed”
at their attempts to thwart His kingdom plans (Isa.2 – 4). The cross and resurrection did not postpone or alter His
kingdom plans they established them according to the book of Hebrews and Peter. The rejection of Jesus the son of David and
the Son of God was “foreordained” within the Davidic covenant and the prophets to be evidence that Israel
was in her “last days” and that Christ was already sitting enthroned in His kingdom reigning over His enemies
after the ascension (Hebs.1-2/Act 2-4).
Again, the Scriptural position of the
rejection of the Jews that resulted in the crucifiction and resurrection of Christ within the time period of “this generation”
was that it established Israel’s
kingdom promises of both salvation and judgment (Lk.17:25/Acts2:40/Mrk.8:38-9:1/Lk.21:32). The kingdoms “at
hand” salvation, inheritance, resurrection, and judgment at Chris’ts second coming would likewise take place within
that same “this generation” and “at hand” time period (Lk.17:20-21ff.; Lk.21:30-32;
1Pet.1:4-12/2Pet.1:11/2:19=1Pet.4:5, 7, 17). I find it extremely disturbing that dispensationalist John MacArthur can
say that “this generation” in (Lk.17:25) means the contemporary generation of Christ when it comes to the cross
establishing some kind or “sense” of kingdom for the Church separated and distinct from Israel; but when
“this generation” is used to demonstrate the kingdoms arrival with the second coming MacArthur arbitrarily changes
the meaning of “this generation” and accuses preterists of insisting “on a too-literal interpretation of
Matthew 24:34” and thus (Lk.21:30-32).20
I think we should take some time to examine (Lk.17;
Lk.21; and Peter’s epistles) for a common thread of both the nature and time frame of the kingdom arriving at the second
coming. The first exegetical observation is that the Pharissess were always hearing Jesus and John the Baptist teach an “at
hand” kingdom and judgment and thus challenged Jesus on when the kingdom
of God would come. Jesus answers the Pharissees question by stating that
when the kingdom comes it will be spiritual, unseen by the physical eyes, and will reside in the hearts of men (Lk.17:20-21).
He goes on to further identify the kingdoms coming with His return (Lk.17:22ff.). Peter likewise teaching on the prophetic
sure word of Jesus’ return describes the event as “light that shines in a dark place, until the mourning star
rises in your hearts;” (2Pet.1:9; see also Jn.14:3, 23; Cols.1:27). Obviously Jesus is the “Light” and “Mourning
Star” that rises in the hearts of His people at His “at hand” return (1Pet.4:7; Jms.5:7-9) and thus consumates
Israel’s Kingdom promises which are the Churches as well! MacArthur has a hard time dealing with what Jesus is teaching
in (Lk.17). John has to invent two separate Kingdoms to try and reconcile the clear teachings of Jesus here.
“So He stressed repeatedly
that the aspect of His kingdom in operation since His first coming until now is spiritual and invisible (Luke 17:20-21), whereas
the visible, earthly aspect of His kingdom pertained to His Second Coming.”21
And in MacArthur’s Study Bible he mentions
of this text,
“They were looking for Him
to come, overthrow Rome, and set up the millennial kingdom.
Christ’s program was altogether different. He was inaugurating an era in which the kingdom would be manifest
in the rule of God in men’s hearts through faith in the Saviour (v.21; cf. Rom.14:17). The kingdom was neither confined
to a particular geographical location nor visible to human eyes. It would come quietly, invisibly, and without the normal
pomp and splender associated with the arrival of a king. Jesus did not suggest that the OT promises of an earthly kingdom
were herby nullified. Rather, that earthly, visible manifestation of the kingdom is yet to come (Rev.20:1-6).”22
The first problem with MacArthur’s statements
is that Jesus does not say that the coming of the kingdom of God in (vss.20-21) is a “new era” in His kingdom
plans but what follows (vss.22ff.) in regard to the second coming, is His physical return to earth whereby He establishes
another era or phase of an earthly kingdom. Where is this stated anywhere in the text?!? MacArthur has to READ
THIS INTO THE PASSAGE AND IS NOT DERIVING IT FROM THE PASSAGE ITSELF. The passage is clear, when the kingdom
comes it will be spiritual - non-physical (vss.20-21) in nature and it’s arrival is at His second coming in judgment
(vss.22ff.). MacArthur admits that (Lk.17) is teaching the same second coming as (Lk.21) and therefore Lk.21 further demonstrates
that Jesus was teaching that the kingdom the Pharissees were asking about (and the one the disciples were asking about as
well!) would come in their generation (Lk.21:20-32). How in the name of reason and exegesis does MacArthur justify Jesus allegedly
teaching two different “era’s” or kingdoms one spiritual and one physical separated by 2000 + years apart
between (v.21) and (v.22ff.)?!?
Not only is MacArthur making an artifitial distinction
between a spiritual kingdom era in (Lk.17:20-21) for the church and then a physical kingdom era allegedly arriving someday
in the future at the second coming (vss.22ff.), but the hermenutical argument of Scripture interprets Scripture disproves
MacArtur’s eisegesis as well here. Jesus as He does in (Lk.17:20-21ff.) elsewhere taught this concept of making His
home in the hearts of His people at the second coming and not just some intermn period during the Church kingdom/age (Jn.14:3;
23). And to bring the hermeneutical argument a step further – this is how both Peter and Paul saw Jesus teaching His
second coming and follwed it to the tee. According to them the second coming would usher in their entrance and inheritance
into the kingdom and this was described as the “Light,” “Mourning Star,” and “Glory” of
the spiritual NC kingdom (Christ) within the hearts of His people (2Pet.2:19; Cols.1:27). So the distinctions that MacArthur
is trying to make in regards to Christ being in the hearts of His people during the spiritual kingdom/Church age but one day
at His second coming He will reign literally on the earth – and everyones eyes will physically see His kingdom on earth
- is not Scriptural.
In preping for his “exegesis” of
(Mt.24:3) we are told that the disciples were “faithful Jews” like their contemporaries and modern day dispensationalists
and thus were expecting a physical, military, nationalistic, and earthly millennium/kingdom coming of Christ. MacArthur NEVER
proves or does any exegesis to demonstrate that the kingdom Jesus was offering was the same earthly or nationalistic “kingdom”
he ASSUMES the OT prophets predicted. Nor does he attempt to prove that any of the inspired NT writers defended a postponed
and future physical coming kindom “some day.” In fact MacArthur’s purpose in his book is simply a mantra
cry of dispensationalism to ralley their troops and serves as nothing else. Exegesis or refutation of the preterist view is
nowhere to be found in any of it’s pages. According to MacArthur, the physical, earthly, nationalistic, kingdom is what
Jesus was offering and was His for the asking:
“To the disciples, it must
have seemed that the kingdom was virtually His for the asking.”23
Well, what MacArthur doesn’t tell his readers
here is that this allegedly correct physical OT predicted “earthly kingdom” that every “faithful Jew”
was expecting and the one He was allegedly offering in the beginning of His ministry was indeed His for the asking and THAT
HE FLAT OUT REJECTED IT in (Jn.6:14-15)! Not only did He deny their offer to make Him king of a literal kingdom on earth,
but the next day He went on rebuking them for their fundamental error of thinking the kingdom was physical and went on to
teach the spiritual nature of His kingdom. Please compare what Jesus says about physical bread and water with spiritual bread
and water in (Jn.4 and Jn.6) in His kingodm offer with the text MacArthur quotes of Paul in (Rms.14:17). Please note the similarities
between the kingdom not being physical or manifested through physical nurishment but spiritual. I would agree with MacArthur
that in (Rms.14:17) Paul is teaching the spiritual nature of the kingdom, but he is teaching it because Jesus taught it in
(Jn.6) which is a passage that MacArthur can’t have Jesus offering a spiritual kingdom, because (Jn.6) is a time in
Jesus earthly ministry where per dispensational theology Jesus was still offering a physical earthly kingdom to Israel! (Jn.6)
also disproves the dispensational notion that Jesus postponed the literal kingdom offer to Israel based upon their rejction of Him. This is not true, for Jesus rejected the
physical nature of the kingdom they were offering Him before (Mt.12) is entered into the picture.
According to dispensationalism, shouldn’t
Christ have taken the offer of the physical and earthly kingdom and why was He teaching on the spiritual nature of the kingdom
when that “era” hadn’t come because the Jews hadn’t rejected Him yet? He shouldn’t have been
telling the woman at the well about the spiritual nature of the kingdom in His teaching of the spiriutal living waters that
would flow from worshipping God “in spirit and in truth” and thus an “at hand” kingdom or soon approaching
spiritual Mnt. Zion (Jn.4/Hebs.12). Jesus in (Jn.4 & 6) in discussing the spiritual living waters, bread from heaven,
and a day coming where His worshippers would worship Him “in spirit,” (from a spiritual Jerusalem or Mount Zion
is implied Heb.12), He is unfolding the “true” spiriutal nature of the kingdom as foretold by the prophets (Isa.44:3f.,
Isa.55:1-3f.).
The plain, straightforward, and exegetical reasons
why we find Jesus teaching a spiritual kingdom and even associating it with His return in the hearts of His people, when He
was supposed to be teaching and offering a physical “earthly” kingdom (per the dispy’s), is because NONE
of the OT prophets, Jesus, or the NT writers EVER taught that the Messiah’s kingdom would be physical in nature! This
is likewise the reason why we find Him rejecting an offer of a physcial kingdom when He was supposed to be offering a physical
kingdom to the Jews (again per dispy’s). The NC kingdom
of Messiah that was predicted by the OT prophets was to be different
than their previous nationalistic “salvations” under the OC. Messiah’s kingdom would be eternal and included
the Gentiles – the Church. The OT writers and the NT writers never predicted two kingdoms – a spiritual one for
the Gentile church and another literal one for Israel
in the alleged future. The same reasons why the Jews rejected Jesus in the first century are the same reasons why dispensationalists
and all futurists reject preterism or gospel eschatology today. They have set their hearts and minds on a physical
kingdom that won’t be ushered in until they pysically see Christ and He establishes a physical kingdom on earth in which
their physical eyes can behold. Christ not only refutes this notion in (Lk.17), but Paul and the writer to the Hebrews states
that the Christian’s faith and hope were not on things which could be seen but on those things which could not be seen
(Rms.8:24-25; Hebs.11:1/Heb.12). As I will argue later, the Christian today is residing in a heavenly Mnt. Zion that rests
on a NC creation – the New Heavens and New Earth. Both spiritual Mnt. Zion and the New Heavens and New Earth are synonomous
for the SPIRITUAL NC Kingdom of God that was LITERALLY “at hand” in the first century.
Let’s make it clear what MacArthur and
other dispensationalists such as Thomas Ice are saying in regards to Christ preaching an “at hand kingdom.” Most
(not all – see Couch’s quote above on “at hand”) take “at hand” literally when it comes
to Jesus offering an alleged physical kingdom to Israel, but since the Jews rejected Jesus’s offer of this “physical”
kingdom/”age to come”, we have to settle for the Church (which the OT prophets didn’t predict – per
their view) until the “literal real deal kingdom” for Israel swings back around again. The cross is at odds with
the kingdom promises and apparently is a “sad reality” in God’s sovereign redemptive plan,
“I believe the Scriptures
teach that Israel could have obtained
her much-sought-after messianic kingdom by recognizing Jesus as the Messiah. We all know the— sad reality
the Jews rejected Jesus. As a result, the kngdom is no longer near but postponed, awaiting
Jewish belief, which will occur at the end of the Tribulation. However, during the intervening curch age, which currently
occupies history, there is the overhanging possibility that at any moment God will bring that last believer into His spiritual
body, the rapture of the church, and resume Israel’s final week…”24
According to most dispensationalists (who are
Arminian) and believe that God’s will is to save everyone and that His will is constantly being thwarted by the “free
will” of man – the question begging to be answered here is “How can Ice and all dispensationalists in their
interpretation of Scripture ever gaurantee that God will save that “last believer” since part of the “sad
reality” was He couldn’t change the hearts of the Jews to accept Jesus the first time around! Even a Preterist
and Arminian Don Preston doesn’t understand this logic,
“That which was rejected at
the time of his first coming will now be accepted and fully realized as he reigns on earth for a 1000 years.” (Prophecy,
260). And just why should we believe this? If man’s unbelief thwarted God the first time, what prevents that
same unbelief from preventing His success the second time? It is responded that this time, it is God’s sovereignty,
His Will and majesty, that will succeed. Well, was God not sovereign at Jesus’ first coming? Was it not truly His will
to establish the kingdom the first time around? If the sovereignty of God ensures success the second time, why did it not
ensure success the first?”25
Preston goes on to point out,
“Now if Jehovah knew, before
He ever sent Jesus, that the Jews were going to reject im, but, in full knowledge of that coming rejection, sent him to establish
the kingdom anyway, does it not follow that He was going to use that rejection as part of His plan to establish the kingdom?
If God knew in advance, that the Jews were going to reject Jesus’ kingdom offer, but He sent him anyway, and said it
was “just the right time,” then does it not follow that God knew precisely what He was doing, and that Jesus’
rejection was in fact a part of the kingdom plan?
The only way for the modern postponement
theory to be true is if God did not know that the Jews would reject His Son, so that, when they did, He had to alter His plan.
But remember, the prophecies said He did know they were going to reject him, and He said he was not going to alter His plans.
His Son would not fail! IF YOUR THEOLOGY SAYS THAT GOD FAILED, YOU NEED TO CHANGE YOUR THEOLOGY!”26
Preston’s points are right on target except
I find it odd that a Church of Christ
Arminian seems to adrehe more to the sovereignty of God than even MacArthur or Thomas Ice in establishing
the kingdom! I would disagree with Don a little here and and modify the argument to make it more Biblical by stating it
is more than God’s divine omniscience or Him seeing what will happen in advance that gurantees any prophecy’s
fulfillment. It is God “determining” and “ordaining” these prophecies by way of individual men rejecting
and accepting Christ that would bring the kingdom prophecies to pass. God had ordained Judas to reject Him in order for the
prophecies of the cross to occur, and “when it pleased God” to reveal His Son in Paul, He sovereignly ordained
and saved him to fuction as an abassabor of light to the Gentiles and thus bring the Great Commission to it’s time of
fulfillment before Christ’s return in A.D.70. Although these are good comments by Don, Preston’s
Arminianism cannot consistently be brought into preterism or Gospel Eschatology in explaining God’s sovereign
will for His new creation – during the transition period, A.D. 70, or in the NC age today. Consistent Arminianism within
Preston’s Church of Christ
denominations or even outside of it in mainstream “evangelicalism” denies God’s complete omniscience because
they know to believe this is to deny man’s “free will.” Please pay close attention to one of Arminianisms
leading “theologians” (I use the term in gest):
“Having created human beings
with relative autonomy alongside himself, God voluntarily limits his power to enable them to exist and to share in the divine
creativity. God invites humans to share in deciding what the future will be. God does not take it upon his shoulders.”27
“Finally I had to rethink
the divine omniscience and reluctantly ask whether we ought to think of it as an exhaustive foreknowledge of everything that
will ever happen, as even most Arminians do. I found I could not shake off the intuition that such a total omniscience would
necessarily mean that everything we will ever choose in the future will have been already spelled out in the divine knowldge
register, and consequently the belief that we have truly significant choices to make would seem to be mistaken. I knew
the Calvinist argument that exhaustive foreknowledge was tantamount to predestination because it implies the fixity
of all things from “eternity past,” and I could not shake off its logical force. I feared that, if
we view God as timeless and omniscient, we will land back in the camp of theological determinism where these notions naturally
belong. I makes no sense to espouse conditionality and then threaten it by other assumptions that we make.”28
At least Pinnock is honestly making the proper
connections here in that if God knows everything that will happen it means that He has predertermined and foreordained the
choices of men beforehand and this would mean that man’s will cannot truly be “free” and autonomously independent
of Him. To have man’s will autonomously “free” of God is the aim and foundation of Arminianism. God wants
to save everyone but can’t because of mans “free will” and thus God’s will is frustrated. And once
a man trusts in Christ, His will can be frustrated again because this “saint” can now choose to be a “lost
sinner” again. To give the reader an example of the force of the “Calvinistic argument” that Pinnock could
not shake off, I have listed a few good quotes:
"The Arminian doctrine,
in rejecting foreordination, rejects the theistic basis for foreknowledge. Common sense tells us that no event can be
foreknown unless by some means, either physical or mental, it has been predetermined. Our choice as to what determines
the certainty of future events narrows down to two alternatives - the foreordination of the wise and merciful heavenly Father
, or the working of blind, physical fate."29
"Some [Arminians]
have gone so far as to tell us plainly that men had better reject foreknowledge than admit Predestination. Others have
suggested that God may voluntarily neglect to know some of the acts of men in order to leave them free; but his of course
destroys the omniscience of God. Still others have suggested that God's omniscience may imply only that He can know
all things, if He chooses, - just as His omnipotence implies that He can do all things, if He chooses. But the comparison
will not hold, for these certain acts are not merely possibilities but realities, although yet future; and to ascribe ignorance
to God concerning these is to deny Him the attribute of omniscience. This explanation would give us the absurdity of
an omniscience that is not omniscient."30
"Since God's foreknowledge
is complete, He knows the destiny of every person, not merely before the person has made his choice in this life, but from
eternity. And since He knows their destiny before they are created, and then proceeds to create, it is plain that the
saved and the lost alike fulfill His plan for them; for if He did not plan that any particular ones should be lost, He could
at least refrain from creating them. We conclude, then, that the Christian doctrine of the Foreknowledge of God
proves also His Predestination. Since these events are foreknown, they are fixed and settled things; and nothing can
have fixed and settled them except the good pleasure of God, - the great first cause, - freely and unchangeably foreordaining
whatever comes to pass. The whole difficulty lies in the acts of free agents being certain; yet certainty is required
for foreknowledge as well as for foreordination. The Arminian arguments, if valid, would disprove both foreknowledge and foreordination.
And since they prove too much we conclude that they prove nothing at all."31
Gordon Clark wrote of the prophecy
of the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 B.C. and A.D.70:
"The fulfillment of
any one prophecy requires control of the whole universe, lest something prevent its occurrence. When then God says, My counsel
shall stand, he asserts omniscient control. This is his pleasure. He has arranged things so. He did
not merely look ahead and see what would happen independently of him. Nothing is independent of him. He
created all things. Thus the course of history from the past on to the things that are not yet done are parts of God's
plan; and God, declaring the end from the beginning, says, my counsel, my plan, my decree shall stand, and I shall do all
my pleasure. Nothing that God wants done is left undone. If God had not wanted Jerusalem destroyed, he would have prevented it. Clearly he wanted it destroyed."32
Gordon Clark was accurate to state that “nothing
is independent of him” and that if man’s will is autonomously free of God then that would mean that there is something
in the universe that could prevent any given prophecy – and thus destroy not only the miraculous nature of prophecy,
but destroy the nature of God as well! Loraine Boetner correctly pointed out that the universe is run by an all controling
God or is run by blind chance – the teaching of humanism!
Clark Pinnock is not only a consistent Arminian
but he is likewise a consistent futurist and points out the alleged failed “at hand” predictions of John the Baptist
and Paul’s inspired statements of a near second coming because of mans will overriding God’s imminent prophetic
plans:
“The future is not stored
up on heavenly video tape, but is the realm of possibilities, many of which have yet to be actualized. Peter gives us a nice
illustration of this when he explains the delay of Christ’s return as being due to God’s desire to see more sinners
saved - God actually postponing the near return of Christ for their sakes (2 Peter 3:9).”33
“…dispite the Baptist,
Jesus did not cast the wicked into the fire; contrary to Paul, the second coming was not just around the
corner (1Thess. 4:17)34
I was attending the Evangelical Theological Society
in 2003 when they voted 67% to keep Pinnock in the society and thus leave these statements as “evangelical.” Because
most evangelicals are Arminian and futurists, they haven’t a clue how to answer Pinnock and are forced based upon mutual
doctrinal presuppositions to accept Pinnock’s statements. Pinnock’s humanistic thinking in the areas of Arminianism
and futurism have caused him to deny the inspiration and infallibility of the Scriptures – things he at one time thought
he knew how to defend. We gladly welcome Pinnock into a public debate!
Don Preston has done some good research on dispensationalists
Thomas Ice and Mark Hitchcock and points out a major problem in the lack of consistency in their postponement theory of the
kingdom and their alleged views of not only God’s sovereignty but their view of prophecy in general:
“There is another important
issue here. Ice and LaHaye tell us: “prophecy is history written in advance” (Charting, 11), and that “God’s
plan for the future is definite, well planned, and exciting. We do not live in a world of chance. Prophecy means that certain
things will definitely happen, while other possibilities are eliminated.” (Prophecy, 75). Mark Hitchcock says
“One of the great comforts of studying Bible prophecy is that we see the mighty, sovereign hand of God in control of
all things. He controls what will happen and when it will happen, while “eliminating other possibilities,”
with the claim that the Jewish rejection of Jesus made it impossible for Jesus to accomplish what he came to do! Now,
if prophecy is history written in advance, and Jesus came to establish the kingdom, how in the world did he fail to accomplish
what was predicted? If God is in control of what happens, and when it happens, then why could Jesus not do what he came to
do, when he came to do it? You just can’t say that God controls what will happen, and when it will happen, and then
say that Jesus could not do what was predicted, when it was predicted to happen! If Jesus could not do what was prophesied,
when it was predicted he would do it, then assuredly God did not control what would happen and when it would happen. It is
just that simple. Let’s be candid about what this means. A postponed kingdom means, without doubt, that God failed,
Jesus failed, and the Bible is not the word of God!35
That the Bible is not the infallible word of
God, is the very conclusion that many “evangelicals” like Clark Pinnock are coming
to!
My audience is a little mixed at this point.
Dipensationalists like MacArthur and Ice know they have been exposed and a more reformed audience has agreed with me that
Jesus’ and John’s declaration of an “at hand” kingdom was not postponed but rather arrived during
the time of the Roman empire - at the cross and Pentecost. And they would agree with me that the kingdom is spiritual now
but believe at the parousia in the future, it will revert back to the physical when God comes on a literal cloud
and “all eyes” literally see him, and He destroys the literal planet by fire and creates a new one, and raises
our literal bodies, etc. I have already addressed the time frame of “the end of the age” and therefore demonstrated
that these events cannot be future and thus physical in nature and I will demonstrate that more as I continue my exegesis
through the OD. However, there is an objection at this point by the reformed amillennialist and dispensationalist as well
that says, “John’s “at hand” (Mt.3:2; 10-12) kingdom judgment was a literal time statement, but Peters
in (1Pet.4:5,7, 17) was not to be taken literally. And they would appeal to (2Pet.3:8) where Peter is allegedly stating here
that his “at hand” statement written in his previous letter apparently means really nothing at all! Let’s
take a brief look at this text and what dispensationalists and reformed theologians have stated of it.
Traditional futurism tries to twist the obvious
N.T. imminency passages concerning the second coming of Christ (1Pet.4:7, Jms. 5:8-9; Heb. 10:25,37; 1Jn. 2:17-18; Rev. 1:1,
Rev. 3:2-3,11, Rev. 22:6-7, Rev. 10-12,20;) by funneling them all through (2 Pet. 3:8). We are told that such
words as "at hand", "near", "quickly", "shortly", "a little while", "soon", DON’T really mean what they say because
of this one verse:
“There is no doubt that in
the New Testament the nearness of the end is limited to one generation. But this error of perspective (“Perspektivenirrtum”),
which is corrected in only one place of the New Testament (2Pet. 3:8)…”36
One of my former Pastor’s and College Presidents,
John MacArthur tries to counter liberal skeptics who use the imminent time statements in Scripture to prove Jesus failed by
appealing to (2Pet.3:8-9):
“What shall we make of this
charge against the truthfulness of Scripture? Does the passing of 2,000 years indeed prove that Christ’s coming was
not imminent in the early church era and that the apostles were mistaken?” “…the passing of 2,000 years
is no reproach whatsoever against the fatihfulness of God or the trustworthiness of His Word. This is precisely the point
Peter made when he anticipated the scoffers who would arise, mocking the promise of Christ’s return (2Pet.3:3-4). Peter’s
reply to those scoffers? “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (v.8).
The amount of earthly time that passes is of no consequence.” “The passing of 2,000 years is no reproach whatsoever
against the faithfulness of God or the trustworthiness of His Word.” It is like many aeons in His mind, and aeons pass
like moments. He is not bound by time as we are, and no amount of time can ever nullify His faithfulness. “The Lord
is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should
perish but that all should come to repentance” (v.9)
In other words, the real reason
for the Lord’s delay is not that He is negligent or careless in fulfilling His promises, but simply because He is longsuffering
and kind, delaying Christ’s coming and the wrath that will accompany it while He calls people unto salvation. And Christ
will not return before the merciful purposes of God are complete.” “And therefore the fact that 2,000 years have
elapsed is utterly irrelevant to the doctrine of Christ’s imminent return. Christ’s coming is still imminent.”
And again,
“The day is still at hand.
There are no other events that must occur on the prophetic calendar before Christ comes to meet us in the air. He could come
at any moment. And it is in that sense that Christ’s coming is imminent. In the very same sense, His coming was
imminent even in the days of the early church. I suppose it is also possible that Christ could delay His coming
another 2,000 years or longer.”37
First, concerning the signs and the second coming,
we need to note that MacArthur and many other futurists have invented their own self inherit contradictory definition
of “imminency” that isn’t really imminent and can’t be defined by using the Scriptures themselves!
MacArthur throughout his book cites texts such as (Heb.10:37; Jms.5:7-9; 1Pet.4:7) where the coming of the Lord is said to
be in a “very little while,” “is near,” “at the door,” “at hand,” and states
in a bold but ignoramous way,
“There is no ambiguity
about this language…” “…something that might be expected at any time.”38
Hmmm, the writer to the Hebrews says of the second
coming of Christ, "For yet a very little while, And He who is coming will come and will not tarry”
(Heb.10:37) and MacArthur tells us that Christ has delayed (“tarried”) His coming 2000 years and that,
“it is possible that Christ could delay (“tarry”) His coming another 2,000 years or longer.”
Of course the reader is to believe MacArthur over the writer to the Hebrews and understand that there is no “ambiguity”
with MacArthur’s interpretation of imminency?!?
Richard Pratt is one of the “Reformed”
writers who have sought to refute the preterist position and makes a similar argument for an “indefinite delay”
of Christ’s return in his understanding of (2Pet.3:8-9):
"(1) The initial eschatological
perspective was that the blessings of the eschaton had been realized to some measure, and the imminent return of Christ was
offered as a benefit of repentance. (2) The lack of repentance within the covenant community caused an indefinite
delay of Christ's return. (3) Nevertheless, the hope and prayer of every true believer is that through their repentance
and faithful living the return of Christ may be hastened."39
Apparently one of Preterists "flaws"
according to Pratt is that we believe God will do what He says when He says it it will be done :
"...that biblical predictions
must be fulfilled as they are stated runs counter to the overwhelming evidence of Scripture. Even though
hyper-preterists may rightly point to some passages that predict an imminent return of Christ, the development of eschatology
in the Bible strongly suggests that this does not mean that Christ did in fact return in the first century."40
Pratt’s reasoning above fits nicely into
the open theism or open free-willism of men like Clark Pinnock and most assuredly offers no antidote to Pinnock’s diseased
doctrine infecting the church today. Apparently the solution according to men like Pratt is not to teach that the predictions
must be fulfilled as they are stated and when they are stated to take place, but rather it is to adopt a liberal understanding
of God’s way of communicating with man. I sincerely cringe when I hear conservative theologians try and use this text
to describe the imminent return of Christ in the NT as,
“… in a sense always
near”41
These kind of statements belong in the liberal,
Karl Barthinian, Neo-orthodoxy, dialectic language of contradiction and are not founded in the exegesis of God’s
holy Word!!! God is not so “holy other” from his creation that He cannot communicate to us in language we can
understand. I thought I was the only one that was seeing this “always near” concept as originating out of liberalism,
but after recently reading R.C. Sproul Sr.’s book I found someone who agreed with me:
“When F.F. Bruce speaks of
faith making the time be “at hand,” this sounds all too much like Rudolf Bultmann’s famous theology of timelessness,
which removes the object of faith from the realm of real history and consigns it to a supernatural realm of the always present
hic et nunc.”42
In both the statements made by Dispensationalist
John MacArthur and Reformed theologian Richard Pratt the idea is that Christ is justified in an indefinite delay of His return
because His return is contingent upon the belief or will of sinners. As long as men like MacArthur, Thomas Ice, and
Pratt can point to a sinner somewhere on earth that alone justifies Christ’s “delayed return.” One just
never knows who the “last saint” is going to be because God is “longsuffering” it is reasoned. MacArthur
spends a great deal of time trying to emphasize one attribute of God – His longsuffering and fails to address how his
dispensational postponement of an earthly kingdom theory is supposed to harmonize with God’s sovereignty and foreordination.
Well, I do not deny that God’s longsuffering was a major issue preceding the parousia, but the issue “at hand,”
is to Biblically teach it in such a way that it does not contradict the genuine “at hand,” “this generation,”
“some standing here shall not taste death,” time frame references of the N.T.’s teaching of the second coming!
In other words the longsuffering of God in the salvation of men that Peter is addressing in (2Pet.3:8-9) is inseparably tied
too the success of the Great Commission before His return and the end of the OC age could occur (Mt.24:3, 14, 34/Mt.28:18-20).
Therefore, if I can prove that the Great Commission (GC) was fulfilled before the end of the OC age in A.D.70, I can CONFINE
MacArthur’s “longsuffering of God” argument and Pratt’s “contingency upon man’s will”
arguments to a specific “this generation” – the first century church. Can this be done?
PROPHECY
FULFILLMENT
|
"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in
all the world (Greek oikumene) for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come" (Matthew
24:14) |
"But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:
‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the
world (Greek oikumene)" (Romans 10:18) |
|
"And the gospel must first be published among all
nations (Greek ethnos)"
(Mark 13:10) |
"...My gospel... has been made manifest, and by the prophetic Scriptures has
been made known to all nations (Greek ethnos)..." (Romans 16:25-26) |
|
"And He said to them, ‘Go into all the world (Greek kosmos)
and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15) |
"...of the gospel, which has come to you, as it has also in all the
world (Greek kosmos), as is bringing forth fruit...," (Colossians 1:5-6). |
|
And he said unto them ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every
creature (Greek kitisis) " (Mark 16:15) |
"...from the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature
(Greek kitisis) under heaven, of which I, Paul became a minister" (Colossians 1:23) |
|
"But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall
be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria,
and to the end of the earth (Greek ge)" (Acts 1:8). |
"But I say, have they not heard? Yes indeed:
‘Their sound has gone out to all the earth (Greek ge), and
their words to the ends of the world" (Romans 10:18) |
I would agree with my friend Don Preston when
he writes,
“Every word used by the Spirit
to describe the scope of the Great Commission is also used by the Spirit to describe the fulfillment of Jesus’ mandate!
Yet, some still maintain the Great Commission of Matthew 24:14 has never been fulfilled! Is it not presumptuous to say a prophecy
has not been fulfilled even though every term, every word employed in the command and prediction of that event is used by
the inspired writers to say the prediction has been fulfilled? To maintain therefore that the Great Commission has never been
fulfilled one must deny the emphatic statements of scripture. He must insist that the “world” in Matthew meant
something for our modern world, but that the word “world” in Romas, Colossians, etc. meant something totally different!”43
To further illustrate what "world" and "every
nation" in the above texts are referring to, let’s cite some other related texts. Paul said to the Romans that
"your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." (Romans 1:8) Had the faith of the Roman church made its way to
the Indians in modern day America? What
"world" was taxed in Luke 2:1, "And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that
all the world (Greek "oikumene") should be taxed"? Were ancient lands known modernly today as Russia,
China, Africa, the United States,
and Mexico taxed at this time? No,
it was referring to the Roman known world or Roman Empire. What "every nation under
heaven" is being discussed in Acts 2:5, "And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under
heaven"? Were there Jews from Australia and Mexico
who journeyed to Jerusalem from "every nation under heaven"?
This is the same "world" and "every nation" that Jesus and Paul were referring to in Matt. 24:14, Cols. 1:5-6 and Roms. 16:25-26
as the fulfillment of our Lord’s prophecy. This world had been preached to and they heard the gospel before Christ
came in AD 70 to bring an end to the Old Covenant age/kingdom. To merely assume Jesus meant the entire globe
had to be preached to before His second coming would occur, is to take the passage out of its context. We must allow
Scripture to interpret Scripture using solid hermeneutical principals and not attempt to "exegete" God’s holy Word based
on traditional and erroneous presuppositions.
To merely assume Jesus meant the
entire globe (as futurists do) had to be preached to before His second coming and “end of the age” could occur
is to take the passage out of its context. We must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture using solid hermeneutical principals
and not attempt to "exegete" God’s holy Word based on traditional assumptions and 20th century linguistic
presuppositions.
I heard a lecture one time by Don
Preston where he pointed out the divine “must” in the sovereign necessity of the GC being fulfilled within a “this
generation” time frame, "…And the gospel must first be preached to all the nations.” “…and
then the end will come.” (Mrk.13:10/Mt.24:14). Strong’s Concordance defines “must” or dei,
this way,
“Necessity established
by the counsel and decree of God, especially by that purpose of his which relates to the salvation of men by the intervention
of Christ and which is disclosed in the Old Testament prophecies.”
As foretold in the O.T. Scriptures,
God would accomplish the GC command within a specific generation (Mt.24:34). The will of man could not override, “frustrate,”
or cause God’s sovereign decree to “fail” or to not be accomplished during this specific and “appointed”
(or “cut out”) time period! God had not only predestined or sovereignly established the specific time period of
“this generation,” to bring about His parousia, kingdom, NC creation, and judgment, but in doing so He predestined
the individuals who would respond and enter that NC kingdom/Creation and likewise predetermined those who would not respond
in faith during “this generation”! There is a direct and theological parallel of God not failing to accomplish
the GC when He decreed it to come to pass, and Him being longsuffering and not “willing” the “any”
and “all” of the NC creation to perish (2Pet.3:8-9ff.). This Greek word for “not willing (boulomai)
that any should perish” when used of God willing in the N.T. is for Him to “take counsel,” “to resolve,”
or “to purpose.”
“…used of
God seven times in the NT—always with the meaning: “to purpose [Mat. 11:27; Luke 10:22; 1Cor.12:11; Heb.6:17;
Jas.1:18]. POINT: Boulomai, when used in reference to God, always has the idea of purpose, hence, “purposive
will” or “sovereign will,” and it is never hypothetical or thwarted (unless Luke 22:42 and 2Pet.3:9 are
exceptions…). “POINT: When God wills (boulomai), it is not a hypothetical wish, but and actual willing or purposing
of the Divine will; that is, the sovereign or decretive purpose, decree.” “…POINT: The “any”
and “all” are not all mankind without exception, but the beloved of Christ without exception; that is, the elect,
His sheep, who have believed or are yet to believe before Christ returns again in judgment as promised.”44
I would agree with Gary Long’s
statement above, but being a futurist, he is forced to deny the sovereignty of both God the Father and God the Son in their
time frame of purposing and establishing the OT and NT eschatological kingdom/new creation promises. Likewise I would disagree
with Arminian preterists who claim to subscribe to the sovereignty of God in brining about the eschatological time frame of
the kingdom and that God could not fail to do otherwise, but then claim that God willed to save some before A.D. 70 in the
GC but couldn’t because of their “free wills.” So I must take issue with Arminian preterists and Calvinstic
futurists for both groups deny the sovereignty of God and promote a God that goes “ooops” - selah. God has never
nor ever will loose any of His NC creation/kingdom pre-AD 70 or post!
But at this point one will say, “There
is no need to preach the gospel today if the GC has been fulfilled, and if the GC has been fulfilled wouldn’t it stand
to reason that there are no more “elect” to be saved!” These questions fail to understand the difference
between fulfilled prophecy and the application of it’s fulfillment within the age without end. How men come to such
conclusions is beyond me. It is like preaching on predestination and someone will say, “then who has resisted his will?”
and there must be “injustice with God!” or “Why preach the gospel today if God has predestined those to
be saved?” Of course God has likewise predestined the means of the gospel proclamation for which those predestined would
and will be saved, prior and post A.D. 70! The gospel is described as the “everlasting gospel” and the Church
as the New Jerusalem still declares that the gates of the City are open to the lost (Rev.21-22). Christ through His death
and parousia within time and history (not at it’s end) has established salvation and thus the Churches mission
to continue it’s radiant message among the nations of the world. We as adhering to sovereign gospel eschatology, declare
a true and free forgiveness of sins to the lost today apart from works. Christ has sovereignly accomplished all He came
out to accomplish when He said He would accomplish it! Selah
Therefore, I believe I have sufficiently
answered John MacArthrur’s “God is longsuffering” eisegetical excuse for a 2,000+year “delay”
of Christ’s return along with Richard Pratt’s “contingency” arguments for a justification of a delayed
return. In the process of demonstrating that the GC had it’s fulfillment before the “end of the age,” I
have offered but yet another argument as to why the “end of the age” in (Mt.24:3/14/Mt.28:18-20) has been fulfilled.
And by way of a primer to a future chapter on the gifts, I would likewise state that it is error for MacArthur to posit the
charismata and tongues ending in the “apostolic age” when there isn’t a single verse in the Bible that discusses
the ending of the “apostolic age.” The gifts of tongues and prophecy would cease at Christ’s return which
was the end of the OC age in A.D.70.
But I still since a struggle with
the reader – in that he may still be asking, “I can see that ‘at hand’ in (Mt.3) was a literal time
frame reference even though I don’t know how to explain how the resurrection/harvest was “at hand,” but
doesn’t (2Pet.3:8) still teach that “at hand” in relation to the second coming, judgment, and resurrection
(1Pet.4:5,7, 17; Jam.5:7-9) should be taken non-literally? I suppose we should deal then with this distracting objection before
going any further in identifying the “end of the age” in (Mt.24:3) as the OC age ending in A.D.70.
1) As I have covered, there are no
exegetical grounds to separate the “at hand” kingdom offer of inheriting salvation and it’s attended judgment
that John the Baptist is teaching early in Matthew with that of the “at hand” kingdom and judgment declarations
made by the N.T. writers in regard to the second coming. They are one and the same “at hand” kingdom, judgment,
salvation, and resurrection/harvest.
2) In the laws and rules of hermeneutics
one is NEVER allowed to let one verse override the overwhelming evidence of Scripture elsewhere – and yet Ridderbos
and others feel this “one verse” “corrects” how these imminent words are used everywhere else in the
Bible?!? This in and of itself should raise a red flag to any student of hermeneutics!
3) God clearly condemns this denial or over spiritualizing
his imminent time statements of him coming in judgment elsewhere in Scripture and we likewise condemn that approach here!
In the book of Ezekiel, God was about to pour out His covenant wrath on Israel,
"SHORTLY" for their rebellion (Ezk. 7:8). God’s message through the prophet Ezekiel to the people of his day was that
there was an "END" coming, and that "the day" was "NEAR" (Ezk. 7:2; 7; 8). In chapter 12, Ezekiel was commanded by God to
be "a sign" of Israel’s imminent
captivity by packing his belongings, covering his face, and digging through the wall. This was a prophetic portrayal of what
would shortly be the actions and fate of King Zedekiah and the Jews as they tried to escape but were caught by the Chaldean
army and taken into exile to Babylon.
Our points of interest here are: 1) the time
frame language used of God – “near,” “shortly,” and “at hand” 2) the reaction of
apostate Israel toward the prophecy and
the time language used by God, and 3) God’s reaction to their denial of his time statements:
“Thus saith the
Lord GOD; An evil, an only evil, behold, is come. An end is come, the end is come: it watcheth for thee; behold, it
is come. The morning is come unto thee, O thou that dwellest in the land: the time is come, the day of trouble is
near, and not the sounding again of the mountains. Now will I shortly pour out my fury upon thee,
and accomplish mine anger upon thee: and I will judge thee according to thy ways, and will recompense thee for all thine abominations.
And mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: I will recompense thee according to thy ways and thine abominations
that are in the midst of thee; and ye shall know that I am the LORD that smiteth. Behold the day, behold, it
is come: the morning is gone forth; the rod hath blossomed, pride hath budded.” (Ezk. 7:5-10).
“Son
of man, what is that proverb that ye have in the land
of Israel, saying, The days are prolonged, and every vision
faileth? Tell them therefore, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no more use it
as a proverb in Israel; but say unto them, The days are at hand, and the effect of every vision. For there shall
be no more any vain vision nor flattering divination within the house of Israel.
For I am the LORD: I will speak, and the word that I shall speak shall come to pass; it shall be no more prolonged:
for in your days, O rebellious house, will I say the word, and will perform it, saith the Lord GOD. Again the word of the
LORD came to me, saying, Son of man, behold, they of the house of Israel
say, The vision that he seeth is for many days to come, and he prophesieth of the times that
are far off. Therefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; There shall none of my words be prolonged
any more, but the word which I have spoken shall be done, saith the Lord GOD.” (Ezk. 12:22-28).
Don Preston was the first person I read on this
text that made any sense and he deserves to be quoted here at length:
In Ezekiel 7, God through Ezekiel
said the Day of the Lord was at hand. The Day of the Lord in this context was when God used Babylon
to punish Israel for her sin. This ia
the concept of the Day of the Lord, it is not an “end of time” idea. It is when God used a nation to punish another
as it related to his chosen people.
In chapter 11 Israel responded to the threat of coming judgment. They insisted
that although Ezekiel said it was at hand it was really not. It was time to build houses, not worry about judgment. One can
almost hear some of those people: “Well, yes, Ezekiel has said the Day of the Lord is at hand, but after all, ‘one
day is with the Lrod as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day,’ Psalm 90:4”
When Israel “elasticized” God’s words of imminence into relativity,
ambiguity and meaning-less-ness, God responded. In Ezekiel 12:21ff, [Please, take the time to get your Bible and read it for
yourself!] Adonai told Ezekiel to tell Israel
that her days of changing the time for his predictions were over. He had said judgment was at hand; Israel said it was not at hand. Jehovah would not tolerate it.
“… What we have then,
is an example of man saying that while God has said something was imminent it really was not; it was for a long time off.
We have God’s response; when God said “at hand” he meant “at hand”! He did not mean hundreds
or thousands of years; he meant “soon!”
Another example of man changing
the meaning of God’s time words is in Amos 6:3. God warned Israel
the time had come for her to be judged, 8:2, Hosea 1:4. In spite of the warnings Israel “put far off the evil day.” Isaiah 56:12 shows they were saying
“tomorrow shall be as today.” In spite of God’s warning that judgment was at hand they insisted, “All
things continue as they were,” cf. 2Pet 3:3-4! They refused to believe God said “Woe” to them!” 45
Even futurists commentaries acknowledge that
one of the sins of the false prophets and apostates of Eziekel’s day was that they sought to change the meaning of “at
hand” to “far off.”
“—their twofold
argument: (1) The predictions shall not come to pass till long after our time. (2) They shall fail and prove vain shadows.
God answers both in #Eze 12:23, 25. Not a mere repetition of the scoff (#Eze 12:22); there the scoffers asserted that
the evil was so often threatened and postponed, it must have no reality; here formalists do not go so far as to
deny that a day of evil is coming, but assert it is still far off (Am 6:3). The transition is easy from this carnal
security to the gross infidelity of the former class.”46
“The prophecies
of their ruin were confirmed by visions, and illustrated by signs, and all with such evidence and power that one would think
they must needs be wrought upon; but here we are told how they evaded the conviction, and guarded against it, namely, by telling
themselves, and one another, that though these judgments threatened should come at last yet they would not come of a long
time. This suggestion, with which they bolstered themselves up in their security, is here answered, and shown to be vain
and groundless, in two separate messages which God sent to them by the prophet at different times, both to the same purport;
such care, such pains, must the prophet take to undeceive them,”47
The application of God’s Word here is firm
and clear to the futurist who twists the imminence passages in the NT. God says that the word which He speaks ("shortly",
"near", and "at hand") will come to pass WHEN HE SAYS IT WILL. God does not consider the futurists’ misinterpretations
of His promises of coming "soon", "quickly", and in "a little while" in the NT a light thing? For they strike at the very
core of His nature - "faithfulness." In the book of Hebrews, speaking of the promise of Christ’s second coming, we are
told, "He who promised is FAITHFUL" (Heb. 10:23-25). This is not just a generic promise of Christ to come in some indefinite
period of time, but rather, "For yet a little while, and He who is coming will come and will not tarry." (Heb. 10:37).
The futuristic interpretation of an imminent (which really isn’t imminent) second coming of Christ makes Him unfaithful
to His promise!
When God who is not bound by time promises that
something will happen "shortly" to man, who is bound by time, the event prophesied indeed takes place "shortly" because "the
Word which He speaks WILL COME TO PASS." God speaks to man in language that man can understand, thus when something
happens “soon” in man’s time He is recognized as “faithful and true” to His promise. Although
it is true that God is eternal and outside of time, He is communicating to man who is in time and therefore speaks to man
in language He can understand. One is left with interpreting the time statements as liberals do – in a way they mean
NOTHING AT ALL, or accepting the weight of the Scriptural evidence that supports that when God says something will take place
“soon” He meant it!
4) The original context of (Ps.90)
where Peter is alluding to needs to be brought out.
A) The entire Psalm was understood
by many of the Rabbis to be teaching a future 40 year millennium (Ps.90:15) whereby Messiah would come and rule over His enemies
in the “this age” before the “age to come” would fully be ushered in. This is the exact time frame
Jesus gives of the millennium or time frame before His second coming “this generation” (Mt.24:34), and the one
Peter is alluding to as well.
B) In it’s original context
it is discussing how God was destroying those rebels who had not heeded His word (cf.Hebs. 3-4) over that 40 time frame period.
So by quoting this passage the “mockers” Peter is addressing are reminded of the consequences of not heeding God’s
Word and that the wrath of God was abiding upon them and that they too would return to the dust without experiencing the “rest”
God promised. C) On that note, remember as we discussed in (Mt.24 – 25; Lk.19) that “a long time” in relation
to the “end of the age” or “kingdom” was in relation to man’s lifespan and in the original context
of the 1,000 years quote I believe this is discussing Adam living to 930 years of age returning to the dust outside of fellowship
with Him. Therefore, a number that would symbolically represent God’s eternality in contrast to man’s temporal
ness would be a 1,000 years. But by the time we reach the N.T. in redemptive history, man’s lifespan has diminished
and the trial period under discussion and the doctrinal typology that is brought to the readers minds is that of the 40 year
“generation” of the wilderness wandering and the current “this generation” Jesus predicted would see
His return. Therefore, all the text is really saying is that God is eternal and man is temporal and although the mockers may
want to think God is “slow” in keeping His promise to return in some of their lifetimes, it wasn’t a long
time to God and He was on time in keeping His “at hand” (1Pet.4:7, Jms.5:7-9) “this generation” promise
to bring salvation to the remnant and destroy and judge the wicked at His parousia! Because God was eternal and they were
temporal, they needed to heed the imminent cry’s and warnings of the Church to repent!
I have devoted an entire chapter
on this text whereby I go over these points in much more detail, but for now I hope this eliminates the “but what about
(2Pet.3:8) distraction to the “end of the age” occurring in an “at hand” time frame?
5) Let me leave you with a chart
and allow me to ask you a couple of questions on God’s method of communicating the time frame of His Kingdom and the
“time of the end” as it pertains to (2Pet.3:8).
|
Did God change His method of telling time
between Daniel & John concerning the same
subject matter? |
|
DANIEL WAS
TOLD:
1· “Seal up the vision” |
JOHN WAS
TOLD:
1· “Don’t seal up…” |
|
2· Why? “the appointed time was long…”
and
3· “…the vision refers to many
days yet to come.”
(Dan. 10:1;14) |
2· Why? “…for the time is at
hand.”
3· “…for the time is near
(Rev. 22:10 & 1:3) |
|
4· Daniel was told that he would not live to
see this prophecy fulfilled.
(Dan. 12:13) |
4· John was told that he could live to see
the prophecy fulfilled.
(Mat. 16:27-28, Mat. 10:22-23; Mat. 24:34;
Jn. 21:18-22) |
God, who is outside of time and not bound by
it was able to successfully communicate to Daniel who was bound by time, that he needed to "seal up" the prophetic vision
because it would take place within the "latter days", which would culminate in "the time of the end" and that its fulfillment
would not come to pass until "a long time" and "many days to come" (Dan. 10:1; 14, cf. Chp. 12). God who is
outside of time apparently had no problem communicating to man (Daniel) who is bound by time this prophecy as a "long time",
because it’s time of fulfillment didn’t come until some 300+ years from the time Daniel received the visions.
God’s time phrase of a "long time" was related to Daniel in the terms of his physical life span. Since some 300+ years
was well beyond his life span, it was a "long time" away. In Revelation, John is told the opposite of Daniel, "Do NOT
seal up the the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near" (Rev. 22:10). God’s time
phrases of "near", "shortly", "quickly", "at hand", to John and the seven churches which were in Asia was in relation to their
life spans as well. John and the other disciples were promised that some of them would live to see these things come in their
generation (Matt. 16:28; 24:34, Jn. 21:18-22).
Both visions of Daniel and John dealt with the
kingdom, the second coming of Christ in judgment, the tribulation, and the resurrection of the dead. According to the futurist,
the time is still "near" for John’s vision to take place even though it has been some 2000+ years since John had his
vision. Why would God now change His way of communicating the time of the fulfillment of Daniel’s and John’s
visions concerning the same subject matter? The answer is that He didn’t. At the time when Daniel had his visions
which included the second coming of Christ and His kingdom, the time of its designated fulfillment, AD 70, really was a long
way away. When John had His vision concerning the second coming of Christ and His kingdom, it was only seven or fewer years
away. Therefore, "a long time" meant a long time and "near" really did mean NEAR!
But moving on. Let’s continue with the
unscriptural and hypothetical views of dispensationalism in God postponing a literal “at hand” kingdom or “age
to come” to a spiritual non-literal “at hand” kingdom and “age to come” to occur “someday.”
According to dispensationalism, had the Jews accepted Jesus offer of a physical kingdom (which they have no verse for), the
“sad reality” (Thomas Ice) of cross would never have taken place and “salvation” in the millennial
earthly kingdom and literal New Heavens and New Earth would have commenced. Some dispensationalists admit that had the Jews
accepted Jesus as their Messiah everyone would have been saved apart from the shed blood of Christ. But hey in dispensational
theology the shed blood of Christ doesn’t really matter anyway because in the alleged future physical millennial temple
there will be animal sacrifices taking place once again. It is extremely painful to watch such “prophecy experts”
as Thomas Ice explain how there will be animal sacrifices in the literal millennium temple. Thomas Ice writes,
“It will be a wondrous time
inded—a time in which the glory of the Lord will return to the Temple (Ezk.43:1-5), God
will dwell in the midst of His people (37:26-28), and Israel
will fulfill her national calling.”48
Hopefully Christians are more concerned with
how the inspired Apostle Paul interpreted (Ezk.37:26-28) for he claimed that Ezkiel’s prophecy of the millennial temple
was fulfilled in the church by quoting this text and (Jer.32) in (2Cor.6:16f.). Some dispensationalists such as Scofield,
have made the admission that Ezekiel’s temple can be interpreted spiritually and by doing so unravel their “literal”
hermeneutic.
“The reference to sacrifices
[in Ezekiel’s temple prophecy] is not to be taken literally, in view of the putting away of such offerings [according
to Hebrews], but is rather to be regarded as a presentation of the worship of redeemed Israel, in her own land and in the
millennial temple, using the terms with which the Jews were familiar in Ezekiel’s day.”49
Obviously if the sacrifices of the temple are
“not to be taken literally,” then neither should the temple itself! And thus the corrner stone and entire construct
of the dispensational “literal” hermeneutic of interpreting Israel’s
promises literally comes crashing down.
But ignoring how the Apostle Paul interprets
the Ezekiel temple, another dispensationalist Thomas Ice, claims it is a literal future temple with literal sacrifices while
all the while wanting to assure his readers that,
“…the sacrifices
of the Millennial Temple will not be a return to the Mosaic Law, since the law has forever been fulfilled and discontinued
through Christ (Romans 6:14-15; 7:1-6; 1Corinthians 9:20-21; 2Corinthians 3:7-11; Galatians 4:1-7; 5:18; Hebrews 8:13; 10:1-14).”50
Of course two of these texts LaHaye and Ice cite
(2Cor.3:7-11) and (Hebs.8:13) state very clearly that the Mosaic Law had not passed at the cross but were still
in effect during the time Paul was writing and were in the process of “passing away” and would “soon disappear.”
These texts fit the Preterist frame work of the Mosaic Law passing in A.D.70 but they sure don’t fit the statement of
Ice that the Mosaic Law can’t be enforced today or will not be binding in his imagined literal 1,000 year temple. Ice
also avoids (Mt.5:17-19) as does MacArthur in his “refutation” of preterism where according to Jesus every jot
and tittle of the law would be binding “until heaven and earth passes away,” or “all is fulfilled.”
According to Ice’s colorfull charts, the “literal” heaven and earth doesn’t pass away until after
the “literal” 1,000 year millennium, so yes, in dispensationalism the climax of redemption is most definitely
“a return to the Mosaic Law.” As I will prove later the “heaven and earth” Jesus is speaking of here
in (Mt.5:17-18) and in the OD (Mt.24:35) is refering to the heaven and earth of the Mosaic Law (Isa.51:15-16) and it’s
temple and has nothing to do with the planet earth as even many reformed futurists admit and we shall critique the consistency
of their admissions and hermeneutics in little further on.
But to further demonstrate that John’s
“at hand” message of a coming kingdom and judgment wasn’t “postponed” but carried through to
the N.T. we need to examine some of his statements. We are still on the theme of identifying what age/kingdom was predicted
to come to an end and the one the disciples understood or did not understand would take it’s place.
1) Were the
Diciples Still “Confused” in (Acts 1:6) About The Nature of the Kingdom Age? 2) John the Baptist’s Time
Statements, 3) “He will baptise you with the HOLY SPIRIT and FIRE” 4) Paul’s Ressurrection “about
to” Take Place
As we have seen, in dispensational theology the
cross is played against Jesus’ and John the Baptist’s “at hand” kingdom declarations. But were the
disciples confused over Jesus’ teaching on the kingdom in relation to the cross? Jesus had to “open their eyes”
(as He does with dispensationalists and as He did with mine) on the road to Emmaus to the OT Scriptures by explaining that
these things were necessary to establish the messianic kingdom promises. He had to likewise further teach the disciples 40
days before ascending. After hearing of the Spirits coming (a sign of the “last days” and it’s association
with the baptism of fire – judgment) they naturally based on the OT and Jesus’ and John the Babtists teaching
asked, “Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?”
(Acts 1:6). Their question in NO WAY is evidence that the disciples were confused over the spiritual nature of the kingdom,
they just wanted to know when it was coming as they did in (Mt.24:3).
Remember they had been taught that the kingdom
was “at hand” not postponed and that Jesus would baptise “with the Holy Spirit and FIRE”
and that these events would be associated with “the wrath to come” and the great eschatological harvest/resurrection
(Mt.3:11ff.; Lk.3:2-17). The out pouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost was a sign of the coming “at hand”
kingdom, salvation, and judgement that the prophet Joel predicted – “the great and notable day of the Lord”
(Acts 2 – 4). John the Baptist was preaching and preparing the way of an “at hand” “great and
dreadful day of the Lord” as predicted by Malachi and Joel. Peter and the rest of the NT writers do not see John the
Baptist’s preaching of an “at hand” kingdom, judgment, harvest/resurrection (Mt.3:2, 10-12) to have stopped
at Pentecost with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, but rather sees it’s fulfillment to occur within their contemporary
generation at the “at hand” coming of the Lord and judgment (Acts 2:40; 1Pet.4:5, 7, 17; Jms.5:7-9).
There are three interesting words associated
with the concepts of the kingdom, judgment, and harvest/resurrection that John the Baptist uses in (Mt.3). These concepts
are followed throughout the NT to teach an at hand second coming of Christ.
1) “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is
NEAR.”
2) “And even now the ax is laid
at the root of the trees…”
The first place where a combination of these
words of imminence are used is found of course in the OD. Luke tells us that Jesus taught the disciples that when the armies
surround Jerusalem is when they would know to flee and that Jerusalem’s judgment or “desolation is near.” (Lk.21:20). He then
proceeds to tell them that this is likewise the time when redemption, summer, and the kingdom is near
(Lk.21:28, 30, 31). And verse 30 includes, “When they are already budding, you see and know for yourselves that
summer is now near.” Summer in context here is synonimous with the coming of Christ or the kingdom. John the
Baptist taught that when the kingdom of God
was “at hand” is when the judgment and harvest/resurrection would be “at hand” as well. There would
be no postponement of these kingdom promises or a 2,000 + years and counting to their “at hand” fulfillments.
Here in the OD Jesus seals the meaning of John’s “at hand” with a promise to the disciples that His return
and the kindom would come within their generation (Lk.21:30-32). The notion of futuristic partial preterists that in Jesus’
teaching leading up to the phrase “this generation” there is no mention of the resurrection is simply not true!
In the analogy of Scripture the “redemption,” “gathering together,” “salvation,” and living
to experience the coming of Christ and His kingdom ALL signal the time for the great and final judgment and eschatological
harvest/resurrection to occur!
Another tie to the fact that John as the Elijah
to come was predicting the “at hand” “great and notable day of the Lord” as predicted by Malichai
and Joel is found in the OD as well under the de-creation language of the stars falling from the heavens and signs in the
heavens. Jesus tells His first century disciples that their generation will witness this coming associated with de-creation
and signs in the heavens (Joel 2:30-31/Mt.24:29, 34; Lk.21:25; 32).
To further demonstrate this let’s go to
the second place where the same combination of these imminent words are used in the same context. The second place where a
combination of these imminent words are used is found in (Roms.13:11-12) and I believe I will let a futurist and partial preterist
introduce the passage for me:
“…you are treasuring
up for yourselves wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each
one according to his deeds”… (Rom.2:4-6)
…in the day when God will
judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.” (Rom.2:16)
Paul refers to “the day of
wrath” and “the day when God will judge the secrets of men.” Presumably both references are to the same
“day.” Traditionalists see them as references to the yet future last judgment. Preterists like Russell interpret
these references as they do all other references to the day of the Lord: this is the dark day of judgment that befell Israel in the destruction of Jerusalem.
Though the above texts lack time-frame
references, they may reasonably be linked to later references Paul makes in the same epistle: “And do this, knowing
the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer
than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand…” (Rom.13:11-12)51
Therefore, according to a futurist and partial
preterist, R.C. Sproul, it is “not unreasonable” to see how Paul’s teaching throughout Romans on the crucial
eschatological topics can be interpreted within the time texts stated elsewhere in the epistle. For a futurist like Sproul
to admit this is in effect to admit too much in hopes to likewise defend the futurist or creedal position. Yes,
I couldn’t agree more with Sproul’s statement for the judgment (Rms.2), coming of Christ (Rms.11:26-27), the new
creation (Rms.8), and the firstfruits/harvest resurrection or redemption of the body (Rms.5-6; Rms.7:11, 23; Rms.11:15-16;
Rms.13:11-12) are all “reasonably” tied to the same “at hand” A.D.70 event! The same coming
judgment and harvest/resurrection that John declared to be “at hand” was the same judment and resurrection for
Israel declared by Paul in the book of
Romans. The “firstfruits” of the harvest/esurrection had already begun and looked to a “near” and
“at hand” harvest consumation in which the “redemption” and “salvation” described in Romans
and found “In Christ” would be perfected. Sproul can’t have his “near” “salvation”
and “judgment” in the book of Romans in A.D. 70 cake and eat a futurist creedal physical resurrection at the same
time! Not only can these statements not be reconciled exegetically in the book of Romans, but Sprouls own statements unravel
the partial preterist position that he takes.
Let’s take a look at Sproul’s “reasonable”
admission that he makes in Romans and apply it to what he says in 1Corinthians. “Though the above texts lack time-frame
references, they may reasonably be linked to later references Paul makes in the same epistle.” In 1Corinthians
R.C. Sproul admits the following passages apply to the coming of the Lord in A.D.70 because of their time statements or contextual
flow (1Cor.1:7-8; 1Cor.3:13-15; 1Cor.7:29-31; 1Cor.10:11), but then what happen to his “reasoning” that just because
Paul doesn’t say the coming of the Lord is at hand later in an epistle ie. (1Cor.15) “they may reasonably be linked
to a later reference Paul makes in the same epistle”?!? How does the coming of the Lord and “end” mentioned
in (1Cor.1:7-8 & 1Cor.10:11) get mystically changed in (1Cor.15) to a different coming of Christ with a different “end”?
Where is the exegetical evidence that he changes subjects from “a” coming of Christ in judgment in A.D. 70 early
in the epistle to “the” coming of Christ later in the epistle? Futurists such as Sproul, Gentry, and DeMar link
the “at hand” judgments and comings of Christ throughout the N.T. with what John had declared early in the gospels,
but when it comes to the resurrection and harvest associated with that judgment (Mt.3:10-12), this is never addressed in any
exegetical way allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture.
One more final example of how futurists violate
their own hermeneutics when it comes to the “at hand” kingdom “end of the age” harvest/resurrection
that John and Jesus preached was coming and would occur at the end of their “this age.” R.C. Sproul agrees with
futurist Kenneth Gentry about the traid of imminent statements in Revelation refering to a soon coming of Christ in A.D. 70.
They are as follows:
1) taxos word group - “shortly”
or “quickly” (Rev.1:1; 2:16; 3:11; 22:6, 7, 12, 20).
2) engus word group - “near”
or “at hand” (Rev.1:3; 22:10).
3) mello word group – “about
to” or “on the point of” (Rev.1:19; 3:10).
Sproul summarizes Gentry’s case on these
time frame references as clearly A.D.70 events and states:
“Gentry argues that commentators
would render the term differently from the lexiographical consensus only if influenced by an interpretive controlling a
priori.”52
Our point of interest here is the third word
group listed above – mello “about to” or “on the point of.” Sproul quoting Gentry says
of this word,
“Certainly it is true that
the verb mello can indicate simply ‘destined,’ or it can be emplyed in a weakened sense as a periphrasis for the
futre tense,” Gentry says. “Nevertheless, when used with the aorist infinitive –as in Revelation 1:19---the
words predominant usage and preferred meaning is: ‘be on the point of, be about to.’ The same is true when
the word is used with the present infinitive, as in Rev.3:10. The basic meaning in both Thayer and Abbott-Smith is:
‘to be about to.”53
Well, just as Sproul and Gentry accuse other
futurists as having a priori reasons for not taking the time texts throughout Revelations to be speaking to A.D.70
events they likewise bring their creedal presuppositions to the book and pick and choose what texts they want to be A.D.70
events and which ones are allegedly 2000+ years removed. Nowhere does John say that “some or most of the things
I am writing to you will shortly come to pass,” he states, “I am writing to you about things which must shortly
come to pass” (Rev.1:1). It is only the judgment associated with the resurrection that apparently the time texts throughout
the book does not address! And when the same Greek construction that renders mello to have the “predominant usage”
and “basic meaning” of “be on the point of, be about to” in the book of Acts concerning the resurrection
preached by Paul -- we don’t find any comment from Gentry, Sproul, or any partial preterist futurist on these texts:
1) "because He has appointed
a day on which He mello is about to judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has
given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)
2) "I have hope in God, which they
themselves also accept, that there mello - is about to be a resurrection of the dead, both of the
just and the unjust” (Acts.24:15)
You don’t think that they themselves have
any “a priori” creedal biases on the resurrection that cause them to contradict their previous statements
about mello or that cause them to flat out avoid these passages do you?!? Clearly the “kind” of resurrection/harvest
associated with the kingdom and judgment John the Baptist was preaching to be “at hand” in (Mt.3:3, 10-12) and
Jesus discussed to take place in his “this age” (Mt.13:49) is what Paul under inspiration understood to be “on
the point of being fulfilled” in his day! Clearly when we don’t approach the Scripture with futuristic (no matter
what brand it is packaged in) “a priori” presuppostions, Scripture interprets itself.
The NT writers unanamously see John’s declaration
of an “at hand” kingdom, judgment, coming of Christ, and harvest/resurrection to be within their lifetimes and
their generation (Hebs.9:26-28/10:25, 37; 1Pet.4:5, 7, 17; Jms.5:7-9; Rev.1:1/Rev.14, Rev.20-22). In the case of James 5 James
uses the same exact gramatical and Greek construction as does John in (Mt.3): 1) “For the kingdom of heaven is at
hand” (Mt.3:2)--“For the coming of the Lord is at hand” (Jms.5:.8). And James also sees the signs
Jesus gave coming to their fulfillment in his terminal generation and equates the coming of Christ in judgment with the kingdom
being “at the door”: 2) “And when you see all these things, know that it is at the doors” (Mt.24:33)--“Behold
the judge is standing at the door” (Jms.5:9).
The Bible
Predicts The “Last Days” of What Age?
In Scripture the “last days”
of “this age” is to give way to the “age about to come,” which is referring to the “last days”
of the old covenant age giving way to the Church age or NC age. Jesus was born under and into the OC age of the law (Gals.
4:4; Hebs.1:1; 9:26) – it should be clear that Jesus’ appearing in the end of the age or “ages” (1Cor.10:11)
cannot mean that He was born at the end of time or the planet! Peter specifically tells us that Jesus appeared in the “last
times” or “last days” during His earthly ministry (1Pet. 1:20). Some would insist that the “last days”
did not start until Pentecost but obviously Scripture disagrees.
How
Do Partial Preterists Understand the “Last Days” Of The “End Of The Age?”
Since most partial preterists find
their doctrinal lineage to Puritan theologian John Owen we shall spend a little time on his observations about the “last
days” leading to the “end of the age.” Owen stated of (Hebs.1:2):
“Most expositors
suppose that this expression, “The last days,” is a periphrasis for the times of the gospel. But it doth not appear
that they are anywhere so called; nor were they ever known by that name among the Jews, upon whose principles the apostle
proceeds.” “…It is the last days of the Judaical church and state, which were then drawing to their period
and abolition, that are here and elsewhere called “The last days,” or “The latter days,” or “The
last hour,” 2 Peter 3:3; 1 John 2:18; Jude 1:18. For,…” “…This phrase of speech is signally
used in the Old Testament to denote the last days of the Judaical church.”54
Owen goes on to examine some OT
texts where this phrase is used and notes that in all those cases it was used exclusively to describe the end of the Mosaic
covenant and the time in which Messiah would come. He cites: Genesis 49:1; Numbers 24:14; Micah 4:1; Isaiah 2:2; Deuteronomy
31:29; Hosea 3:5; and concludes, “From these places is the expression here used taken, denoting the last times of the
Judaical church, the times immediately preceding its rejection and final ruin.” And “The days of the Messiah and
the days of the end of the Judaical church are the same.”
Genesis
49:1, 10
I would agree with Dr. Owen that
the “last days” is depicting the last days of Israel’s
old covenant age and not the end of the Christian or new covenant age. Owen begins with (Gen.49:1) in discussing Israel’s “last days” and we should note of what is said of Judah in the “last days”:
“The sceptre shall
not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be” (Gen.49:10).
The sovereign rule of a law giver
under the OC law of Moses was given to Judah
but that rule ceased in A.D.70 when Christ the Messiah came and put an end to it and “gathered” both Jew and Gentile
into the NC kingdom at His return. That gathering began with the preaching of the gospel that extended to the Gentiles but
was fulfilled at His return in “this generation” (Isa.11:10-12/Rms.15:12; Mt.24:30-34). John Gill of (Gen.49:10)
notes that the Rabbi’s understood Messiah’s reign to be a short time “…that the Messiah, when he comes,
shall not reign for ever, but for a certain time, and even a small time; some say forty years, some seventy,…”
Christ ruled over His enemies who had pierced Him and in A.D.70 He took the sovereignty of that OC kingdom and gave it to
the Church (Mt.21:33-45).
Numbers
24:14-17
Owen also cites the prophecy of
Balaam concerning the Messiah coming in judgment on the last day of Israel’s
“last days” (Num.24:14-17). What is interesting here is that in the context of this “last days” (v.14)
prophecy is that God does consider time language to be taken literally for Balaam saw Christ’s coming in judgment as
“…not now; I behold Him, but not near;” (v.17).
Deuteronomy
31 - 32
Another text Owen goes to support
that the “last days” is speaking of Israel and not the last
days of the NC age is (Deut.31:29) where God foretells that Israel
will be “utterly corrupted” in her “last days.” The “last days” prediction here goes into
the Song of Moses in the next chapter (Deut.32). Here we learn that there will be a “last days” “crooked
and perverse generation” in which will be guilty of shedding the blood of God’s servants (Deut.32:5; 20; 43).
Jesus and Peter clearly point out that the fulfillment of this “last days” “generation” that would
see God “vindicate” the blood of His servants – was the one they were living in (Mt.23:31-36; Mt.24:34;
Acts 2:40).
Hosea
2-3
The contextual settings of Hosea’s
prophesy is the exile of the ten Northern tribes of Israel
into the Assyrian captivity. God divorces Israel and she is put out of the land (or put outside His house) and becomes swallowed
up and sown in the field of the Gentiles - but there is a promise of “in that day” He will marry her again (Hos.2;
Hos.8:8). God remains married to Israel’s
adulterous sister Judah until her harlotries and divorce by fire and stoning take place in A.D.70 (Rev.17). God’s remarriage
of the remnant of the ten Northern tribes of Israel, the remnant of Judah, and the Gentiles who become grafted into Israel’s
promises can be found in (Mt.22:1-14; Mt.25; Rev.19-22). The wedding takes place when the city is burned up (Mt.22:7). This
“Great City” is described in
Revelation as “Sodom” and “Babylon”
and is the city where the Lord was crucified (Rev.11:8). Jesus was crucified in Jerusalem!
God tells Israel that she will go without a king until Messiah (“David their king”)
comes in the “last days” (Hos.3:4-5). In the book of Acts Peter makes it clear that they were in the “last
days” and that Jesus was the King of the Davidic covenant promised by God through the prophets and that He was ruling
and reigning at the right hand of the Father (Acts 2 – 4).
Isaiah
2 - 4
Owen also cites (Micah 4:1) and
(Isa.2:2-4) as “last days” prophecies concerning Israel
which are almost identical. They speak of a time in which Messiah will come and establish His “temple,” “mountain,”
and “Jerusalem,” among both Jews and Gentiles
and that they will “beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.” Jesus made it clear
that His kingdom was “not of this world” and the N.T. writers clearly confirmed His teaching by stating that the
“kingdom,” “Mount Zion,” “Temple,” and “Jerusalem” that they were receiving
which was the fulfillment of all the OT prophets was not physical but spiritual (2Cor.6:16/Ezk.37:27; Gal.4, Heb.9:24-27;
Heb.12:18ff.; 1Pet.1:4-13). This was the NC kingdom in which Jesus said He gave a peace that the world could not give and
that it would brake down the walls of hostility between Jews and Gentiles. We see the fruit of this peace in the book of Acts
where the Gentile Church gives monetarily
to the Jerusalem Church
that was affected by famine.
Old Covenant Israel and Jerusalem are described as “Sodom” in the “last days” both in (Deut.32:32) and (Isa.1:9-10; Isa.3:9).
And as we have briefly noted she is likewise described as “Sodom,” “Egypt,” and “Babylon”
in the book of Revelation.
I would like to draw attention
to the context of the judgment “in that day” that is to occur in this “last days” prediction found
in (Isa.2). Jesus quotes (Isa.2:10; 19) in (Lk.23:30) as the fulfillment of the judgment and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70. Every futurist commentator sees the Luke passage as referring to A.D.70
and I believe John Gill makes the accurate connections when he states of (Lk.23:30):
“The Syriac,
Arabic, and Persic versions read, "then shall ye begin to say"; the tribulation being so great, as never was the like since
the creation of the world, nor never will be to the end of it; and being so sore pressed with the sword and famine; with the
enemy without, and divisions, robberies, and murders within; and their miseries being inexpressible, and intolerable, they
will seek to go into the holes of the rocks, and caves of the earth, as is prophesied of them, Isa.2:19 and as Josephus says,
many of them did, when the city was taken; and, like those in Ho 10:8 will say, "to the mountains fall on us, and to the hills
cover us"; will choose rather that the mountains and hills round about Jerusalem, should fall upon them, and they be buried
under the ruins of them, than live in such terrible distress, or fall into the hands of their enemies! Compare with this Re
6:15, 16.”55
Both Jesus and John in
the book of Revelation see Isaiah’s prophecy of the Lord coming in judgment in the “last days” and “In
that day” to be speaking of Him coming in judgment in A.D.70 and not at the end of time or history. Both Jesus and John
place the fulfillment of this passage in Isaiah 2 to be speaking of the judgment upon Jerusalem
in her “last days” which would reach a climax in A.D.70 and should be evidence enough for a pre-A.D.70 date for
the book of Revelation. John foretold “things that would shortly take place” (Rev.1:1). What most futurists fail
to realize or acknowledge is that the “last days” judgment that Jesus and John see Isaiah fulfilling in A.D.70
is carried throughout Isaiah and is fulfilled with the coming of the New Heavens and New Earth (compare Jew and Gentile coming
together to Jerusalem or Mnt. Zion in Isa.2 with Isa.65:25; Isa.66:20 and note contexts). Isaiah like (Deut.32:43) predicts
that Israel will be judged of the Lord for her blood shed of the righteous
among Israel in His vineyard (Isa.1:15,
21; Isa.3:14-15; Isa.5:7; Isa.59:3). This is just one aspect of Israel
breaking their “everlasting covenant” which results in the destruction of her heaven and earth (Isa.24:4-6, 18-21).
On this theme we should note that
John Owen also correctly identified that the new heavens and earth in (2Pet.3) and the “world or age to come”
in Hebrews was referring not to the changing in the elements of the planet, but rather a changing of the covenants whereby
we are now in the “age to come.” Owen described the “world to come,” as “the new state of the
church under the Messiah.”
As brilliant of a man as John Owen
was I find his and partial preterists in general, treatment of Hebrews and views of prophecy in general a bit puzzling. Partial
preterist Milton Terry in seeking to refute the notion that there is “No Double Sense In Prophecy” quotes Owen,
“But the moment
we admit the principle that portions of Scripture contain as occult or double sense we introduce an element of uncertainty
in the sacred volume, and unsettle all scientific interpretation. “If the Scripture has more than one meaning,”
says Dr. Owen, “it has no meaning at all.”56
Owen taught that Christ’s
coming in (Hebs.9:28) was an end of time coming but when we get to the next chapter and read of this same coming in (Heb.10:37)
it would appear that this coming with an imminent time frame reference has at least 3 “multiple meanings”:
“1st. Of the first sort were the Jews, who slew him, who murdered him,
and
cast him out of the vineyard,
and thereon continued their hatred against the
gospel and all that made
profession thereof. He was to come to “destroy
those murderers, and to
burn their city;” which fell out not long after the
writing of this epistle,
and is properly intended in this place. See
Matthew 24:3, 27, 30;
2 Peter 3:4; Jude 1:14; Revelation 1:7; Mark 14:62;
James 5:7, 8. For hereon ensued the deliverance of the church from the rage and persecution of
the Jews, with the illustrious propagation of the gospel throughout the world.
2dly. The Pagan Roman Empire was the second sort of his adversaries,
who were immediate enemies
unto his gospel, and consequently to his
person. These, after the
destruction of the former sort, raged with all blood
and cruelty against the
church for sundry ages. These, therefore, he
promised he would come
and destroy; and the faith of the church
concerning this his coming
was, that “he that should come would come,
and would not tarry.”
The description of this coming of Christ is given us,
Revelation 6:7-10.
3dly. After this arose a third sort of enemies, who in words owning his
person and gospel, opposed
all his offices, and persecuted all that Would
yield obedience unto him
in the exercise of them, and were thereby
consequentially enemies
both to his person and gospel. This was the
apostate Christian Church
of Rome, or the New Testament Babylon. And
in respect of these enemies
of his, Christ is still “he that is to come;” and
as such is believed in,
and his coming prayed for by all the saints. For he is
to destroy the man of
sin, the head of that apostasy, “by the brightness of
his coming.” For
as the opposition made unto him did not arise suddenly
and at once, as those
forementioned did, especially that of the Jews,
whose destruction was
therefore speedy and at once, but in a long tract of
time grew up gradually
unto its height; so he will destroy it in like manner. And therefore, although he hath set his hand unto that work, and begun
the
execution of his judgments
on the antichristian state in some degree, yet as
to the utter destruction
of it by those plagues which shall befall it “in one
day;’ he is still
he that is looked for, “he that is to come.”57
Hmm, let’s think about this
for a moment. In many ways the main founder of the partial preterist movement had sought to take the time frame references
literally and stated that “if prophecy has more than one meaning it has no meaning at all” but when he gets to
(Heb.10:37) “For in just a very little while, He who is coming will come and will not delay,” he not only claims
the text has more than one coming or meaning in mind, but in doing so he destroys his hermeneutic of taking the time statements
in there literal meaning!
I find it “curious”
exposition and logic indeed, when you read partial preterists like John Owen or say James Jordan who wants to explain how
the promise of the NC new heavens and new earth arrived in A.D.70 in a spiritual way in there interpretation of (2Pet.3) but
assure their readers that we await a “final stage” of the literal one. And they argue against the double fulfillment
theory of dispensationalists in the Olivet Discourse, but when we debate them as Don Preston has done, James Jordan wants
to tell us that A.D. 70 was a “type of world history” and “A.D.30 to A.D.70 was a kind of millennium.”
Well, if that is the case, then postmillennial partial preterism can’t be too much of an “eschatology of victory”
since according to this logic and multiple meanings of prophecy, we should be experiencing a future substance of those “types”
in the alleged post A.D.70 great commission in (Mt.28:18-20) climaxing in another great apostasy, another tribulation period,
with abominations and desolations of another temple, ect. How in the world can partial preterism refute dispensationalists
claims such as MacArthur who state that the A.D.70 judgment was only a “preview” of something “more ultimate
to come” when in fact when we press partial preterism to be consistent futurists, they admit the very same things?!?
- selah
Russell was much more consistent
and exegetical than John Owen of not only (Hebs.9:26-28) but of the entire epistle. He was the first to point out the
lack of reasoning in taking the “end of the age” along with the “last days” as a period from the birth
of Christ to an alleged future end time coming spanning 2000+ years and counting. After quoting some commentaries that agreed
that (1Cor.10:11) is addressing the same “end of the age” as described 5 times in Matthews gospel and in Hebrews
in which the parousia of Christ brings an “end,” Russell stated,
“It is sometimes
said that the whole period between the incarnation and the end of the world is regarded in the New Testament as ‘the
end of the age.’ But this bears a manifest incongruity in its very front. How could the end of a period be a long
protracted duration? Especially how could it be longer than the period of which it is the end? More time has already elapsed
since the incarnation than from the giving of the law to the first coming of Christ: so that, on this hypothesis, the end
of the age is a great deal longer than the age itself. Into such paradoxes interpreters are led by a false theory. But
as in a true theory in science every fact fits easily into its place, and lends support to all the rest, so in a true theory
of interpretation every passage finds an easy solution, and contributes its quota to support the correctness of the general
principal.”58
In discussing the “end of
the age” and the “last days” associated with the second appearing of Christ even partial preterist (futurist)
R.C. Sproul admits and makes some very useful comments of (Hebs.1:2; and Hebs.9 – 10),
“The author
of Hebrews says God has spoken by his Son “in these last days” (1:2). Clearly the passage assigns Jesus’
earthly ministry to the “last days.” Might the qualifier these hint at a distinction between the last days
that included the incarnation and some other still-future last days? Regardless such as inference, one thing is certain: Jesus’
earthly ministry belonged to some aspect or category of the last days.”59
And critiquing Simon J. Kistemaker’s
comments on “the end of the ages” and the second appearing (coming) of Christ here in (Heb.9:23-28) Sproul states,
“This
exposition is a bit curious. Kistemaker draws the conclusion that the expression “end of the ages”
need not refer to the end of time. This seems to be more than a mild understatement. If Christ’s first coming at “the
end of the ages” has already occurred and if considerable time has elapsed since that coming, then it is impossible
to identify “the end of the ages” with the end of time. If the second appearing of Christ here refers to his
judgment on Jerusalem, it would still fit in the framework
of “the end of the ages” that is not the end of all time. If the second coming refers to Jesus’ coming
at the end of time, then we must distinguish between two different “last times.””60
I would agree with R.C. Sproul’s
statement of Kistemaker’s “curious exposition” but Sproul’s futurism forces him to just as much of
a “curious exposition” when he ultimately is forced to “distinguish between two different “last times””
and in doing so invents two “end’s” or “end of the age(s)” associated with two second comings
– one to end the age in A.D.70 with “a” return of Christ and then another one allegedly at the end of time
in (Mt.13), (Mt.28), and (1Cor.15). Mr. Sproul, How is this any less of a “curious exposition” than
Kistemaker’s? In Sproul and Gentry’s partial postmillennial preterism, how does the judgment, harvest, and
resurrection linked with the “end of this age” in (Mt.13:40) get mystically changed to be interpreted as the end
of the Christian or church age instead of it’s meaning elsewhere - the end to the OC age? Sproul and his eisegetical
partner in crime Kenneth Gentry are then FORCED to invent TWO “ends of the ages,” TWO parousia’s of Christ,
which must have therefore TWO “last days” time periods - the NT writers knowing nothing of, nor making any such
“distinctions”!
In reading Sproul here you can
tell he is reluctant to make this “distinction” of TWO “last days” periods but he is
forced to because he feels more comfortable with the creeds and traditions of men instead of being consistently exegetical
and following the hermeneutical principal of interpreting Scripture with Scripture (analogia fide) – the reformation
proclamation! These writers are likewise not interested in the reformation cry, “the Scriptures alone” and “Reformed
and always reforming.” I will point this out more as we go through the OD and make our way into the resurrection texts.
It appears that Sproul’s conscious is bothering him throughout the book – therefore he makes sure to quote Russell
quite a bit who for the most part does a good job in not making these unbiblical distinctions between the one parousia
of Christ and the “end of the age.” This is why I left partial preterism behind after leaving Dispensationalism
behind – both make distinctions and see double where the Scriptures see 20/20 and thus have a single purpose. In the
NT there is only one second coming discussed which would result in one “end” or “goal” being reached
in order to fulfill all of the OT’s ages and prophets predictions encapsulated within the Mosaic age of “The Law.”
The “Last Days” spoke of the in breaking of the Messiah’s reign and “at hand” kingdom which
would bring about the promise of the one new heavens and new earth.
How
Do Dispensationalists Understand The “Last Days” Leading Up To “The End of The Age?”
And how do Dispensationalists handle
the “last days” in reference to their connection to the NT’s teaching of the “end of the age”?
Joel 2 and Acts 2 pose very much of an “interpretive challenge” for them not only in the areas of when the gifts
of Spirit would cease but in their overall view of Bible prophecy. Dispensationalists claim that the OT prophets never predicted
or were in the dark when it came to the church age or kingdom and that all of the OT prophecies in the OT predicted Israel’s kingdom. The church is a “plan b”
and parenthesis in God’s kingdom predictions for national Israel.
Therefore, anytime a NT writer claims that one of Israel’s
promises is fulfilled in the church – it poses a threat to their system. So much so that when Peter quotes Joel 2 in
(Acts 2:16) and says that Joel’s prophecy of the Holy Spirit being poured out in the “last days” is being
fulfilled,- “This is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel” - they claim that Peter’s “this
is that” really isn’t “this is that”! John MacArthur states,
“Joel’s
prophecy will not be completely fulfilled until the millennial kingdom. But Peter, by using it, shows that Pentecost
was a pre-fulfillment, taste of what will happen in the millennial kingdom when the Spirit is poured out on
all flesh”61
Even more clear or should I say
nonsensical is F. Unger’s statement:
“Peter’s
phraseology “this is that” means nothing more than “this is [an illustration of that] which was spoken
by the prophet Joel” (Acts 2:16). In the reference there is not the slightest hint at a continued fulfillment
during the church age. The reference is solely in an illustrative sense to the Jewish listeners at Pentecost. Fulfillment
of Joel’s prophecy is still future and awaits Christ’s second coming in glory and a copious spiritual outpouring
ushering in kingdom blessings (cf.Zech. 12:10-13:1; Acts 1:6, 7).
And another dispensational
writer tries to explain away the clear meaning of Peter’s words:
“Peter says that
the events of Acts 2 are what Joel spoke of but not necessarily the fulfillment of what Joel spoke of!”
“…Dispensationalists
interpret Peter’s words “this is that” in a less than literal manner so they can interpret Joel’s
prophecy with a dispensationally strict literality.”62
There appears to be divisions within
Dispensationalism at this point. MacArthur claims that the term “last days” is a period from the first coming
of Christ to His allegedly future one.63 This would necessitate that one of Israel’s promises “the last days” is being fulfilled within the
church age – and that is a Dispensational “no no.” And another “no no” for MacArthur is that
if we are in the “last days” then this would also necessitate that the gifts of tongues and prophecy are still
for today. And that is why Unger is a bit more consistent dispensationalist in stating, of Peter quoting Joel’s “last
days” - “In the reference there is not the slightest hint at a continued fulfillment during the
church age.”
Remember according to Dispensational
theology, Jesus offered the nationalistic literal kingdom but because the Jews rejected Him Israel’s “last days”
prophecies concerning her kingdom got postponed until the tribulation and millennial period. At that time it is taught by
them that God will pour out His Spirit upon Israel
in the “last days.” The “last days” cannot be fulfilled in the church age because those were promises
made exclusively to Israel and not the
church- per dispensational theology. Obviously Peter was not a Dispensationalist and was claiming that Israel’s “last days” promises were being
fulfilled during the growth of the church age - “THIS IS THAT.” Not only was the “last days” of Joel’s
kingdom prophecy already being fulfilled during the “church age” in Acts but as we noted earlier in (Isa.2) that
the “last days” would be in motion when the Lord would establish Mount Zion and Hebrews 12 makes it clear that
the Church was receiving the kingdom and Mount Zion. The long predicted restored NC Israel, creation, and temple that the
OT prophets had predicted had begun its maturation and transformation process through the redemptive work of Christ and the
transforming power of the Holy Spirit (2Cor.3 - 6). Where in the language of Paul or Peter do dispensationalists get the idea
that they taught that the fulfillment of Israel’s OT Scriptures concerning the kingdom were “postponed,”
“pre-fulfilled,” or “kind of sort of fulfilled” as the NC church/kingdom began to grow?!? Likewise
where do they get the notion that the NT writers saw the OT prophets not predicting the Church? Peter and Paul couldn’t
be clearer in that the “end” or “goal” of the OT prophets predicted the days in which they lived –
the church (1Cor.10:11; 1Pet.1:5-13)!
Jesus lived in the “last
days” of the old covenant “world” or “age” and that was the age that was in the process of passing
away during the times of the NT writers and that did pass in AD 70. The “age to come” is the new covenant world
or age that was completed and perfected after the old passed in AD 70. The dark old law covenant kingdom was in the process
of fading away and would “soon disappear” while the bright new’s resurrection life was in the process of
being received and breaking in upon the old only to be realized at the second coming (Heb. 8:13/9:26/10:37/12:28; 1Cor.3 –
4; Gals. 1:4, 1Jn. 2:8; 2Pet.1:11; 19/Lk.17:20-21ff.).
How can the “this age”
of the NT be speaking of the NC kingdom or Christian age when this age and the kingdom is described as being eternal and having
no end (Dan.2; Dan10; Ephs. 3:20-21; Hebs.12)? If “this age” is what we are in now and the “age to come”
is heaven or the afterlife, then how is it possible to sin there since futurists interpretations of (Mat.12:32) would necessitate
this? “And whoever shall speak against the Son of Man may obtain forgiveness; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit,
neither in this nor in the coming (Greek mello) age shall he obtain forgiveness." (Matthew 12:32 WEY).
A better translation would read, "...nor in the age about to come." All Christ is saying here is that whoever speaks
against the Holy Spirit in the old or new covenant age, he shall not obtain forgiveness. If the "age to come" is referring
to heaven will Christians be speaking against the Holy Spirit in that age? Will Christians have the ability to blaspheme God
in heaven? If that is the case, wouldn’t we be better off down here For "he who is born of God cannot sin, nor will
he, for His seed remains in him." (1Jn. 3:9)? No, this is speaking of the Christian age where the everlasting gospel is still
being preached and thus the speaking against the Holy Spirit is a possibility. But those who are outside the city in Revelation
are wicked and liars and they no doubt do speak against the Holy Spirit even today in the “age to come.”
Israel’s
Temple and Old Covenant System As The Destruction of “Heaven
and Earth”
I shall cover one more distracting
objection the reader may have at this point – “In the Olivet Discourse (Mt.24:35) and the teaching of other passages
such as (2Pet.3), the literal “elements” of “heaven and earth” pass away at Christ’s coming
at the “end of the age.” This obviously did not happen in A.D.70!” Perhaps it would be best if I address
this before concluding our section on the “end of the age.”
“Heaven and
earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away” (Mt.24:35)
Most commentaries quickly have a
cross reference to (2Pet.3) when this verse is discussed and equate the passing of heaven and earth here with the end of the
Christian age. However, this verse follows Jesus’ statement that His generation would witness the fulfillment of “all
these things” which included the “end” or “end of the age” associated with the signs preceding
His return. I have already argued previously, there is nothing in the context of the OD to suggest the second coming of Jesus
has anything to do with the physical planet ending or time it self ending; so is there a way of understanding “heaven
and earth” here that fits the time constraint of the second coming in “this generation” and that is related
to the end of the OC age and destruction of the temple? Remember, if heaven and earth has not passed away, then we today are
under the jots and tittles of the OC law (Mt.5:17-19).
All Jesus is saying here is that
the TEMPORAL state of the OC law “heaven and earth” would pass away by Him fulfilling it, and that His Words -
the Words of the NC creation would last forever, or as Paul would state “world or age without end” (Ephs.3:20-21).
To further demonstrate that this is the meaning of the phrase, “heaven and earth” in relation to the OC age and
in particular to the destruction of the temple (Mt.24:1-3), note what Josephus, a Jewish historian during the times of the
N.T. and destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 said of the temple
as a type of creation:
"However,
this proportion of the measures of the tabernacle proved to be an imitation of the system of the world:
for that third part thereof which was within the four pillars, to which the priests were not admitted, is, as it were, a
Heaven peculiar to God..."64
"When
Moses distinguished the tabernacle into three parts, and allowed two of them to the priests as a place accessible to the common,
he denoted the land and the sea, these being of general access to all; but he set apart the third
division for God, because heaven is inaccessible to men"65
Even futurist amillennialist G.K.
Beale notes that within the OT and Judaism that the literal tabernacle and temple was sectioned out to represent the heavens
and earth:
“…the three parts of
Israel’s temple represented the
three parts of the cosmos:
the outer court symbolized
the visible earth (both land and sea, the place where humans lived); the holy place primarily represented the visible heavens
(though there was also garden symbolism); the holy of holies stood for the invisible heavenly dimension of the cosmos where
God dwelt.” 66
“…Josephus
understood the tripartite structure of the tabernacle to signify ‘the earth [=outer court] and the sea [=inner court],
since these…are accessible to all; but the third portion [=holy of holies] he reserved for God alone, because heaven
also is inaccessible to men’ (Ant. 3.181; cf. 3.123)67
What I find extremely puzzling is
how Mr. G.K. Beale asserts the thesis that the physical temple is a microcosm of “heaven and earth” in such a
massive work but avoids the issue in (Mt.24:35) all the while kind of sort of admitting that (Mt.24:29 and Rev.6:12-14) is
figurative language parallel with Joel 2 and Acts 2 in discussing the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70:
“The kingdom ending
is, of course, Israel, but this time it
is her definitive end. Rome would destroy Jerusalem
and her temple in AD 70. Joel’s language of the earth’s destruction in Acts 2 is also appropriate as a figurative
portrayal of the temple’s destruction, since, as we have seen so often earlier, the temple itself and its parts symbolized
the cosmos.”68
On pages 212 – 215 of this
work Mr. Beale takes the following texts describing the judgment on Jerusalem, the coming of the Lord, and de-creation language
and applies them to AD 70: (Isa. 2, Joel 2, Acts2, Rev.6, Mt.23, and Mt.24:29). He admits that the language is figurative
but then attempts (with no exegetical support) to infer that it can have a double or typological fulfillment at the
end of history/planet earth. However, Jesus clearly states that Isaiah 2’s “last days” “Day of the
Lord” judgment applied to AD 70 and not the end of the planet (Lk.23:30). And since most commentators take Isa. 2 –
4 as a unit or “block” like Isaiah’s “little apocalypse” of (Isa.24 – 28), Jesus likewise
sees Israel’s “last days” blood guilt to be fulfilled in His generation (Isa.4:4/5:7; Mt.23:29-36). Jesus
once again reiterates the time frame of His last days, judgment, de-creation, “Day of the Lord” of (Isa.2) in
giving the Revelation to John in (Rev.1:1; Rev.6) to further support His earlier predictions and thus a fulfillment that will
“shortly” take place. Even the Apostle Paul in 2 Thessalonians 1:9 quotes (Isa.2) verbatim from the Septuagint
to support that Christ would come to give the Thessalonians “relief” and render the same tribulation to their
Jewish (1Thess.2:14-17) persecutors.69 Paul was NOT saying that they would get this relief 2,000 plus years in
the future or that relief when they died. It would be at Christ’s return when He would be revealed from heaven! G.K.
Beale’s attempts to defend a future coming of Christ to end the planet in his comments of (Mt.24) and his commentaries
on Revelation and the Thessalonian Epistles are exegetically groundless along with his comments to me and other preterists
that we are “heretical.”
Beale likewise sees the equation
of the temple with the New Jerusalem and New Heavens and Earth:
“Another observation
points to the equation of the new cosmos with the city-temple. Revelation 21:1 commences, as we have seen, with John’s
vision of ‘a new heaven and a new earth’, followed by his vision of the ‘new Jerusalem, coming down out
of heaven’ (v.2), after which he hears a ‘loud great voice’ proclaiming that ‘the tabernacle of God
is among men, and he shall dwell among them’. It is likely that the second vision in verse 2 interprets the first vision
of the new cosmos, and that what is heard about the tabernacle in verse 3 interprets both verses 1 and 2. If so, the new creation
of verse 1 is identical to the ‘new Jerusalem’ of verse 1 and both represent the same reality as the ‘tabernacle’
of verse 3.”70
We would likewise argue that the
Temple, New Heavens and New Earth, and New Jerusalem are equivalents in Scripture but when the OC ones pass in AD 70
the NC ones are fulfilled and stand matured not just “inaugurated” awaiting a physical fulfillment at the end
of history as Beale and N.T. Wright have sought to teach by slight of hand in their writings. Beale and other futurists who
maintain that these promises were merely “inaugurated” in AD 70 in a spiritual way but await a physical manifestation
– has no exegetical support. Redemption goes from physical types to spiritual realities “in Christ.” They
do not go from physical to spiritual back to physical. If amillennialists and postmillennialists want to adopt this later
view of redemption going back to the physical, then they should be consistent with dispensationalists in their literalism
of a physical future Messianic temple. My point is that the OC physical temple was described as “heaven and earth”
and the destruction of “heaven and earth” is synchronous with the coming of the Lord and the time when the new
heavens and earth would be established. The passing of heaven and earth in relation to the end of the OC age has everything
to do with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (Mt.24:3;
34-35). Therefore, we shouldn’t read Scripture in the light of our 21st century lenses but seek to read Scripture
in the context of it’s historical setting. Now we have an interpretation that not only fits in with the context of
the O.T. in predicting that the destruction of the Temple would be the appointed time for all the eschatological prophecies
to be fulfilled (Dan.9:24-27; Dan.12:1-7, Lk.21:22), but that also fits the context of the OD it self
in regard to the destruction of the Temple.
This leads us to answer an obvious
question in relation to (2Pet. 3) and the burning of the elements therein:
“What about the end of the
world? Isn’t it supposed to burn up when Christ comes? Does it just continue forever?” A response to the reformed,
sovereign grace, fundamental, evangelical, cultist, & liberal denominations of our day.
Many people object to the teaching that Christ’s
second coming happened within the lifetime and generation of the disciples ie. AD 70 before hearing the evidence because they
assume that since the world’s physical "elements" did not burn up at that time Christ could not have returned then.
The destruction of the planet at the return of Christ is something that is assumed by many in religious circles without considering
the Noahic covenant that God made with the earth and many other passages. We must ask those who assume this some questions
of our own before we answer the question “What world and “elements” was destroyed by fire in AD 70?”
Didn’t
God Promise To Never Destroy The World Again & Didn’t He Say It Would Continue Forever?
· “And
God said: ‘This is the sign of the covenant which I make between Me and you, and every living creature that is with
you for perpetual generations: “I set My set my rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant
between Me and the earth. It shall be, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud;
and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; the waters shall never
again become a flood to destroy all flesh” (Gen. 9:11-15).
· “One
generation passes away, and another generation comes; But the earth abides forever” (Ecl. 1:4).
Friend how do you see God in making His promise
to never destroy the earth again. As a futurist who believes the physical earth will be burned up one day you portray Him
as saying in effect, “I promise to never destroy all flesh with water. BUT HA, HA, I didn’t say anything about
fire – gotcha!” We must be careful in how we represent God and to distort His mercy and the covenant He made with
Noah, perpetual generations, the earth, and all living things on it, is no light matter.
“Does the earth just continue forever?!”
I don’t know friend Ecl. 1:4, Ps. 78:69, Ps. 104:5, Isa. 45:17, and Ephs. 3:21 sure seems to be teaching us this. So
many philosophize about the worlds end, but as Christians we are called to not go beyond what the Scriptures teach.”
We must now labor to give sufficient exegetical
proof to the futurist as to what world and elements were burned up in AD 70 that will be consistent with the time frame Christ
promised to return in. We hold the position that the "elements" and "world" in 2 Peter 3 is referring to the old covenant
law system embodied within the temple. This may sound strange at first, but let’s examine the exegetical evidence for
this position before prejudging it.
The "elements" and "world" that were to be burned
up at His coming in 2 Peter 3 are the same "elements" and "world" found in:
1) "Even so
we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world" (Gals. 4:3).
2) "But now,
after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto
ye desire again to be in bondage?" (Gals. 4:9).
The entire context of the Galatian letter is
to exhort the Galatian Christians to not be swayed by the Judizers to go back to the law for justification. In the past they
were in bondage to the law, but were now set free by the sacrifice of Christ and His grace. The “elements of the world”
is not speaking of the dirt and rocks, but the law. Everywhere this Greek word for elements is used in the NT it is referring
to the old covenant law and not the planet earth. Most interpreters fail to even bother doing a Greek word study on the word
"elements" and simply assume that it is referring to the physical planet. As David Chilton pointed out in his commentary on
Revelation,
"What are these elements? So called
"literalists" will have it that the apostle is speaking about physics, referring the term to atoms (or perhaps subatomic particles),
the actual physical components of the universe. What these "literalists" fail to recognize is that although the word elements
is used several times in the New Testament, it is never used in connection with the physical universe! The term is always
used in connection with the Old Covenant order (see Gals. 4:3, 9; Cols. 2:8, 20) [emphasis MJS] (Chilton, David, The Days
of Vengeance, p. 542).
The New Treasury
Of Scripture Knowledge On Isaiah 51:15-16
"The heavens. ‘Heaven’
and ‘earth’ are here put by symbolic language for a political universe. That is, that I might make those who were
but scattered persons and slaves in Egypt before, a kingdom and polity, to be governed by their own laws and magistrates"
(The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge Revised and Expanded, Thomas Nelson Publishers, p. 802).
2 Peter 3:10
& Isaiah 51:15-16 and Reformed Theologians John Owen and John Lightfoot
Although Puritan theologian John Owen was inconsistent
in his hermeneutics and arbitrary in his exegesis, at times concerning the second coming of Christ, he took the time to
really exegete passages where metaphorical language was used by God to describe the establishment and judgment of the nations.
Owen had this to say about the heavens and earth in 2 Pet. 3:10
"the heavens and earth whereof he
(Peter) speaks were to be destroyed and consumed by fire in that generation. We must, then, for the clearing our foundation
a little consider what the apostle intends by ‘heavens and the earth’ in these two places." To establish that
Peter has in mind the heaven and earth of the old covenant, Owen examines the creation of this heavens and earth found in
Isa. 51:15-16, "...the time when the work here mentioned, of planting the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth,
was performed by God when he 'divided the sea' (v. 15), and gave the law (16), and said to Zion, 'Thou art my people'- that
is, when he took the children of Israel out of Egypt, and formed them in the wilderness into a church and state. Then he planted
the heavens, and laid the foundation of the earth-made a new world; that is brought forth order, and government, and beauty,
from the confusion wherein before they were. This is the planting of the heavens, and laying the foundation of the earth in
the world. And hence it is, that when mention is made of the destruction of a state and government, it is in that language
that seems to set forth the end of the world. So, Isa. 34:4; which is yet but the destruction of the state of Edom. And our Savior Christ's prediction of the destruction
of Jerusalem, Matthew 24, he sets it out by expressions of
the same importance. It is evident then, that, in the prophetical idiom and manner of speech, by 'heavens' and 'earth,' the
civil and religious state and combination of men in the world, and the men of them, are often understood." (John Owen, Works
Vol. 9, p.134). "Peter tells them, that, after the destruction and judgment that he speaks of, verse 13, ‘We, according
to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth,’ etc. ‘They had this expectation. But what is that promise?
Where may we find it? Why, we have it in the very words and letter, Isa. lxv. 17. Now, when shall this be that God will create
these ‘new heavens and new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness?’ Saith Peter, ‘It shall be after the coming
of the Lord, after that judgment and destruction of ungodly men, who obey not the gospel, that I foretell.’ But now
it is evident, from this place of Isaiah, with chap. lxvi., 21, 22 that this is a prophecy of gospel times only; and that
the planting of these new heavens is nothing but the creation of gospel ordinances, to endure for ever. The same thing is
so expressed, Heb. xii. 26-28. Let others mock at the threats of Christ’s coming. - he will come, he will not tarry;
and then the heavens and earth that God himself planted, - the sun, moon, stars of the Judaical polity and church, - the whole
old world of worship and worshippers, that stand out in their obstinacy against the Lord Christ, - shall be sensibly dissolved
and destroyed. This, we know, shall be the end of these things, and that shortly.’" (ibid, pp. 134-135).
And John Lightfoot
had this to say,
"‘The heavens shall pass away
with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat,’ &c. Compare with this Deut. 32:22, Heb. 12:26:
and observe that by elements are understood the Mosaic elements, Gal. 4:9, Col. 2:20: and you will not doubt that Peter
speaks only of the conflagration of Jerusalem, the destruction of the nation, and the abolishing the dispensation of Moses"
(John Lightfoot, Vol. 3, p. 452).
Being a 5 point Calvinist myself, I have always
found it humorous in talking to reformed pastors or those holding to reformed theology about the above quotes from two of
their leading theologians. Some are so quick to condemn me to hell and point out that my view of (2Pet.3) is heretical and
goes against the creeds. But when I point out that Puritan John Owen and theologian John Lightfoot (who was one of the main
formers of the reformed creeds) took the same position I do, then they back down and are willing to listen. But when I have
met reformed theologians who have wanted to impress me with their knowledge of the preterist view (not knowing I am a full
preterist), they often times quote John Owen on (2Pet.3). But then when I use their admission of this as common ground
and make the connections to (Isa.65-66à 2Pet.3à Rev.21-22) to prove without a doubt that the Bible
only teaches ONE second coming to usher in a non literal new heavens and earth (not creedal position), those who once took
2Pet.3 as fulfilled in A.D. 70 change their interpretation and run to “Mother” or the creeds for a refuge
instead of the Scriptures. This was the case when I briefly attended presbyterian pastor Jim West’s church in
Sacramento. When I began connecting the dots allowing Scripture
to interpret Scripture - he stated, “well then my interpretation of (2Pet.3) may be wrong.” West’s conscience
so bothered him and still does today because he is a very vocal critic of the preterist view.
Isaiah 24-25,
Isa. 65- 66, Rev.21-22
Peter claims that his prediction of the coming
of the Lord to usher in the new heavens and earth is “according to His promise” by the “holy prophets”
(2Pet.3:3; 13). Virtually all eschatological views admit that the “promise” Peter is referring to is found in
(Isa.65-66) and that Peter’s N.T. parallel of the “new heaven and earth” is found in (Rev.21). Therefore
it is imperative that we examine the nature of the old heavens and earth and the new as predicted by Isaiah so that we can
understand it’s fulfillment as penned by the N.T. writers.
Before jumping into (Isa.65-66) we
need to back up a bit and examine what has been called by theologians as Isaiah’s “little apocalypse” (Isa.24-28).
For the purpose of our study here we will examine (Isa.24-25) before going to (Isa.65-66). In (Isa. 24:1-6) we have de-creation
language and it was due to the earth (or land) having defiled it’s self by murdering the innocent, disobeyed the laws,
and violating the everlasting covenant (v.5).
“5. earth—rather, "the land."
Defiled under…inhabitants—namely, with innocent blood (#Ge 4:11 Nu 35:33 Ps 106:38). Laws…ordinance…everlasting
covenant—The moral laws, positive statutes, and national
covenant designed to be for ever between God and them.71
Israel had become wicked like the
other nations and defiled herself with the shedding of innocent blood and breaking the “laws” and “everlasting
covenant” given to her through Abraham and Moses (Gen. 17:13-14; Ps.105:10-11; Deut.28; Deut. 32:15, 20; 2Kings 17:3,
etc.). This de-creation language was metaphoric language describing the judgment of her city (vs.10-12). People survived this
destroying of heaven and earth even after it is burned up - the “earth’s (the land’s) inhabitants are burned
up, and very few are left” (v.6). Further in the chapter we read that, “The earth is broken up, the earth
is split asunder, the earth is thoroughly shaken.” (v.19). Therefore, the passing burning, and shaking
of this earth in (Isa.24) has to do with being unfaithful to the old covenant law of Moses – specifically the shedding
of the blood of God’s remnant among Israel. But we are told by futurists that the OC law of Moses was fulfilled and
done away with by Jesus on the cross and that the destruction of the planet earth has to do with the globes sins.
Many futurists have seen this prediction
in (Isa.24) not as the destruction of the planet at the end of time, but rather simply the judgment of Israel by means of
the Assyrian’s whereby God and the prophets used metaphoric language to describe this in time not at the
end of time, historical judgment. So then if (Isa.24-25) is to be seen as a fulfillment of (Mt.24; 2Pet.3 and Rev.21) it is
so seen in an “anti-type” form. But the admissions that the destruction and passing of heaven and earth in (Isa.24-25;
65-66) is metaphoric language and not speaking to the literal planet earth, and that Peter and John are claiming the fulfillments
of these prophecies in direct fulfillment or in “anti-typical” fashion destroys the futuristic paradigm. Why?
Because Jesus in the Olivet Discourse and Peter and John are claiming that their predictions are the very ones that the law
and the prophets foretold (Lk.21:20ff.; 1Pet.1:4-13), and therefore they like the OT prophets use the same symbolic and metaphorical
language they used to describe there fulfillment.
The OC “heavens and earth”
kingdom had been burned up and “shaken” throughout her history, but we know according to the book of Hebrews that
the NC kingdom established in Christ that the first century church was in the process of receiving could “not be
shaken” (Hebs. 12:26-28). This is what is meant by Jesus’ words “heaven and earth shall pass away (cf.Heb.8:13),
but My words shall never pass away.”
We now come to (Isa.25) which in
context, is once again a judgment upon a particular city (OC Jerusalem/heaven and earth) which will never arise again (Isa.25:2/Isa.24:20).
In (v.6) following the destruction of Jerusalem, we have the wedding supper of the lamb taking place on Mount Zion in which
the Gentile nations partake of. In (Mt.22:1-14) Jesus explains how the citizens of this city (Jerusalem & the Jews) have rejected and killed the servants (prophets) sent to her. Therefore,
God would send His armies (the Idumeans, Zealots, and or the Romans) to destroy her city. Practically all futurists admit
that (Mt.22:1-14) is dealing with the burning of the city and temple in A.D.70. But since the Scriptures only know of one
end times Messianic wedding banquet for Israel/Church Revelations further describes this city as the “great city,”
“Babylon,” or “Sodom and Egypt.” These are various names describing the apostate condition of OC Jerusalem
for she is the city described as “where also our Lord was crucified” (Rev.11:8). She is a harlot who was drunk
with the blood of the martyrs, holy apostles, and prophets of Jesus (Rev.17:6, Rev.18:20, 24). We are told of only one city
who bears the guilt of the blood shed of the Messiah and His prophets and that is Jerusalem and that her judgment would take
place in Jesus’ generation (Mt.23:31-36). All futurist eschatologies seek to put us into the betrothed state awaiting
the wedding at Christ’s return. However, the wedding takes place when OC Jerusalem is destroyed in the contemporary
generation of Jesus and the first century Church. As that generation was ending John was told by Jesus that the destruction
of this “great city” or “Babylon”
would “shortly take place” (Rev.1:1, cf. 22:6-7, 10-12, 20). We are not in the betrothed state but rather in the
banquet celebration stage and producing sons and daughters in the kingdom!
In the next two verses (Isa. 25:7-8)
we are told:
“And He will destroy
on this mountain (Mount Zion/Jerusalem) The surface of the covering cast over all people, And the veil that is spread
over all nations. He will swallow up death forever, And the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces; The rebuke of His
people He will take away from all the earth; For the LORD has spoken.”
Through the creation of Adam spiritual
death/separation was passed onto all men of all nations. Through God’s covenant creation of Israel (Isa.51:15-16 - “heaven and earth”), He would further explain
and define what this death was through the giving of THE LAW. The law could only cover sin but did not have the power to take
it away. In the temple the veil between the Holy of Holies and the holy place was but another reminder of what sin/death produced
and that was separation between God and man. Through the cross the veil was torn (Mt.27:51) symbolizing that atonement had
been made for the NC people of God. However, salvation, redemption, and the atonement process had not been completed because
Christ, the High Priest had not come out of the heavenly temple to appear “a second time apart from sin.”
Jesus had predicted that His appearing would be in their generation and through inspiration the author of Hebrews reiterates
this same promise by exclaiming He would come “in a very little while and would not tarry (Heb.9:24-28;
10:37). This veil or OC law that defined spiritual death and blindness is described in (2Cor. 3 & 4) whereby the glory
of the two covenants (or two Jerusalem’s Gals.
4) are contrasted.
In the first two physical creations
- in Adam and then in Israel’s OC
“heaven and earth” sin and death reigned. There needed to be a new creation a new heavens and
earth, a last Adam (Christ) and a new covenant Israel/Jerusalem of God whereby life and righteousness
would reign. Since Paul in (1Cor.15:54) quotes (Isa. 25:8) and equated the “end” and second coming of Christ to
the “swallowing up death” we need to see that the focus here is on taking away the veil or destroying THE DEATH
THAT CAME FROM “THE LAW” (1Cor.15:56-57) brought about by Adam and defined and carried threw with OC Israel. To
destroy “THE law” was to destroy “THE death” and thus bring victory in Christ. The death that Christ
came to destroy and that had brought separation from God and man was spiritual death brought about the day Adam
had disobeyed. In (1Cor.15), Paul contrasts the two Adam’s and he does this by pointing out that:
“And so it is written,
"The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, the spiritual
is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. The first man was of the earth, made of
dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. As was the man of dust, so also are
those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly.
And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. Now
this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom
of God; nor does corruption inherit incorruption.” (1Cor.15:45-50).
When Adam sinned he died and not
only did he loose fellowship, but he lost the image of God. The image of God in man has nothing to do with his physical make
up. It has everything to do with God’s glory and righteousness abiding upon and in him. The day that death
entered the world was the day Adam knew he was naked (Gen.3:7). In the context of (2Cor. 3) that image of God, glory, and
NC righteousness is put this way:
“But if the ministry
of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his
countenance, which glory was passing away, how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? For if
the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory.
For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing
away (Hebs. 8:13) was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.” (2Cor.3:7-11)
And,
“Nevertheless when
one turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
is liberty. But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being
transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord.” (2Cor.3:16-18)
The first century Christians were
living in the “last days” in which Christ through His death and resurrection was bringing about the passing of
the OC law heavens and earth and bringing in the new. In order for one to be a citizen of the heavenly/spiritual country of
which Abraham was promised by God (Heb.11:13-16) and thus enter the new NC heavens and new earth in which that city sets,
he needs to know Christ no longer after the flesh and become a new creation in Christ:
“Therefore, from
now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know
Him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed
away; behold, all things have become new.” (2Cor.5:16-17)
"For behold, I create
new heavens and a new earth; And the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in
what I create; For behold, I create Jerusalem as a
rejoicing, And her people a joy. I will rejoice in Jerusalem,
And joy in My people; The voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, Nor the voice of crying.” (Isa.65:17-19).
The no more tears here are dealing
primarily with the struggle under the OC law in which a man or woman could never receive the righteousness of Christ. It is
only in the NC in which the image of God and complete forgiveness for sins can be realized through the work of Christ. It
is in the NC that sins are not just covered over but actually forgotten of God (Jer.31:34) and climaxed at His return (Rms.11:26-27).
Christ has been our propitiation through the cross and returned a second time to declare and apply that efficacious cleansing
work.
In studying the new heavens and earth
in (Isaiah 24, 25, 65, & 66) we come across various concepts of long life, physical death, but then no death. How are
we to explain this? Better yet, how do the futurists understand these concepts? After all in the futurist’s view, everything
is perfect - no one cries over anything.
1) Long life passages (Isa.65:20,
22). This is describing the blessings of long life found in the blessings and cursings of Israel (ex. Deut.28). When God’s people under the OC obeyed God they usually
saw long life. An example of long life would be found in Moses (120 years) and Joshua’s (100 years) long lives. Long
life in relation to trees could be speaking of the long life that man enjoyed in early history such as Adam (930 years). Or
the rendering I take is that it is speaking to the tree of life - Christ and our eternal life found in Him. These descriptions
of long life in the O.T. are probably describing in type form - abundant and eternal life in Christ under the NC. Jesus said,
“Jesus
said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: And whosoever
liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?” (Jn.11:25-26)
Although not Biblical Preterists,
John Gill and Matthew Henry had some concepts here on eternal life as found in Christ on (Isa.65:22):
“The allusion may be to the tree of life in paradise, and may be expressive of the
long life of good men in this state; and as the tree of life was typical of Christ, who is a tree of life to them that
lay hold upon him, it may denote that eternal life his people have by him” (John Gill, Isa. 65:22, Online
Bible Millennium Edition, 2003, emphasis MJS).
“…as the days of the tree of life; so the LXX. Christ
is to them the tree of life, and in him believers enjoy all those spiritual comforts which are
typified by the abundance of temporal blessings here promised; and it shall not be in the power of their enemies
to deprive them of these blessings or disturb them in the enjoyment of them” Matthew Henry, Isa. 65:22, Online Bible
Millennium Edition, 2003, emphasis MJS).
2. Physical
birth and death (Isa.65:20). I want to point out to the futurist that his concept of a physical utopia is not taught here
in that there is physical birth, death, sinners, agriculter, and house building, etc. Are people going to cry over the physical
death of their loved ones in the new heavens and new earth? But in our view of the new heavens and earth we can both explain
why there is physical death and no death.
Is
There Marriage in The Resurrection Or In The Futurists literal New Heavens and Earth?
Some have tried to refute the Preterist
view by claiming that since we marry today in the Church age we can’t be considered being in the “resurrection”
or “age to come.” They appeal to the woman who had 7 husbands and the questions the Sadducees posed to the Pharisees
and then to Jesus as to whose wife she would be in the resurrection or “age to come” (Mt.22)? Actually the Sadducees
“argument” worked very well with the Pharisees carnal views of the resurrection, “age to come,” and
the law. Since the Pharisees understood the new heavens and earth in (Isa.65) the same way futurists do - physical and literalistic
with CHILDREN BEING BORN and that the Mosaic law would still be in effect, the Saducees had an excellent argument against
them. They were in effect asking the Pharisees how after a physical resurrection in the new heavens and earth (Isa.65), how
in the world could the law be applied? In other words if the Leverite law was still in effect (man had to marry his brothers
wife if he died without children) and after all parties were raised, “whose wife would she be for they all had her?”
Since there is child birth going on in (Isa.65) then is this woman going to be sleeping with all 7 men?!? They were mocking
the Pharisees view of a physical resurrection and the use of the law during that time because that forced them to believe
in polyandry (a woman who has more than one husband) which was an “abomination” as far as the law was concerned.
The law did not forbid polygamy - a man having more than one wife but it did forbid a woman having more than one husband.
This “argument” worked
with the Pharisees so now it was time to try it on Jesus. Jesus and Paul taught that there would be two groups affected at
the second coming - those who had physically died and would be raised out of Hades, and those who were alive were to be changed.
I don’t take Jesus’ answer here as primarily dealing with those who are physically alive today in the “age
to come” or NC age. So for futurists to say my view isn’t true because I have been married is hardly an argument.
Jesus taught that in the resurrection those who had died and believed in Him (Jn.11:25) would be raised and would never die
again. Therefore, Jesus is teaching that those who had died physically and were to be raised in the “age to come”
would be like the angels and not producing children. And if there is an application for those who were alive in the “age
to come” on earth, it was that the OC law of marrying your brothers wife and inheritance rights in the land of Israel
wouldn’t be an issue. Why? For Christians in the NC produce children in the NC kingdom through preaching the gospel.
Children born under the OC were born into that covenant from physical birth. But those born into the NC kingdom are born not
of the will of man or of family descent but born spiritually and through the power of God.
It amazes me that when our critics
try and use this passage they read into it a “physical” resurrection:
“One must have much help to misunderstand this clear passage, dear reader! What Christ
was saying is this: The God who was, is, and shall be (“I am”), the God of the living, can certainly raise from
the tomb the physical bodies of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all others who have departed this life. (Curtis A.
Cates, THE A.D. 70 THEOLOGY, Cates Pub. 1995, p.49, emphasis MJS)
The theology that the physically
dead were going to be raised back in their “physical” bodies at the second coming is not substantiated anywhere
in the Bible! Since this text is not teaching it they need to literally INSERT or read it into the text. Paul uses
“spiritual” and “heavenly” to describe the resurrection body and I didn’t read “flesh”
or “physical” there either (1Cor.15).
But now I have a challenge for Mr.
Cates and all futurists and I would like them to explain to me how there is birth and death in the literal new
heavens and earth paradise of (Isa.65) which is their “hope” but yet speaking out of the other side of their mouth
they claim that there is no marriage there as well (Mt.22)?!? Are these illegitimate relations going on? According to the
futurist, after one is raised and your placed in the new heavens and earth, will physical “death” only apply to
your offspring of which by the way, who will be your mate if your not married? If your offspring dies physically does that
mean that you will die again as well? But I thought you were going to be like the angels who don’t marry and produce
children??? I mean after all that is the “argument” that the futurist seeks to use against me so why can’t
I ask the same questions? I have answered theirs but I never get answers from them.
3) No death (Isa.25:7-8/1Cor.15).
Once the OC law/sin/death was judged there was and is no more condemnation for those who have become a NC creation "In Christ."
Eternal life has come and in this way there is no more death in the NC heavens and earth. And there are no more tears in the
fact that the is now no more condemnation for us for our sins have been taken away. Do we still cry and experience trials?
Of course we do but at the same time we know we are citizens in a heavenly country or NC heavens and earth whereby we experience
joy and peace that surpasses all understanding. This joy and peace comes from what we know our Lord has done redemptively.
If that isn’t exciting enough for you, go buy a Hal Lindsey book and stop reading this one. This book is about setting
your minds on things above and not on the earth. This book is about teaching that the kingdom of God is within you and does not come
about with outward show (Lk.17:20-21). Not only that but this book is about “casting down” the “vain imaginations”
of the “prophecy experts” and their carnal views of God’s spiritual kingdom. Many turned away from Christ
when He began teaching the sovereignty of God and the spiritual nature of His kingdom (Jn.6). It wasn’t that “exciting”
to those who had placed their hopes outside of Christ and were conditioned and indoctrinated by the traditions of the Pharisee’s.
The
Coming of the Lord and the New Heavens and New Earth” (Isaiah 63-66)
Since it is agreed that Peter’s
prediction of the coming of the Lord and the destruction of an old “heavens and earth” and the establishment of
a new “heavens and earth” is that which was foretold by Isaiah the prophet then how did Isaiah identify the time
frame of fulfillment and the nature of that fulfillment?
Don Preston notes that in Isaiah
63 and 64 God had just finished judging Edom by use of the Babylonians and Israel was longing for God to come and deliver
them in the same manner He had done in the past (Isa.64:2) – and that this coming of the Lord is the one brining in
the new creation of (Isa.65) and the one Peter predicts.72 The obvious exegetical or interpretive question that arises is “how
did God “rend the heavens” and “come down” in the past in delivering Israel so that we can identify the kind of coming of the Lord that Isaiah and Peter
predict in (2Pet.3)? Had God come down on a literal cloud in delivering Israel
from Egypt? How did God come in the destruction
of Edom as is apart of the immediate context
of (Isa.63)? In (Isa.34) we have the destruction of Edom described prior
to God coming to judge Israel with the
Babylonians. In this passage God comes by means of the armies of the Babylonians and the stars of the heavens are “dissolved”
and the sky is “rolled back like a scroll” and the starry hosts of heaven fall to the earth (Isa.34:4-5). Clearly
this is figurative language describing the downfall of the political powers of Edom.
The time language of Edom’s judgment
was literal as well and described as “near” in (Ob.1:15). So how did God come in delivering Israel and come in judgment upon Israel
throughout her history? Clearly when God came in judgment upon the 10 northern tribes of Israel
or upon Judah He came means of the armies of Assyria and Babylon.
The de-creation apocalyptic language was symbolic and metaphorical and so too was His coming. Thus we have established the
“day of the Lord” that both Isaiah and Peter predict in (2Pet.3/Isa.64-66) as a metaphorical coming of Christ
on the clouds in judgment upon OC Jerusalem in A.D.70. But this is further demonstrated as we go further through into (Isa.65).
In (Isa.65) Israel is once again guilty of partaking in the idolatry of the gentile nations
and there was coming a day in which their sins and the sins of their fathers would reach to the “full payment of their
deeds” (vss.1-7). Jesus said the day of vengeance in which Israel
and her fathers would fill up the measure of their father’s guilt would come in His generation (Mt.23:31-36/Mt.24).
Paul bearing witness to the same time frame of Jesus’ predictions states of the OC Israel in his day (not
some future day) that Isaiah’s prediction here was being fulfilled and was “about to be” and would “soon”
take place along with Satan’s demise (Rms.10:20-21/Rms.11:26-27/Rms.8:17f/Rms.13:10-12/Rms.13:11-12/Rms.16:20). God
would judge OC Israel but would save a remnant who would posses and inherit Mount
Zion (Isa.65:8-12). The remnant here are NC Jews and Gentiles composing
the Church who had come to Mount Zion (Heb.12) and this remnant or “elect” would not be deceived but rather escape
the coming wrath upon Jerusalem (Mt.24). Next are a series of contrasts between OC rebellious people Jerusalem and God’s NC creation/people whereby God would give His people spiritual
and enduring living water, food, and joy while OC Israel would experience judgment - they would go thirsty, starve, weep,
and be finally be put to death (vss.13-15). At this time a new name would be given the NC people or creation of God (v.15)
– (“the way,” Christians, “The New Jerusalem”). Once we get to (vs.17) which describes the creation
of the new heavens and new earth the old one is described as “will not be remembered.” In context the old heavens
and earth is rebellious Israel who would
not be remembered any more as far as covenant relationship was concerned and the new – the new Israel of God –
the Church would take that special place in God’s eye. God was faithful in keeping all of His promises to OC Israel
by judging her at the end of her “last days” and creating/transforming her into a spiritual and eternal people
– the Church.
We have already discussed the concepts
of death and no death associated with the new heavens and new earth, so let’s go on to (Isa.65:25). Here it is stated
that the “wolf and the lamb will feed together.” This is parallel imagery to (Isa.11:6-9) and we understand this
language metaphorically as even some futurists understand it. John Gill stated,
“the creatures shall
be restored to that state of innocency in which they were before the fall of man. But this is not to be understood literally,
which is a gross and vain conceit of some Jews; but spiritually and metaphorically, as is evident. And the sense of
the metaphor is this, Men of fierce, and cruel, and ungovernable dispositions, shall be so transformed by the preaching of
the gospel, and by the grace of Christ, that they shall become most humble, and gentle, and tractable, and shall no more vex
and persecute those meek and poor ones mentioned Isa.11:4, but shall become such as they; of which we have instances in Saul
being made a Paul, and in the rugged jailer, Acts 16, and in innumerable others.”73
Therefore, the same language should
not be interpreted literally as a restoration of the physical animals, rocks, and trees when it comes to God creating a new
heavens and earth here in (Isa.65/2Pet.3).
Matthtew
5:17-19 & Reformed Theologian John Brown
"Do not think that I
came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. "For assuredly, I say to you, till
heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. "Whoever therefore
breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever
does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt.5:17-19).
Reformed theologian John Brown took
the same interpretation of "heavens and earth" in his exegesis of (Mt. 5:18) that full or Biblical preterists do,
"But a person at all familiar with
the phraseology of the Old Testament Scriptures, knows that the dissolution of the Mosaic economy, and the establishment of
the Christian, is often spoken of as the removing of the old earth and heavens, and the creation of a new earth and new heavens"
(John Brown, Vol. 1, Banner of Truth Publications, p. 170).
It amazes me how I never really took the time
to study this very important passage of Scripture and how so many today simply assume that all the law passed away at the
cross when Jesus here explicitly states that the ENTIRETY of the law would not pass TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASSES(ED) AWAY
and thus until ALL of it was FULFILLED. This text and the way we have argued from it has been so powerful that in a multi-authored
book from the Reformed community When Shall These Things Be? the text goes unmentioned throughout the book! Likewise
John MacArthur in his “refutation” of preterism doesn’t mention it as well in The Second Coming Signs
of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age. Here are the points and arguments formulated by preterists, gospel eschatology,
or covenant eschatology adhereants of (Mt.5:17-19) that no futuristic eschatological school has sought to refute or successfully
refute:
1. Jesus did not
come to destroy the law and prophets but to “fulfill them.”
2. Not one “jot
or tittle” of the law would pass until it all was fulfilled. All the OC law being fulfilled is = to “heaven and
earth passing away.”
3. The “end
of the age” of the old covenant or Mosaic Law and prophets foretold the following:
1. The sufferings,
death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ (Ps.22; Ps.16:10; Ps.132:11; Isa.53; Dan.9:26;…)
2. Pentecost (Joel 2; Isa.44)
3. The Great
Commission - The GC associated with a specific “last days” generation would see it’s fulfillment and
was foretold in the law (Deut.32:20-21/Rms.10:19-11). The prophets also spoke of the GC (Isa. 11:9, Isa. 49:6, Isa. 60:1-5;
Isa.65:1-2/Rms.10:20-21; Hab.2:14; Zec.14:9) as did the Psalms (Ps.22:27-31, Ps.98:2-3).
4. The second
coming of Christ at which time salvation and the forgiveness of sins would be completed and thus inheritance and entrance
into the kingdom would be granted (Gen.49:10; Dan.7:13/22; Dan.9:24-27; Ps.14:7/Isa.59:19-21/Isa.27:9/Rms.11:26-27; Zech.14:5-7;
Joel 2:31; Isa.40:10/Isa.62:11/Mt.16:27-28/Rev.22:12;
5. The resurrection
(Isa.25:6-9/Hos.13:14/1Cor.15:54-55; Dan.9:24-27/Dan.12:1-7; Ezk.37:12- completely fulfilled 14)
6. The judgment
(Joel 2/Acts 2; Isa.66; cf. “d” texts for second coming)
4. NONE of the
OC Mosaic Law would pass until ALL a, b, c, d, e, and f above would be COMPLETELY FULFILLED.
Futuristic paradigms of eschatology have the
OC law of Moses passing at (“a”) the cross, or God fulfilling all of Israel’s Old Covenant promises by (“b”)
Pentecost and thus it is said that God is only dealing with the “last days” of the Church age from here on out.
However, Jesus clearly says that none of the law would pass until it was ALL FULFILLED – not some or most of it! If
the passing of “heaven and earth” is addressing the dirt, rocks, oceans, and trees, then we – according
to Jesus are still under “every jot and tittle” of the OC law and it has not been completely fulfilled.
I did find a Church of Christ theologian who wanted to step
up to the plate on this text but Curtis A. Cates apparently didn’t read the text before he cited it:
“But the Old Testament was
fulfilled and nailed to the cross (Mat. 5:17-18; Col. 2:14-17).”74
Jesus in our text here in Matthew 5 is not nailing
the law to the cross as it’s termination point, but is rather nailing it to the passing of “heaven and earth”
as the time when it would all be fulfilled. That is pretty straight forward so let’s deal with the (Col.2) passage and
see if we can bring some harmony it and (Mt.5).
Cates writes of this text:
“Christ did indeed fulfill
the law of Moses, accomplished its prophecies concerning Him. In the process, He nailed it to His cross (Col.2:14). Therefore,
no one was to allow anyone to condemn him or her for not keeping the regulations in the law of Moses regarding meats, feast
days, new moon, or sabbaths. Why? Because the substance had already come; the shadow was fulfilled and
done away (vv.15-17)”75
As usual the Judiazers sought to make disciples
among the churches that Paul planted by imposing the works of the law upon Gentile converts. This is the context of the Colossian
letter and Paul reminds them that they (Gentile believers) have already been circumcised because they had believed on the
Lord Jesus (vs.11-12) and God was not requiring them to be circumcised, or be judged Jewish meat, drink, festival days, New
Moon celebrations, or Sabbaths (vs.16-17).
The Church in Jerusalem made it clear that the “jots and tittles” (Mt.5:17-19) of the law did
not apply to the Gentiles (Acts 15) while the Judiazers obviously opposed the Apostles inspired ruling in the matter. Just
because the Gentiles did not have to keep the “jots and tittles” of the law, the Jews did and continued to be
circumcised and participated in the laws of the land that included participation in the temple. Paul was falsely accused
of teaching the Jews to forsake the law of Moses so the church at Jerusalem had him take a vow with four men which involved
purification rites in the temple to demonstrate that Paul was upholding Jesus’ words in (Mt.5:17-19) à
(Acts 21:21f.). Since so many think that the entire law passed at the cross, some commentators have been so bold as to accuse
Paul and thus the entire church at Jerusalem for being in sin for advising Paul to do this and him following through with
it. But again the adhering to the jots and tittles of the law “until heaven and earth passed” for the Jew (even
Christian Jews) was critical in the early Churches understanding and in Paul’s theology as well. Paul would have never
been guilty of what his critics were accusing him of, “They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live
among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs.”
(Acts 21:21). Why? Was it because he wanted to get along and “be all things to all men” or was it because Paul
was being faithful to Jesus words, "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments,
and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall
be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt.5:19). All futurists don’t address these issues and fail to
explain that the law had not passed at the cross but was rather in the PROCESS of PASSING away:
1. “For
even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. For if what is passing
away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious” (2Cor. 3:10-11).
2. “In
speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing
old is ready to vanish away” (Hebs. 8:13).
We call this the “already and
not yet” or as Ward Fenley describes it “the already and becoming” of Bible prophecy in which God was fulfilling
all of the prophecies contained in the law and prophets. The cross was the power behind the “already” aspect of
the laws beginning process of passing but until Jesus fulfilled ALL of the salvation promises at His second coming - predicted
by the law and the prophets, the OC system would remain and even Christian Jews would obey the OC law with circumcision, Temple
worship, and purification rites. Futurist Michael Green admits that the early Christians did observe Temple worship:
“We notice in the
early days of the church (e.g. Acts 2 and 3) the disiples worshiped in the Temple.
After that there was not much sign of it, apart from an occasion during Paul’s return to Jerusalem
with the collection when he engaged in a purification rite in the Temple
(21:26)…” “…but there is every reason to suppose that the Jewish Christians like James, and the many
priests and Pharisees converted to the faith, continued to whorship in the Temple as Jews who recognized Jesus as Messiah.”76
Green goes on to give some qualifying
statements,
“So although there
was Christian worship in the Temple early on, and doubtless it continued among many Jewish
Christians, there is, in mainstream Christianity, an early and significant shift away from the Temple, its priesthood and sacrifices. These were only a shadow (sometimes a very dangerous
and misleading shadow) of the reality to be found in Christ. Believers had the reality: what use did the shadow serve any
more?77
All of the law with it’s “shadows”
had not been completely fulfilled at the cross but would be at the second coming in A.D. 70 which was when the Temple (the
law) or “power of the holy people would be destroyed” (Dan.12:7). Cates and futurists like him have the shadows
of the law being ALL fulfilled at the cross and yet the text reads, “which are a shadow of things to come,
but the substance is of Christ.” Michael Green sees the evidence for Jewish Christians observing Temple worship but can’t exegetically explain why this was taking place. There were
still “shadows” of the OC law that hadn’t been fulfilled and until they did, Christ said there was “use”
for them. There were many more “shadows of things to come” in order to fulfill “the law” or the old
covenant prophecies. The book of Hebrews is all about describing how Christ had fulfilled, was still in the process of fulfilling,
and would be fulfill all the OC law in “a very little while” at Christ’s return. According to Hebrews the
process of the law being fulfilled was described as “a shadow of the good things that are coming…”
Many want all of the old covenant promises (the law) to end at the cross and claim that Christ’s work was completely
finished at that time in order to bring about the new covenant forgiveness of sins and salvation. But yet Scripture does not
stop at the cross in regard to fulfilling all the law nor in brining about the remission of sins “the restoration of
all things,” but posits the fulfillment of salvation and the forgiveness of sins at the second coming (Hebs.9:8, 26-28;
Hebs.10:37; Rms.11:26-27/Rms.13:11-12).
On page 35 after taking (Mt.24:35)
out of it’s context (which is the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem
not the destruction of the planet!) Cates makes but yet another fundamentally unsound statement of (Mt.5:17-18) and then tries
to use (Lk.24) to further his error,
“However, in Matthew
5:17-18, Christ was speaking of His fulfilling all of the old covenant, the law of Moses and its prophecies concerning Him.
Jesus elsewhere spoke of His fulfillment of the law,”
“Then He said to
them, "O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! "Ought not the Christ to have suffered
these things and to enter into His glory?" And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures
the things concerning Himself… And Then He said to them, "These are the words
which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses
and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend
the Scriptures” (Lk. 24:25-27, 44-45)”78
Well, let’s make some points
here in the context of Lk.24 where Cates is quoting from that he obviously avoids and does not address:
First, unlike the comprehensive statement
given by Jesus in (Mt.5:17-18) He is not saying in (Lk.24) that it’s only His passion that was necessary
to fulfill ALL the law in order for it to pass. That was only one aspect of Messiah fulfilling what Moses and the prophets
foretold of Him. But yet this is the meaning Cates and others give it, and the text says nothing to that effect. The context
here is Jesus restoring the disciples who thought that the cross brought an end to the old covenant promises to usher in the
the new covenant kingdom or at best postponed them (like the premillennial dispensationalists of our day). Jesus teaches them
that the cross had not frustrated the kingdom promises made to Israel,
but was part of the means God was using to fulfill them.
Second, although Jesus addresses
one aspect of Him fulfilling prophecy (His passion); the context addresses more - “Did not the Christ have to suffer
these things and then enter his glory?” Jesus didn’t claim that the entire law ceased at that cross, for
Moses and the Prophets foretold the resurrection, ascension, and Pentecost promises as well. Not to mention that, but Jesus
clearly said, “And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, He explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures
concerning himself.” He clearly goes on to explain that it’s not just the cross but His resurrection, ascension,
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the great commission are essential elements in fulfilling 1) the Law of Moses, 2) the
Prophets, and 3) the Psalms (vs.46-49). Of course Cates and others fail to quote the rest of the passage! As I have already
demonstrated the great commission was fulfilled by A.D. 70 ending the OC age. So what we have here in the entire context of
this passage is Jesus teaching the disciples the importance of the cross as part of God’s plan to fulfill Israel’s kingdom promises but those promises include
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and the fulfilling of the great commission before the “end.” Let’s see
if the rest of Scripture confirms our exegesis of (Lk.24). I want to go to (Acts 3) to support what I have said here of (Lk.24)
but I need to lay some context in the first two chapters in identifying the “last days” and God not being finished
with Israel at the cross.
The book of Acts picks up where (Lk.24)
left the disciples as far as the fulfillment of God’s promises to Israel
as found in the law and the prophets. In chapter one we are told that Jesus spent an additional 40 days teaching the disciples
about Israel’s OT prophecies concerning
the kingdom. They are told that they are about to experience the baptism of the Holy Spirit that John foretold. And since
that baptism entailed an “at hand” kingdom and judgment (Mt.3:2; 10-12) and since Jesus told them that all that
the prophets foretold of this judgment would take place in their generation (Lk.21:22, 31-32), the disciples where not mistaken
(as is assumed by many) in asking if it was at that time that He would restore the kingdom to Israel - and thus fulfill All
of Israel’s promises. And Jesus in essence gives the same answer He did in (Mt.24:36) about not knowing the day or hour
but phrases it, “it is not for you to know the appointed times or dates the Father has set by His own authority”
(Acts 1:7). Contrary to what many futurists say in that God was finished with Israel at the cross or Pentecost, the book of
Acts and Paul’s theology teach that the Church is not the replacement of Israel, she is the fulfillment of all of God’s
promises to her! But the Church would not reach it’s mature state until God had dealt with and had fulfilled His OC
promises to National Israel (Rms.9-11).
We need to ask Mr. Cates and all
futurist eschatologies - At what time was all of God’s promises made to Israel (old covenant promises made in the “law
& the prophets”) and His dealings with her finished or fulfilled? The dispensationalists are a bit divided over
this – some like MacArthur say that we are “kind of sorta” in the “last days” while other more
consistent dispensationalists tell us that we are in no way in the “last days” and that period has been postponed
until Israel’s time clock begins ticking again at the rapture and millennium period. Amillennialists on the other hand
try and make the case that all the law and prophets were fulfilled at the cross and thus the Church replaced Israel at that time or definitely by Pentecost. Apparently
in the amillennial scheme God was finished with Israel
at the cross and He started with a new set of “last days” promises for the Church to be fulfilled in the future.
But how can this be in light of the fact that every N.T. eschatological reference in the NT has as it’s basis
and foundation old covenant promises made to Israel (Dan.7, 9, 12; Isa.2 - 4; Isa. 24-27; Isa. 65-66 - to name
just a few)? Jesus was quite clear that none of the old covenant law and prophets would pass until heaven and earth
(which most futurists take as literal) passes or until all of it was fulfilled (Mt.5:17-18). Was not the “new heavens
and earth,” “the judgment,” and “general resurrection” prophecies apart of Israel’s promises found in the very “law and the
prophets” the amillennialist claims were already fulfilled at the cross or Pentecost?
Some futuristic schools within amillennialim
or postmillennial partial preterism have identified that “heaven and earth” in (Mt.5:17-18) is not the literal
heaven and earth but figurative language describing the creation of Israel
and the OC law. However, they state that only “a” coming of Christ occurred in AD 70 to destroy Israel’s
heaven and earth and that the OC Mosaic law passed at that time. We would agree that the OC law did pass in AD 70 with Israel’s
old “heaven and earth,” but it was hardly “a” coming of Christ, because the second coming, the judgment,
and the resurrection were likewise foretold to take place before heaven and earth would pass! It was a good try though.
The book of Acts is about God being
faithful in fulfilling Israel’s promises to her and this notion that
God was finished with Israel at the cross and replaced her with the church
or that God postponed Israel’s physical
kingdom hopes are nothing more than mere myths and the vain traditions of men. In (Lk.24) Jesus taught the disciples that
the law and the Prophets not only foretold His death and resurrection, but foretold the great commission and the forgiveness
of sins. Now let’s see how Peter understood this:
"Yet
now, brethren, I know that you did it in ignorance, as did also your rulers.
"But those things which
God foretold by the mouth of all His prophets, that the Christ would suffer (part of it), He has thus fulfilled.
"Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence
of the Lord, "and that He may send Jesus Christ (the second coming), who was preached to you before,
"whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things (the second coming), which God
has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. "For Moses truly said to the fathers,
‘The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brethren. Him you shall hear in all things, whatever
He says to you. ‘And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be utterly destroyed
from among the people (second coming).’ "Yes, and all the prophets, from Samuel and those who follow,
as many as have spoken, have also foretold these days” (Acts3:17-24).
God was faithful in keeping all of Israel’s promises before her “heaven and earth”
passed away in A.D. 70. Therefore, when we read John under inspiration utter, "it is the last hour" and "the world
is passing away" (1 Jn. 2:17-18), we understand that it was the world of the law or the old covenant (Heb. 8:13; 2Cor.3:10-11)
that was passing away and not the physical planet. And Paul was very clear that he preached “no other things except
that which was found in the law and prophets.” On this note we shall turn our attention in identifying the “creation”
that was “groaning” for redemption in (Rms.8).
Romans 8
– “What About The “Creation” Groaning and the “Redemption of the Body?”
The traditional understanding of the “creation”
in Romans 8 has been to take this chapter out of the context and flow of the previous chapters 5-7 and following chapters
especially 9-11, where Paul is dealing primarily with Israel and deliverance
from Israel’s “the law.”
We are told that in this chapter, Paul begins speaking about the literal rocks and trees “groaning” for redemption
and that this will take place when the Lord returns to oddly burn it all up with fire (2Pet.3). However, this is far from
Paul’s point!
One of the meanings Strong’s
Exhaustive Concordance gives ktisiv ktisis ktis’-is “creation” or “creature” is
“after a rabbinical
usage (by which a man converted from idolatry to Judaism was called).”
Paul uses the new creation or new
creature language the same way when he echo’s that the in breaking and fulfilling of Isaiah’s new creation prophecy
had:
“For,
behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. But
be ye glad and rejoice for ever in that which I create: for, behold, I create Jerusalem a rejoicing, and her people a joy.” (Isa.65:17-18)
“Therefore, if
anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation (Greek ktisis); old things have passed
away; behold, all things have become new.” (2Cor.5:17, see also Isa.43:18-19 for not considering the things
of “old” because God is doing a “NEW thing”)79
Paul explicitly states that those
who had placed their faith in Christ had become a new covenant creation/creature and that they were the New Jerusalem or “Jerusalem from above” (Gal.4:24-27,Gal.6:15; Cols.1:15; Cols.1:23).
We cannot really get into a discussion
of identifying the creation that is groaning in Romans 8 without getting into a discussion of the resurrection – “the
redemption of the body” which is the end result of the groanings (vs.23). It is erroneously reasoned by futurists that
the “redemption of the body” involves a resurrection in which our individual decomposed physical corpses unite
with our spirits. Without this unity, man remains “un-glorified” and redemption incomplete. Likewise it is argued
that since our physical bodies need to be “glorified” in this way, so too does the planet earth need to go through
a physical change or glorification process. In order to address this, we will need to lay the context of Paul’s understanding
of the nature of resurrection – is it biological and physical in nature or spiritual, and is Paul’s understanding
more with individual corpses raising and being united with our spirits “some day” or corporate body “about
to be” redeemed and glorified. I will begin by going back to chapters 5 – 7 of Romans and allow a futurist Pauline
theologian Tom Holland to introduce some of my convictions on these texts.
Tom Holland countering
other N.T. scholars who see in Paul’s writings a kind of random spontaneous “ad hoc” arbitrary development
of his terms and concepts instead of a better developed systematic approach, identifies some fundamental problems that cause
them to miss Paul’s unity of phrases, terms, and concepts throughout his letters. The main problem Holland addresses is that many have claimed that Paul is adapting his message to the Gentiles
using a Greek world view or mindset instead of a Hebraic world view and mindset. Holland
explains that just because the N.T. was developed and written in a Greek culture does not mean that it’s writings shared
the Greek world view. Rather Holland and preterists theologians
argue with him that the N.T. writers develop the N.T. from a Hebraic world view and from the O.T. Scriptures themselves. To
approach Pauline terms as “body of sin” and “flesh” or “body of flesh” with the Greek
mindset is to limit “body” (Gk. soma) to the individual corpse of man when in fact the more Hebraic thinking
was not as much analytical but rather was used in speaking of the whole of man, including his personality or self, a mode
of existence, and primarily should be understood in a corporate sense. When the Greek and individual line of reasoning is
used to define Paul’s terms, error is introduced as with men like Gundry who claims that Paul in Romans is only dealing
with an individual’s physical fleshly body of sin needing individual biological resurrection from the “flesh.”
Holland and many other NT scholars are beginning to differ
with this understanding of Paul’s terminology. I shall try and summarize Tom Holland’s chapter 5 entitled “The
Paschal Community and the Body of Sin” and then we shall return to our discussion of the “redemption of the body”
which is what the Roman Christians and the “creation” were groaning for.
Individual Decaying Corpses or Spiritual Corporate Body Resurrection?
Holland scans some of the NT scholars that have defined these terms differently than a mere corpse of an individual body to
demonstrate that his exegesis isn’t completely new and that many have been thinking in the right direction. I shall
quote some of them beginning with Herman Ridderbos,
“the
concrete mode of existence of sinful man, can sometimes be identified with sin as the ‘body of sin’ (Rom.6:6),
the ‘body of flesh’ (Col.2:11), the ‘body of death’ (Rom.7:24). Accordingly, the life from Christ
by the Holy Spirit can be typified as a ‘doing away with the body of sin’, ‘putting off of the body of the
flesh, ‘putting to death the earthly members’, ‘deliverance from the body of this death’ (Rom.6:6;
Col.2:11; 3:5; Rom.7:24)… All these expressions are obviously not intended of the body itself, but of the sinful
mode of existence of man. (Holland, ibid, p.90 emphasis MJS).
Quoting T.F. Torrance,
“in
his death, the many who inhered in him died too, and indeed the whole body of sin, the whole company of sinners into which
he incorporated himself to make their guilt and their judgment his own, that through his death he might destroy the body of
sin, redeem them from the power of guilt and death, and through his resurrection raise them up as the new Israel”
(Holland, ibid, p.91)
This corporate view
of the “body of sin” is also shared by F.F. Bruce,
“This
‘body of sin’ is more than an individual affair, it is rather that old solidarity of sin and death which
all share ‘in Adam”, but which has been broken by the death of Christ with a view to the creation of the
new solidarity of righteousness and life of which believers are made part ‘in Christ.’” (Holland,
ibid, p.91, emphasis MJS)
Holland feels that T.W.
Manson has come the closest to the truth,
“He
questioned the traditional assumption that in the phrase ‘body of Sin’ the term ‘of Sin’ is a genitive
of quality; he argued that it ‘does not yield a very good sense’. He took it to be a possessive genitive, and
said, ‘It is perhaps better to regard “the body of sin” as the opposite of “the body of Christ”.
It is the mass of unredeemed humanity in bondage to the evil power. Every conversion means that the body of sin loses a member
and the body of Christ gains one’” (Holland, ibid,
p.91, emphasis MJS)
Futurist Tom Holland
from here goes on to make the point and ours as well - that Paul is being consistent in Romans 6 by following the corporate
argument in Romans 5 where he addresses a corporate solidarity under the federal headship of either being “in Adam”
or “in Christ” and thus lays the framework to understanding the corporate solidarity of Paul’s “body
of sin” in chapter 6 and “body of death” in chapters 7 and 8 as describing two covenant communities or “bodies”
one outside of Christ “in Adam,” (“body of Sin,” and “body of Death”) or being “in
Christ” which is the Church the corporate “body of Christ.”
Commenting on (Roms.6:6),
“Also,
in 6:6 Paul refers to ‘putting off the old man’. Once again this has traditionally been seen as a reference to
the sinful self that dominated the life of the believer in the pre-converted state. However, the same terminology is used
in the Ephesisans 2:15 where Paul says ‘to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace’. He
then goes on to say in 4:22-23, ‘put off your old self (anthropos - man), created to be like God in true righteousness
and holiness.’
The exhortation
is parallel to that in Romans 6:6ff. Thus, the new man, which Paul exhorts the Romans to put on, is corporate, for ‘the
new man’ in Ephesians is the church, and the two who have been united to form this new man are the believing Jews and
the believing Gentiles. This corporate understanding is further supported by Colossians 3:9-15:…”
The realm
where distinctions are abolished (here there is no Greek or Jew, v.11) is clearly corporate. This is indicated by two considerations.
First, ‘here’ is clearly the realm where all distinctions are abolished, and this is the new man. Second, the
meaning of the one body into which they were called (v. 15) is obviously corporate. These descriptions of corporateness are
in the context of the description of the old and new self (vv.9, 10). The rendering of anthropos as self by
the NIV and sarx as flesh in the AV has inevitably promoted the individualistic understanding and confused the
mind of the English reader. Furthermore, that Paul’s exhortation is corporate is shown in that he appeals to them, “as
God’s chosen people clothe yourselves’ (v.12).
Thus, identifying
the imagery of the old and new man as being corporate, and appreciating that it is part of the description of the ‘body
of Sin’ in Romans 6:6, along with the other considerations we have presented, establishes a corporate meaning for the
term the ‘body of Sin’.” (Holland, ibid, pp.95-96).
Holland
