MY VEIWS ON ESCATOLOGY By Bobby Long Th.D. INTRODUCTION: I have to admit that I started this paper as a rebuttal of a certain eschatological view. In doing so I found no peace and no organized thought as to the content of the material. Although my pursuit is still to render null what I feel is a false teaching, my heart was turned by God to 1Timothy 4:16 which says,

Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.I found myself being drawn more to a presentation of what I see as true doctrine, and not to solely set out to humiliate what I believe is a dangerous precept. I intend to set forth a sound defense as to what I feel are sound principles concerning the topic. In doing so, I will have accomplished my goal of teaching sound doctrine by

rightly dividing the Word of God and combating the falsity of this doctrine that has been presented to me; namely Preterism. I will take time at the beginning to lay forth the classic issues with preterism (full or partial as we will see, there is only preterist), which I see are severe hurdles to that point of view. Then I will lay out for considerations the most predominate issues with the belief which have to do with the resurrection.

I remember a wise teacher once said to show just how crooked a stick was, all you have to do is lay a straight one beside it. This is what I will attempt to do in this paper. In laying out what I believe is the clear teaching of scripture within the realm of certain aspects of eschatology, the crooked sticks will be seen as they are; crooked. Titus 1:9 says,

9Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. A certain amount of time must be given to the false to show its error.

1

A Few Words Concerning Preterism The Date of the Revelation Of utmost concern and importance is the date the Apocalypse was written. The futurist does not have to change their eschatological view if Revelation was written prior to 70AD. In contrast, the preterist position is consequentially annulled from being a viable option if a late date of Revelation is established. Those preterist writers such as Gentry (writer of Before Jerusalem Fell pg. 342) acknowledge this in their own writings. With the preterist holding that the Revelation and the Second

Coming of Christ happened in 70 AD, they have no other choice but to date the Revelation prior to 70 AD in order to coincide with the beliefs of that system. A late date of the book of Revelation would then be predicting events that are still yet to come, which the preterist will deny.

One of the main buttresses of the preterist view is dating the apocalypse of John prior to 70Ad and some date it at around 54 to 60 AD. This is erroneous and

founded in error as E.B. Elliots (Horae Apocalypicae vol.4) so eloquently takes each case and unravels it putting forth a most solid case for a late date of the Revelation as being 95 to 96 AD which was, as Irenaeus states, the tradition of the early church fathers, and of which date, Eusebius states he, knew of none other tradition.

As Dr. Richard Mayhue, Sr. Vice President and Dean of Pastoral Ministries and Theology of The Masters Seminary of Ohio State University noted in paper to delivered at the Evangelical Theological Society Meeting in 1999 notes, From the 2nd through the 18th centuries, the late date was the essentially the exclusive view. He goes on to note, Though challenged by a few in the late 20th and early 21st century, the vast majority of Christian scholars support the later date, regardless of their eschatological beliefs.

2

Dr. Mayhue notes 4 DIRECT witnesses in the 2nd to 4th centuries to validate the mid to late 90s writing of Revelation. These will be quoted later. They are:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5.30.3 (Disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John) Victorinus, Common Apocalypse. 7:353 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3:18.3, 5.8.6 Jerome, Joviniamum 1.26.

Polycarp was a disciple of John. Irenaeus was a student who sat at the feet of Polycarp. Irenaeus places Johns apocalypse at end of Domitians reign on Patmos after being banished there by Domitian himself. It was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian (Irenaueus. Against Heresies. 5.30.3 100s) Victorinus (200s) wrote, When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian Commentary of Revelation 10:11 Eusebius (300s) says that he, knew of no other tradition speaking of the 95AD date of the apocalypse which confirmed Victorinus 95 AD date in Ecclesiastical History 3:18 and Irenaeus date in Against Heresies. writing in the Domitian time period; It is said that in this persecution the apostle and evangelist John, who was still alive, was condemned to dwell on the island of Patmos in consequence of his testimony to the divine word. Irenaeus, in the fifth book of his work Against Heresies, where he discusses the number of the name of Antichrist which is given in the so-called Apocalypse of John, speaks as follows concerning him: a If it were necessary for his name to be proclaimed openly at the present time, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it was seen not long ago, but almost in our own generation, at the end of the reign of Domitian.- Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History III, Chapter 18, The Fathers of the Church

He also squarely puts the

3

Simeon Metaphrastes notes Atipass death to be in 92 AD. I could find no other tradition or writing that would indicate the death of Antipas as being earlier than 92 AD. Tradition holds that Antipas was the bishop of Pergamos as designated by John. He was later placed inside a brazen bull used to cast demon idols and roasted to death under the orders of a Roman leader during the reign of Domitian for his Christian beliefs and defiance of the pagan gods. When confronted with the

proposition that The whole world is against you Antipas he was responded, Then I am against the whole world. Antipas is mentioned only one time in scripture at Rev. 2:13: I know where you dwell, where Satans throne is. Yet you hold fast my name, and you did not deny my faith even in the days of Antipas my faithful witness, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. Rev. 2:13 Although the circumstances of Antipass death are based in tradition, there is no other tradition that would stand to oppose the proposed demise of the martyr who was put to death among the people of Pergamos. If this is true, this would put the date of the Revelation sometime after 92 AD for John speaks of this martyred witness in the past tense as seen in the phrase in the days of.

RC Sproul, a partial preterist, writes this in the introduction of the New Geneva Bible, Most scholars favor a date about A.D. 95" (2004). If 95 A.D. is the correct date, as most scholars believe, then this is a devastating blow to Preterism. It would then be impossible to say that the things predicted in Revelation were fulfilled in 70 A.D. as preterist argue. Added to the list of those supporting the late date are

Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Methodius, Lactantius, Hegesippus, Dio Cassius, and many others who all date the book at 95-96 AD. All the ones I listed were alive between 150 AD and 420 AD. The first that Ive found that had even a possibility of an early date was Arethas in the 900s and Theophylac who was a 9th century writer. Some point to a Syriac text of which the preterist apologist will admit is riddled with errors and, to an extent, the exants of the sometimes secular Platonistic philosophical views of Origen.

4

Here lies an interesting paradox. The preterist will prefer an obscure teaching by Origen who, by all evidences, mixed the secular pagan philosophical views with his exegesis of sacred text over that of Irenaeus and Eusebius and other primary witnesses. Both Origen and Dionysius held to the Alexandrian school of philosophy

which taught scripture through the lens of symbolism, secular philosophies, and allegories. Dionysius, a student of Origen, in an effort to raise the awareness of his own views, even questioned the authorship of the Revelation as not being by John.

The preponderance of both external and internal evidence from scripture given by the early church fathers and writers leaves little doubt that the book was written after 70 AD; 25-26 years after. The earliest historical evidence attests to a

Revelation that was written in the mid to late 90s. In general, the farther removed from the date, the less accurate the information becomes.

It should also be noted that several have questioned the reliability of these early writers and church fathers. The bases of these arguments are not without review. At the same time, we must remember that to think that the majority of excellent scholars of today and yesterday have not taken these inconsistencies into consideration when determining the validity and impact of the proposed date of Revelation and still found it to be a sound date should be marked. When these

writings were being penned, not many had in view the eschatological significance of their date of the Revelation. Their thrust was on other topics.

Also, one must look at the surety of the statements made concerning the dating of the Revelation. One writer may say with certainty the date of the apocalypse and in other places inject a view that was less than certain or more opinion. The proving of the less than certain doctrinal fact as false does not negate in any way the validity of the more than certain historical fact put forth.

5

For example, one could put for the doctrinal statement that salvation is by grace after all we can do. The same can also say that it was Domitian that first instituted and demanded Caesar worship or emperor worship. Proving that salvation is by grace through faith alone and not by any work of man in no way harm the more certain statement concerning the fact that is was Domitian that instituted emperor worship. As these writers may have inconsistencies in some areas, the historical

certainty in which they declare the dating of the book of Revelation under Domitians reign to 95 A.D. is not to be overlooked and discarded as invalidating.

The Events of Revelation Since Jesus didnt visibly return (Mt 24:30, Rev. 1:7, Acts 1:10-11) and execute the listed judgments, this makes the events of Revelation an impossibility without severely allegorizing most everything in the Apocalypse and in many other passages in scripture.

[30]And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. (Mat 24:30 KJV) [7]Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they [also] which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen. (Rev 1:7 KJV) [10]And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel; [11]Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven. (Act 1:10-11 KJV)

6

The events after Revelation 4 on should be seen as future events. The sun didnt become black, the moon didnt turn red, the stars didnt fall the earth, the sky didnt recede as a scroll and EVERY mountain and EVERY island was not moved out of its place. These should be seen as coming global events. To squeeze it into a city in Judea takes an unprecedented amount of allegorization. These simply didnt happen in 70AD. 12 I looked when He opened the sixth seal, and behold, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became like blood. 13 And the stars of heaven fell to the earth, as a fig tree drops its late figs when it is shaken by a mighty wind. 14 Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place. 15 And the kings of the earth, the great men, the rich men, the commanders, the mighty men, every slave and every free man, hid themselves in the caves and in the rocks of the mountains, 16 and said to the mountains and rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of Him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb! 17 "For the great day of His wrath has come, and who is able to stand?" Revelation 6:12-17 For the preterist to say that it holds a literal view of scripture and then allegorize virtually the entire book of Revelation along with many other passages speaking of the future catastrophes that will, one day, plague this world is a bit inconsistent to say the least.

7

Historical Evidence Against the Neronian Period Other substantiation is that there is NO historical evidence that Neros persecution reached outside the realm of Rome itself and furthermore, there is NO historical evidence that Nero implored banishment as a means of persecution. He did many other documented atrocities, yet not one instance of banishment is mentioned. There are those that will argue that he did, but there is no evidence to prove such. The burden of proof lies with the preterist who demands a Neronian banishment without one shred of evidence or proof Nero EVER banished anyone.

Domitian, however, did use banishment in his terror against the Christians as many 2nd century church fathers state. Another interesting fact is that it was not until the reign of Domitian that emperor worship as reflected in Revelation was instituted. Early Roman Emperors were seen more as demi- gods. This changed with

Domitian (AD 81-96). He demanded worship as God; he liked the crowd to greet him like a god when he entered the amphitheatre; he began all his edicts, "Domitian, Lord and God, commands".

It is also a historical fact that Taticus as well as others record a tremendous earthquake in the 6th year of Nero or 60AD that destroyed Laodicea and the damaged the surrounding city of Colossae. The Revelation in chapter 3:17 says that the Laodician church is wealthy and are not in need of anything. With this being the case, there are several things wrong that may prove unsurpassable. 1) Johns revelation would have had to be several year prior to 60AD in order for circulation of the book to occur. 2) If Johns banishment would have happened during the time that Nero was still emperor then that would means that Nero would have set free the same man he supposedly banished in order for the letter to circulate. 3) Laodicea would have had to rebuilt the city, gained back the wealth, and had to be in a state of in need of nothing within a period of 2-3 years which took not 2-3 but 10 12 years as history indicates.

8

Although the Laodicians were proud of the quickness they could rebuild, to say that an entire clean up effort, transportation of materials, and the completion of building an entire city could happen in 2-3 years is over zealous to say the least. Could it have happened that quickly; yes, it is probable it happened that quickly; no.

1 & 2 Thessalonians was written in about 51 52 AD. Yet in 51 52 AD, the church at Ephesus wasnt even in existence. Paul stopped off there on his way to Antioch but didnt set up ministry there until a year or so after. This clearly is retracting

from the possible early date of Revelation seeing that within less than 10 years, Ephesus would have had to have been started, established, grown in character, have been tested in hardship, became doctrinally solid and so grounded in scripture that they could test and firmly identify false apostles. Yet, enough time must pass for them to become so ingrained in their learning and work that they left their first love. This is not likely the case.

Many historical writers put John as being an infirmed old man when leaving Patmos and returning to Ephesus. If the Revelation of John was around 54 to 60 AD, then John would have had to be close to 60 years old when he was called to walk with Christ. We know this is not the case from the testimony of Jerome who calls John in the Greek, a young man, when he was called of Christ which would have put his age at under 18 at the call to follow Christ and around 20 at the crucifixion.

Titicus dates 1 & 2 Timothy at 64 67 AD. Timothy was the Bishop of Ephesus. Yet, there is no mention of Johns residence there, no mention of him coming to lead the church there in the time of distress that would come, no greeting, no anything. John, as we know, returned to Ephesus after his release from Patmos. Had the

Revelation occurred prior to the epistles, we would have expected to see some evidence or acknowledgment of his leading presence, yet there is not one shred to indicate that - none.

9

It is most clear that the historical conditions of the 7 churches in Revelation 2 -3 are significantly different from the early years after Pauls writings which would have been within 3-5 years of AD 70. This leads to the conclusion that the writings of John in the apocalypse represented churches of a much later date than 70 AD. For

example, the church at Ephesus in Revelation had lost its first love in Rev. 2:4 and others like Laodicia who had fallen from the faith Rev. 3:14. This would not be the condition of these churches prior to 70 AD. Polycarp referred to the church at

Smyrna in his writing To the Phillipians 11.3) which reveals that it did not exist in Pauls day (by AD 64) as it did when John wrote Revelation 2:8. The preponderance of historical data from primary sources is fully against the preterist view of the churches in Revelation.

10

The Two Witnesses The preterist should note the issue with the witnesses identified in Rev.11:3. They are Christs witnesses, so neither one can be Christ. If they were Christians, then why didnt they flee to the mountains of Pella as Luke warns and which history says happened? (Matt. warns of a different desolation) Who were these noticeable

Christians that were indestructible, had power to shut up the heavens so it would not rain like Elijah, could turn water to blood like Moses, who were once dead, laying in the street not because they COULDNT BE BURIED, but because the people there REFUSED them burial and even gave gifts to one another because they (the Witnesses) were dead. This language indicates an event that could be seen by all (saved and unsaved). Yet during all this time, if the preterist view is correct, when the witnesses were protected by the Lord, and had power to prophecy, and were brought back to life, their efforts were futile. If these witnesses were left after the majority of Christians fled to the hills, then we can deduce that their evangelistic efforts were minimal at best which is not the indication in Revelation.

The time table doesnt match that of the apocalypse either for the Christians do not flee to the hills until AFTER the witnesses rise up and are called to Heaven by God. There is also a great earth quake that destroys a 10th of the city and 7,000 people died as a result of the quake. The Witnesses are called up to heaven by God that very hour. This historically did not happen.

Yet in 70 AD, the Christians fled prior to the ransacking of Jerusalem as directed by Luke in his account and not after the ransacking. Please see the following discourse later in this paper as it relates to the differences in Lukes narrative and Matthews. By the time Rome entered the city, it was too late to run. There is no historical evidence of two witnesses being left behind. None The preterist can only

imagine that all would not be able to escape and that the Jews continue to persecute the faithful witness even today says Davidson. Yet we can see that in fact today it is the Jews that are persecuted and threatened with annihilation.

11

The witnesses could not have been the Written Law or the Writing of the Prophets. To say that the testimony of the law and prophets in 70 AD kept it from raining or turned water into blood is not what happened. Nor were they DEAD then came BACK alive again and is even more preposterous. These passages indicate two real witnesses in sack cloth and ashes with powers to harm the people that come against them. The death of these two witnesses caused the earth dwellers to rejoice. If this is referring to the unbelieving Jews, then would that line of thought require them to be the ones rejoicing over the death of their own law? Again, to spiritualize these people or to allegorize the events that are plainly seen by the world and at their resurrection, causes panic and fear, is a travesty. But after the three and a half days a breath of life from God entered them, and they stood on their feet, and terror struck those who saw them. Rev. 11:11 Scripture says that not one jot or one tidle will ever pass away and that heaven and earth will pass away before His Word will pass away. If the two witnesses should

be seen as the law and prophets then there was a span of 3 1/2 days that the law and the prophets were DEAD; passed away; this did not happen. These two real people will preach; they will be hated by those that dwell on the earth because they will be seen as the cause of the natural disasters that had come upon the earth. Those that oppose them will try to kill them but will them selves be destroyed.

When their ministry is fulfilled, they will be killed and their dead bodies will lay in the street for 3 days and the earth dwellers will rejoice and even exchange gifts with one another. Then after that time, God will resurrect them and they will stand on their feet and terror will strike all who will see them. God will say come up here and they will go. At that time a massive earthquake will destroy 1/10 of the city and kill 7000 people. This is the plain reading of the text. This did not happen in 70 AD. History is an enemy of the preterist view.

12

The preterist also views the woman of Rev. 12 as the church.

This puts the

preterist view as making the bride of Christ the Mother of Christ.. NO WHERE in scripture is the church seen as the mother of Christ We are the bride of Christ. Christ gave birth to the Church, not the other way around. In the preterist view, this must be the church, when it is so clearly representative of national Israel by the 12 crowns being the 12 sons of Jacob (Gen. 37:9-11) In that dream, the sun represents Jacob, the moon represents Josephs mother Rachel, and the eleven stars are the sons of Israel which bow down to Joseph. The throne in this section of scripture is the throne the Child is caught up to and sits on to this day. Note the [to] is not in the original text. The text is clearly speaking, as does scripture state, that at this time, Christ is sitting on his FATHERs Throne; Not the throne of David in the spiritual sense. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and [to] his throne. Rev. 12:5

13

The Character of the Jews In 70AD Another severe issue with the preterist view is the character of those that were to have suffered during the time of 70 AD. In Revelation 9:20 we see the people portrayed as being actual idol worshiper. To say that a practicing orthodox Jew had also worshipped idols made with their hands is inaccurate to say the least. The preterist will dismiss this saying that the idolatry was happening spiritually and not with actual idols. Yet the clear reading of Rev. 9:20-21 says,

And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts. Rev. 9:20-21 Jamieson-Fausset-Brown confirms this by commenting, of their hands-(De 31:29). Especially the idols made by their hands. Compare Re 13:14, 15, "the image of the beast" Re 19:20. If these are not real idols then neither should those described in Dan. 5:23 but you have exalted yourself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of His house before you, and you and your nobles, your wives and your concubines have been drinking wine from them; and you have praised the gods of silver and gold, of bronze, iron, wood and stone, which do not see, hear or understand. But the God in whose hand are your life-breath and your ways, you have not glorified. Nor in Psalms 135:15: The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, The work of man's hands.

Nor in Deut. 4:28: "There you will serve gods, the work of man's hands, wood and stone, which neither see nor hear nor eat nor smell. Nor in Acts 7:41: "At that time they made a calf and brought a sacrifice to the idol, and were rejoicing in the works of their hands.

14

This description of the Jews as they should have been in the preterist world during the time of the abomination is utterly without validation on any account as it pertains to the character of the Jews during Neros time. A noted preterist Eichhorn explain Rev. 9:20-21 like this, " It means that they persevered in that same obstinate mind, which once showed itself in the worship of idols " In the Old Testament Jews that acted in a heathenish way were called heathens: and moreover in the New Testament covetousness is called idolatry : and moreover in the time of Herod theatres, and other such like heathen customs, had become common in -Judea." Again, as is the case time and time again, the plain reading of scripture is sacrificed on the altar of allegorism and poeticism in order to save a falling system of eschatology. The preterist view seems to be an attempt to grasp at anything to allegorize and poeticize so blatant of facts that would otherwise render their position impotent. To ascribe these acts to such specific objects of worship by the works of their hands that would have made idols of gold, stone, wood which could not walk or speak, to allegory or a symbolism is utter denial of the text at hand and denies the clear teaching of several passages that speak to the same. These can only be seen as a testimony of actual carved idols which were worshiped in place of GOD. The vast majority of noted scholars in biblical texts will agree with the fact that these were ACTUAL objects of worship made with the hands of the idol worshiper and should NOT be seen as a state of mind as the preterist puts forth.

These same preterist writers even seem to argue against themselves when, as one writes, that the Jews were ready, one and all, rather to submit their necks to the Roman soldiers' swords, than to admit an image that was to be worshipped within their city. Stewart pg. 225 on Josephus.

15

It seems to me that the preterist view of the character of the Jewish people at this time is unequivocally inconsistent with the character of the people they attribute it to and even they themselves deny. Yes They were prideful, arrogant, and failed to accept Christ. They saw their righteousness in keeping the Law. Yet the very ones that gave the money to Judas would not take it back to the treasury because it was blood money. Read this passage again and look at what does it say, And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Neither repented they of their murders, nor of their sorceries, nor of their fornication, nor of their thefts. Rev. 9:20-21 Those during this time will worship gods they make with their own hands. They will refuse to repent for their desires will be toward the gods they themselves make; gods of gold, silver, brass, and wood. These idols do not see or hear or walk. This clearly speaks of physical objects made with hand not an allegorical symbol. Historic fact and scripture seem to be the enemy of the preterist view in this case.

16

The Beast Neros REAL name is Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus which has no Hebraic significance at all. The anti-Christ has a multitude of names scripture, but NERO is not one of them. Eusebius states that to make such a connection between the numerical value of 666 to Caesar Nero from the Hebrew would demand that titles be dropped and the use of the first name be used so it just dont work the way the preterist wants it to work.

Further damage to the preterist view comes when realizing that, in their view, the woman is chased by the beast into the wilderness which is suppose to have happened in 70 AD or prior to as the Christians fled Jerusalem. Yet Nero was DEAD and chased no one. Neros persecution occurred prior to 70 AD not after. Yet in Revelation 13:3 we read that,

And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. Rev. 13:3 To my knowledge, Nero is still dead- and stayed dead after taking his own life. He committed suicide in 68AD no where near the Jerusalem. If Nero is the beast, then

we should expect him to have died and been resurrected. This, of course, did not happen in 68 AD. This brings up another interesting point. At the second coming of Christ (not before) this is to occur:

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 2 Thessalonians 2:8

17

It is the splendor of HIS COMING that destroys the beast. Nero died from a selfinflicted wound. All in all, Nero is a type and shadow of one who will come, but unfortunately for the preterist, he is not the beast of the apocalypse of John. There is no historic evidence (None) to suggest the Christians in Neros time understood him to be the Beast of Revelation as they must in the preterist view; mainly because it hadnt been written yet. There is not a trace of testimony that exists to the fact of such an understanding; although Stewart says it was general knowledge among the learned at that time, if find no historical evidence to suggest that as the case.

On the contrary, the early testimony of Irenaeus, indicates a totally different view of the Beast in Revelation as if the only view ever known to have been received or ever to had been tradition: a view referring it not to previous persecution by Nero, but to an Antichrist which was, even then, a future person that would appear AFTER a reunified Roman Empire emerged; one that was to arise and persecute the Jews and the Christian converts at that time. Commondianus (200s) speaks of this in (Instructions. Pg. 44) Ephraem of Syria (300s) writes of this future anti-Christ in (On The Last Times, pg.2). Hegesippus, who wrote in the timeframe of 165-175AD, addresses the questions of when and where the Kingdom of Christ was going to appear. He states that this Kingdom would not be contrived or birthed of men but would be of heavenly origin when Christ would come again at the end of the age (or the culmination of all things): Speaking of the kingdom of Heaven, He writes, that it " would make its appearance at the end of time, when He shall come in glory, and judge living and dead, and render to every one according to the course of his life."- Hegesippus. Fragments from his Five Books on the Acts of the Church

18

As we continue, some preterists maintain a fatal assumption that the beasts heads in Revelation refer to the kings of the fallen Roman empire of the 1st century. If this is true and it speaks of past kings, it can then be quite easily ascertained that it is the 8th head that is spoken of in Revelation 13: vs. 3, 12, and 14 which is said to have had a fatal wound to the head via the sword and revived. It is this beast that concerns the prophecies of chapter 13 and it is this beast that is ridden by the woman whom is said to be the Roman empire of the 1st century which is identified in Revelation 17:11. This beast is not only to represent the 7 hills of Rome but the kings that ruled (8 in the apocalypse of whom 5 had fallen according to the Revelation). This must be in reference, according to the preterist, as the 1st five emperors; 1) Julius, 2) Augustus, 3) Tiberius, 4) Caligula, 5) Claudius. The next in order is the SIXTH which HADNT FALLEN: NERO.

Thus this statement by John seems to be contrary to the holdings of Preterism. Nero was the 6th emperor of Rome; not the 8th. Nero cannot be the Beast of the apocalypse.And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who [is] like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? Rev. 13:3 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. Rev. 13:12 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by [the means of] those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. Rev. 13:14 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. Rev. 17:8

And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. Rev. 17:11

19

Explanations by some of the best of preterist apologist (Eichhorn, Davidson, and Stewart) of the beast getting a fatal head wound and coming back to life are all grounded and solidified in a false 1st century rumor of an imaginary revived Nero. It was said that the people danced in the streets at the news that Nero was dead. But soon a rumor swept the city and the country. Nero was not dead. It was said that he had gone to Parthia to wait there and that he was soon to descend on Rome from Parthia with their armies. This belief came to be known as the Nero Redivivus, the legend of the Resurrected Nero. It was so powerful a legend that in AD 69, more than 88 pretenders claiming to be the Nero Redivivus arose in Parthia.

If this urban legend found its way into the prophecies of John, this can only lead to an even greater more heretical and incendiary conclusion. John the Revelator is a liar. Not only a liar, but one that attaches such poetry and vibrant life as one can muster under a solemn prophecy from heaven and in total disobedience to the Lord Himself.

If this is so then by all means the cannon of scripture is compromised, and the one whom Jesus loved is a heretic of the worst sorts. The canon is compromised in that, as Johns Revelation was accepted into cannon of Holy Scripture, then the deception that must have occurred to let such a book into the most sacred of all writings, could have easily occurred with the others as well. If this one instance of legend is passed on as divine truth then the cannon is compromised. If this is the case, then Gods canon of scripture was not recognized by men, but organized by them. We can all say that this is not the case and thereby the resurrected Nero story getting into the narrative of John is here say and not an option. Yet, if it is not an option, the preterist still must wrestle with somehow making the 8th head the 6th emperor Nero.

20

Some preterist maintain that the beast was not Nero but the Roman Empire. If this is the case then if the beast is to be destroyed at the second coming of Christ, why did the empire last for almost 2 centuries AFTER AD 70? Whether Nero or the empire, the preterist is faced with a beast that was not destroyed by the appearance of Christ.

I hold that John is not a liar and when he wrote the apocalypse it was the 8th beast, then it was the 8th beast and not an insert of his own desire based on an urban legend. The truth is; it was the 8th beast, Nero was the 6th. If John is telling the truth the preterist view of Nero as the anti-Christ of Revelation and Daniel 9 is false. These passages in Revelation 13 speak of a deception that will encompass the entire world. Those whose home is here (earth dwellers or those that dwell on the earth). To again force those who dwell on the earth into one city is straining.

21

Reviewing the Preterist Time Texts Matt. 10:23 The preterist, in an attempt to be the savior of the integrity of scripture from the scoffers, site Matthew 10:23 as a literal time-text to validate immediacy = eminency. Let us look at the text in context:

[16] Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. [17] But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; [18] And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. [19] But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. [20] For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. [21] And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death. [22] And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. [23] But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. (Mat 10:16-23 KJV) A more literal translation is You will not finish (complete) the cities of Israel until/before the Son of Man comes. It has no equal in any of the other gospels and has no translation problems, yet many scholars note that this is among the most difficult passages in the NT to interpret. One such passage should not be a pinnacle feature of any doctrine of major significance.

In any instance, let us consider the passage before us in context. Christ is sending out his disciples to proclaim the kingdom of heaven is at hand to the house of Israel (vs 6 & 7) which Christ states will NOT be accomplished UNTIL He comes again. What coming is Jesus referring to? It cant mean that he will come again prior to death because the persecutions listed were not realized until after Christs death. It cant mean Himself coming in the person of the Holy Spirit for this would not fulfill the promise of a personal coming.

22

Christs say that it is good for Him to go away so He can send the Comforter. The Holy Spirit is a separate person of the Trinity and Christs absence from this earth is a prerequisite for the presences of the Spirit at this time. Jesus meaning that his 2nd coming would be within their lifetime presents a problem for the preterist in that the Son of Man (Christ as a Man) would have to come back. The problem with the 70AD attempt is that Christ, as the Son of Man, didnt come back.

Had the Parousia occurred in conjunction with the fall of Jerusalem, one could expect such a climatic event to penetrate Johns later writings and the writings of the early fathers. In the preterist view, this represents The Second Coming of Christ. Yet the absence of reference to it is again one of the most vocal retractors to it. Not a word about the 70 AD return of Christ in Johns post 70 AD writings, nor a peep of evidence in the late 1st and 2nd century writings of the early church fathers.

The final the most plausible view is that Jesus referred to His future coming in the sense that Gods mission to the Jews would not cease or be completed prior to His promised bodily return which would culminate in the completion of Gods plan of redemption among the Jewish nation. This view accounts for the apparent distancing of the tone of vs. 16 23. It also allows for the Son of Man to be seen in a more literal sense in that the Son of Man (Christ incarnate) will return again which complements Daniel 7:13.

[13]I saw in the night visions, and, behold, [one] like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. (Dan 7:13 KJV)

23

Scholars agree that the word, complete is in the aortist subjunctive sense meaning it should be rendered in a more ultimate redemptive context. We can see this in the commissioning of the disciples. Their mission was to preach the gospel beginning in Jerusalem, then Judea, then Samaria, to the utter parts of the world. Are we to understand that Jesus wanted THOSE particular men to reach every man, woman, boy, and girl, with the sound of their own voice in the remaining years of their life? No... If that was the mission, they failed. Yet we can see, as they could, that was not the case. As with the text at hand, Christ is saying that what you will start will not be completely finished until I come back a 2nd time and finish it. This goes well with the teaching of Paul in Romans 11:1-2 and 25-32 speaking of the future redemption of Israel.

Another reason for this understanding of the text is that it doesnt strain theological gnats. In other words, it does not require a 70 AD non-coming to be a coming. The point is that Christ will come as He went. He was the Son of Man / Son of God. He was incarnate, crucified, dead, and buried. He rose again in a physical body of flesh and bone. He was touched, hugged, poked and prodded. He broke bread with the men from the Emmaus road and Thomas felt the side of Christ after doubting. He made breakfast on the banks of the sea. All this was after the resurrection; and yes. Jesus did leave footprints when he walked. If we do not share in a resurrection of this nature then we are subject to a different resurrection. If we are to undergo a different resurrection other than what Jesus did, then He was not the first fruits of the resurrection; he was the ONLY fruit of that nature of resurrection.

The angel promised that He would return in like manner, meaning the same Jesus that is leave will come again in the same way He left. He walked up on the mountain as the glorified Son of God and he ascended into the heavens. When He returns, He will descend from heaven and step foot on the mountains. A spiritual return of Christ is 70 AD does not hold true to this in any way.

24

F.F. Bruce says, the evangelization of Israel will not be completed before the end of the present age, which comes with the advent of the Son of Man. Paul, from his own perspective, expresses much the same hope when he foresees the salvation of all Israel, the sequel of the ingathering of the full take of Gentile believers, being consummated at the time when the Deliverer will come from Zion (Rom. 11:25-27) Bruce, Hard Sayings, pg. 109. This interpretation of the scripture also allows for the Gospel to reach the Gentiles as Matt 28:19 and Mark 13:10 indicate without forsaking Israel. In summary, a

futurist approach to this text is grammatically, hermeneutically, and theologically superior to the strains of the preterist view.

25

The next proof text of the preterist is found in Matt. 16:28

[28] Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Mat 16:28 KJV) This text has 2 synoptic parallels in Mark and Luke. C.E.B Cranfield calls wonders, why a text of this interpretive difficulty would be included as a critical feature to defend/support a major theological position. (The Gospel According to Saint Mark. Cambridge: University Press 1972) To get a contextual feel for the text in 16:21, Jesus was expanding the disciples view to include His death, then He moves to the unthinkable thought of the death of Christ to the more transcendent idea of His second coming (16:27). Then He makes the statement that there would be some there that would not die until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. The question is what event does Jesus have in mind? Hendrickson, Archer, Hagner Carson, and Bloomberg all have made assumptions. These range from meaning that Christ was talking about his resurrection, or His ascension, or the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. The preterist hold that it points to an invisible coming in 70 AD while some say it speaks of the advancement of His kingdom through the church. And some subscribe that Jesus had the transfiguration in mind.

There are multiple reasons why I feel the later is the more solid and superior view. First, this was the majority view of the early church fathers; 2nd, it does require immediacy, and the some of 16:28 is fulfilled in Peter, James, and John in 17:1. Other events such as Pentecost, the resurrection, and the ascension were viewed by all the disciples not just some. 3rd, and most significant, the chapter and verse break in this passage is unfortunate and does not appear in Mark or in Luke where the immediate event that follows is the Mt. of Transfiguration.

26

To make a separation due to a chapter and verse distinction that didnt appear until the 1800s is not appropriate. Both John and Peter write about this preview of the Kingdom. As Dr. Mayhue states, Only John survived to see Christ in His later glory (Rev. 1:12-20), but Peter, James, and John, i.e., some of the disciples (three of the twelve) actually saw Christ in His kingdom glory and power on the Mount of Transfiguration, plus they heard the glorious, powerful voice of God the Father. Additionally, they saw kingdom power manifest by the appearance on earth of Moses who died about 1405 BC and Elijah who was coaught up alive by Gods chariots to heaven about 850BC. Matthew 16:28 refers to a preview on the Mount of Transfiguration of Christs future 2nd coming because of its textual substantial superiority in keeping with the flow of the text absent chapter breaks and its historical authenticity as seen in the accomplishment at the Mt. of Transfiguration. Charles Holman in The Idea of an Immenent Parousia Studia Biblica Et Theologica III (1973):23 states the following, Judging from the above factors and the places of the narrative in the Gospels, it seems safe to affirm that the transfiguration event was a kind of preview, and thus anticipation, of kingdom power and glory which would come permanently at the Parousia. This text in essence, simply does not sustain a preterist view but a futurist view given the implications of the preview given by Christ to Peter, James, and John and its textual location. One thing is sure; it does NOT teach the purely conjectural premise that Christ would come back in 70 AD.

27

Matt. 24:34 Next, let us turn our attention to the following text: [34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. (Mat 24:34 KJV) This passage is suppose to be indisputably clear and absolutely demanding that the preterist contention that Christs Parousia occurred in 70AD when Rome sacked Jerusalem. This passages has 2 synoptic companions found in Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:22 yet according the New Testament scholar J. Fitzmeyer states in his book, The Gospel According to Luke X-XXIV, this is one of the most difficult phrases to interpret in this complicated eschatological discourse. Fitzmeyer notes at least 7 possible views concerning this Matt. 24:34.1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Christ was mistaken, He was speaking of the human race in general, Christ was referring to preterist view of 70 AD, This refers to faithful Christians in general, Christ was referring to the futurist view of the Jewish race generically, Christ had a future evil generation in mind, or Christ was indicating the generation which would be alive at His future parousia.

There are very convincing reasons as to why the futurist views (6 & 7) are preferred and undoubtedly more superior that the preterist view put forth in 3. The first main reason is that fact that Matthew 24 and 25 must be taken as a whole. When the content theme of the coming of the Son of Man is taken throughout the entirety at its first onset in 24:3, 27, and 30 continuing on through 24:37 through 25:30, Dr. Norman Geisler states, the preterist view cannot handle it if the meanings of the phrases are the same.

28

The coming of 24:30-31 is the same coming of 25:31 which cannot under any stretch of the imagination possibly be accounted for or fulfilled in the 70 AD event. And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. Matt. 24:30- 31 Second would be the fact that the church AFTER 70 AD was still looking for the 2 nd coming. As stated earlier, John lived decades after the event and in not one shape, form, or fashion is there a mention of Christs coming as was foretold in any of Johns later writings; not one shred of apostolic utterance to the parousia of Christ. NOT ONE. The silence concerning the 2nd coming happening in 70 AD is not at all the case with the hope still alive AFTER the 70 AD event. This holds true in the Didache and Justins Dialogue with Trypho, both of which were written decades AFTER 70AD.

Grammatically, Greek scholars note that all these things (panta tauta) give direction to help determine the meaning of the text. They go on to say, Whether one looks back or ahead in the passages, these things are the features which both precede and accompany Christ at His second coming keeping with the direct answer to the question, What will be the sign of Your coming and of the end of the age? This direct question will be looked at in greater detail later in the paper.

29

A quite substantial case is made then contextually, historically, and grammatically that Christs second coming is a yet future event and not fulfilled in 70AD. With this, we can now deal with this generation. The categorical view understands this to be a group or section of people who are rebellions, sinful people who reject Gods truth and righteousness for the lie. This attitude can be seen in Matt. 12:45; 23:35-36 of which is found in OT precedence passages of Deut. 32:5, 20 and Proverbs 30:11-14.

[45] Then goeth he, and taketh with himself seven other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and dwell there: and the last [state] of that man is worse than the first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation. (Mat 12:45 KJV) [35] That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. [36] Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. (Mat 23:35-36 KJV) [5] They have corrupted themselves, their spot [is] not [the spot] of his children: [they are] a perverse and crooked generation. [20] And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end [shall be]: for they [are] a very froward generation, children in whom [is] no faith. (Deu 32:5, 20 KJV) [11] [There is] a generation [that] curseth their father, and doth not bless their mother. [12] [There is] a generation [that are] pure in their own eyes, and [yet] is not washed from their filthiness. [13] [There is] a generation, O how lofty are their eyes! and their eyelids are lifted up. [14] [There is] a generation, whose teeth [are as] swords, and their jaw teeth [as] knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from [among] men. (Pro 30:11-14 KJV) There is also the temporal view which sees this generation as the group of contemporaries alive at the time extending from the birth pangs of 24:3 through the coming of the Son of Man in 24:44. Whether one opts for an evil generation or an eschatological generation, both of these views, when understood within the context of a future Second Coming foundation beyond 70 AD, are both valid and are both futurist based.

30

Matthew 23:37-39 [37]O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not! [38]Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. [39]For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed [is] he that cometh in the name of the Lord. (Mat 23:37-39 KJV) This passage looks ahead to Israel's repentance. Preterists will agree with dispensationalists that the second person plural you in this context points to Israel. Preterist also believe that the Jews (Israel) saw the Lord coming in Judgment in 70 AD. If this is the case, then this passage is quite morbid to say the least in that the Jews will see the destruction of their city as being a blessed event. While verse 38 does refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, it cannot be the same event as verse 39. Jews would hardly call the atrocious decimation of life at that earth-shattering event a blessed coming of the Messiah.

Israel's future repentance is described in vs. 39 when as Zechariah 12:10 say they shall mourn for their great sin and they shall LOOK upon the one they have pierced. They shall mourn for the one they will recognize as being the first born or preeminent one.

[10]And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for [his] only [son], and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for [his] firstborn. (Zec 12:10 KJV)

31

This becomes important because the clear deduction is Israel's repentance precedes His coming. Certainly there was no repentance on the part of Israel before A. D. 70. The preterists describe in detail the apostasy and false teachers that were present in Jerusalem proceeding A. D. 70. The Lord's point in Matthew 23:37-39 is without doubt: As Dr. Stanley Toussaint states, Israel had rejected its Messiah; therefore, judgement was to come. Israel would be left without the presence of its Messiah from that time (ap' arti) until (heos an with the subjunctive to indicate an indefinite future time) it would welcome the Lord Jesus. When Israel repents the kingdom will come; that is what Christ is saying here. Preterists say Israel saw the Lord in His coming in the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70. However, the Lord Jesus said Israel would not see Him again until that nation affirmed that He was the Messiah. Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse.

32

The Parousia of Matthew 24: 3, 27, 27, 39

[3]And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? [27]For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. [37]But as the days of Noe [were], so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. [39]And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. (Mat 24:3, 27, 39 KJV)

The preterist writer Gentry explains these passages as have a chronology change at vs. 36; With these words the Lord turns to look beyond the signs just given for "this generation" (near demonstrative, Matt. 24:34) to "that day" (far demonstrative) (24:36). Thus, the Lord's attention turns to His Second Advent at the end of history. Although He gave signs regarding the events coming upon His own "generation," He carefully distinguishes His eschatological coming by denying signs."

The problem with this that the meaning of parousia changes from what it meant before vs. 36 than what it means from vs. 36 and beyond. In other words, if the clause, coming of the Son of Man means the Second Advent in vs. 37 and 39, it should be a continuation of that same meaning from the prior uses in vs. 3 and 27. If it is not, then the preterist view seems to be inconsistent in their hermeneutic as they ascribe meanings to phrases arbitrarily to fit the view. Gentry states that the Lord turns his view to the far demonstrative view to the end of history. This would, in essence, create a need for a Third Coming in which the scripture does not contend for.

33

Partial or Full Or The Same? In the book The Last Disciple by Hank Hanergraff, he states that John was told not to seal up the prophecy because its fulfillment was for the future, not in the far future as Daniel was told his was (Dan. 8:26; 12:4pg. 395). Here, although Mr. Hanergraff is consistent in holding to the preterist view, his precepts drive him to a view which he and others view as heretical. Dr. Norman Geisler states that at the same time, if Revelation 6-18 refers to the 1st century, then why not the hole book since John was told, according to Last Days, that all of Revelation was to be unveiled for the near future? And if this refers to the 1st century, then one is driven to full Preterism which both sides admit is a heresy since it says the resurrection is past (2 Tim. 18). There is no consistent hermeneutical way to separate Rev. 19-22 from 6-18 on preterist grounds. Indeed, the seventh trumpet (Rev. 11:15) which is during the Tribulation announces the coming of Christ. And the verses speaking of a soon coming, as Last Days interprets them, refer to the whole book of Revelation from beginning to end (Rev. 1:1, 3: 22:10) Dr. Norman Geisler The place of rest is the heretical doctrine of full Preterism if Johns repeated use of such words and phrases as soon and the time is near demonstrate a 1st century audience and did not have a future audience in mind. There is no way around it. With this being the case, the use of these words and phrases, the honest preterist is driven to accept that the entire book of Revelation can only be seen as historical in nature; thus heretical full Preterism follows. The preterists own methodology and hermeneutic condemns it to the heretical view of full Preterism.

These timing words indicate more of a swift event rather than a soon event. Meaning that when these things start happening they will happen quickly or speedily. This is view upheld in Arndt and Gingrich (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, pg 814, Thayers Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament pg. 616 and Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, pg. 913. Thus these

words do not mean soon as in a chronological immediacy after being spoken but in reference that means when they do start, it will be a quick finish.

34

Truly, the generation that does see these things begin will be the generation that sees their end. This starting point is the peace treaty with Israel brought by the rider of the white horse of Revelation; the man of sin; this coming world leader that will deceive many.

If the preterist view is correct, Rev. 6-18 as well as Rev. 19-22 must be placed at 70 AD. This becomes a very sticky issue in that one cannot, with all conscience, hermeneutically separate Rev. 6-18 and 19-22. This distinction if made is not

founded on any basic principle of interpretation. There are not many Revelations in the book; there is ONE Revelation of Christ; ONE unveiling. To the preterist, this unveiling had its fulfillment in 70 AD, therefore, the entirety of the book should be seen as historical in nature in their view. This interpretation put the preterist in a most uncomfortable position of possibly denying the heretical full preterist view which, as Paul puts it, destroys their faith with words yet, having no other choice but to agree with it based on consistent hermeneutic application of having to taking Rev. 6-22 as a whole.

The Apocalypse has 3 division; 1) those things which have been, 2) those which are, and 3) those which will occur METATOUTA or after these things. There are only 3. Chapters 6-22 fall into the METATOUTA section which is yet to come. If

Revelation 19-22 is still yet to come, then the preterist must redefine their definition of soon and this generation and quickly and all those other phrases that the preterist uses to denote immediacy and not eminency.

35

To prove this, we can review just the passages in Revelation that deal with the word, quickly. We find it in Rev. 2:5, 2:16, 3:11, 11:14, 22:7, 22:12, and 22:20. In EVERY instance in the mentioned text, the word in Greek is tachy. The word tachy is where we get our word tachometer. In order for the preterist to have a consistent hermeneutic, the application the meaning of the word must be consistent throughout. With this being the case, the preterist correctly defines quickly as without delay. Though this word holds the concept of without delay, it is without delay at the point the events begin. As the preterist will hold that the beginning was the overthrow of Jerusalem in 70AD, this event should fulfill not only the Rev. 6-18 but the entire book for the promise of the coming quickly, if held in the same definition would not cease until ALL things are fulfilled; even Rev. 19-22. This is denied by some preterists in word, yet to do so would mean that they are extremely INCONSISTENT in their HERMENUETICAL definition of words.

[5] Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent. (Rev 2:5 KJV) [16] Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. (Rev 2:16 KJV) [11] Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. (Rev 3:11 KJV) [14] The second woe is past; [and], behold, the third woe cometh quickly. (Rev 11:14 KJV) [7] Behold, I come quickly: blessed [is] he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book. (Rev 22:7 KJV) [12] And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward [is] with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. (Rev 22:12 KJV) [20] He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus. (Rev 22:20 KJV)

36

When these events start to take place, there will be no delay in their consummation. As a matter of fact, the generation that sees these events start will not pass away until they are completed for it will only take 7 years to see the fulfillment of the 70th week of Daniel, then the Millennial Reign, the final battle and the Great White Throne Judgment when DEATH AND HELL are thrown into the outer darkness never to torment men again. If all of Revelation has been fulfilled at 70 AD, then

there should be no more death, no more sickness, no more pain. Christ would have already judged the death and has cast it along with Hades or Sheol in outer darkness. We have already been trough the 1000 year reign in which Christ is

ruling with a rod of iron. The NEW Jerusalem (a city 1500 miles square) has not appeared and this earth is still here Im STILL HERE. Christ comes back with His bride.. If I am part of that bride then I missed the party. This is not the case.

In all foundational principles of good conscious and consistent hermeneutic, there is no difference is full Preterism or partial Preterism; there is just Preterism. If hyperpreterism is false, then consistency demands that partial Preterism is just as false based on the consistent application of the word quickly and the other time sensitive words. The preterist view demands that quickly mean very soon and

not 1000s of years, thus they point to 70 AD as the culmination of those events.

Partial preterists, though, put the last couple of chapters as an event to still happen in efforts to try and bypass events to which they have no answer to. Yet in doing so, they are in essence admitting to an inconsistent hermeneutic demanding quickly be defined in Matthew as months or years yet deny that very word the same meaning as it is used in Rev. 6 - 22.

37

Johns Revelation ends with the plea of come quickly Lord Jesus. If this plea was fulfilled in AD 70, then all the prior events must be placed prior to AD 70. With this being the case, the partial preterist is only giving lip service to the name while their own definitions of words and their own foundational beliefs drive them to the heretical full preterist view. Therefore, there is only Preterism which by using

their own definitions of words, must adhere to the tenet that the book of Revelation from Chapters 6-22 are historical and every event occurred in 70 AD. There is just no way around it.

Time-texting is very dangerous and is consistently held that eminency equals immediacy, then the precarious perils become evident as one looks at passages such as Haggai; 6 "For thus says the LORD of hosts: "Once more (it is a little while) I will shake heaven and earth, the sea and dry land; 7 and I will shake all nations, and they shall come to the Desire of All Nations, and I will fill this temple with glory,' says the LORD of hosts. Hag 2:6-7 NKJV

Haggai was written about 500 BC. This little while in which the desire of all nations meaning Jesus, would come would not take place for another 500 years. Quantifying these terms within our timeframe, but rather looking to what God has to say with respect to the specifics of the timing of these events is the best course of action.

Gentry and Demar stated that this language requires an immediate fulfillment. Again; immediacy does not mean eminency. If the partial preterist argues that the resurrection, final judgment, and the new heavens and new earth will not occur until Judgment Day, they are, at that point, logically inconsistent with their own biblical interpretation.

38

In Rev. 22:6 we are told of the things which must shortly be done which encompasses EVERYTHING that was said before which includes the resurrection, final judgment, and the new heavens and new earth. Then Rev. 22:10 says, for the time is at hand referring to the final resurrection and so on. Then in Rev. 22:20 Jesus says, surely I come quickly speaking of the culmination of all things.

The unfortunate problem presented here is if the Apostle is talking about an immediate fulfillment in Rev 1:3, then the same hermeneutical principle should rule Revelation 22:6, 10, and 20. If we interpret Rev.22 as a long period of time, then there is no bar to interpret Rev. 1:3 in the same way. If the Partial Preterist is honest and consistent with their interpretations, then there is truly no such thing as a partial preterist for the interpretive guidelines will not allow a stopping point at partial Preterism, but will not stop until the heretical full preteristic doctrine is affirmed.

39

The Nature of the Resurrection First, I firmly believe scripture teaches a spiritual resurrection to life at conversion; the new birth if you will. God puts within us Holy Spirit. We have a new nature that is housed in a body that was conceived in corruption. Taking this to an extreme

will lead to the Gnostic teaching that material substances are evil and will eventually lead to a place where one denies the physical resurrection of the body because the body is seen as a material substance and thus evil. This is not biblical but heretical in that it denies the teaching of Christ and was anathematized by Paul.

At death, my body will go to the ground. My new, spirit will go to be with the Lord. At the rapture, my spirit will be reunited with my body; yet at this resurrection, this corruptible body will take on the incorruptible nature it was meant to have prior to the sin of Adam. This incorruptible body will be the perfect house for the new

nature I received at conversion. There will be no struggle with sin at that point. It will be able to see Christ as He is in all His dimensions because I will be raised to operate in the same number of dimension. This incorruptible body will be perfect for an eternal life with Christ and I have truly shared in the same resurrection as Christ. Immortality does not stipulate a non-material body, just imperishability.

As the preterist will say, they believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ, yet they will deny that Christ was glorified in that body, but that it was changed to a spiritual body. The effects of this are that there is no longer the man Christ Jesus

interceding for us, but Christ Jesus has ceased to be a man of flesh and bone and exists as a spirit in a spirit body. We will endeavor to refute that teaching.

40

We will review Pauls affirmation of the Pharisees teaching of a physical resurrection in a moment, but lets look at the Sadducees belief in no resurrection at all and what we can learn from the apparent trap set for Christ in Mark 12:18-27. [18]Then come unto him the Sadducees, which say there is no resurrection; and they asked him, saying, [19]Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man's brother die, and leave [his] wife [behind him], and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. [20]Now there were seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and dying left no seed. [21]And the second took her, and died, neither left he any seed: and the third likewise. [22]And the seven had her, and left no seed: last of all the woman died also. [23]In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife. [24]And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God? [25]For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven. [26]And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? [27]He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err. (Mar 12:18-27 KJV) Their basic scenario was of a woman who was unable to raise up heirs in spite of having seven lawful husbands all of whom were brothers as prescribed in the levirate law. From the Sadducees point of view, this attacks the resurrection on two fronts for they reasoned that the resurrection of the dead body is more difficult than regular childbearing and it is not prescribed in the Torah but that levirate marriage was.

Essentially, they tried to make a conflict between the scriptural levirate marriage law and a belief in a bodily resurrection. On a deeper level, the very scenario given of this woman represents an implicit denial of, what they see as the harder concept of a physical raising or resurrection of the body. Any attempt to resolve the

logistical difficulties would lend credence to the scenario and in doing so, lend credence to the rejection of a bodily resurrection.

41

Jesus refutes their error in two different categories. He refers to Gods honoring his covenant obligation to Abraham in the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus when He quotes from Exo. 3:6. [6]Moreover he said, I [am] the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. (Exd 3:6 KJV) By referencing this event, Jesus implies that the Torah does prescribe physical resurrection. Although God never promises children through the levirate marriage law, God DOES promise to give the land of Canaan to the patriarchs and their descendants. When God told Abraham to look around him and all that he saw was to be his, God meant it. When he prescribed the boundaries of the tribes, these were real boundaries. When God promises to restore Israel to the land He means those boundaries He Himself established or else He breaks His promise.

What does a passage from the exodus have to do with resurrection? For God to fulfill His unilateral covenant with Abraham, the Exodus was necessary in order to get the remnant of Israel out of Egypt. The complete fulfillment of this promise made by God will require the eventual resurrection of the patriarchs and their descendants. This resurrection is a component of Gods intended plan and must

happen to fulfill His promise. With this being the case, the Sadducees effectively shown their misunderstanding of scripture as it pertains to the resurrection and the levirate marriage and their misunderstanding of Gods power. The exodus is an

example of Gods power to overcome seemingly overwhelming obstacles that threatens the fulfillment of HIS promises.

42

God says in Exodus 6:6-8 that HE will bring them out from under the burdens of the Egyptians and will redeem Israel with an outstretched arm and with great judgments. He says that He will take national Israel for HIS people and He WILL be THEIR God and they will know that He is the Lord THEIR God. He also promises that HE will bring Israel into the land that HE SWORE TO ABRAHAM, ISAAC, AND JACOB and HE will give it to THEM as a possession. [6]Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I [am] the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: [7]And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians. [8]And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I [am] the LORD. (Exd 6:6-8 KJV) "In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates.". Gen. 15:18. You will notice the extensive boundaries found here - from "the river of Egypt" (aka Nile River) to the "Euphrates." In fact, under David's rule the Nation of Israel apparently controlled everything between those two rivers. He affirms this to Israel was

Joshua. The "great sea" is a reference to the Mediterranean Sea. promised this land and God does not lie. will one day be expanded to these.

These are not the boundaries of today but

"From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast." Joshua 1:4.

43

The exodus out of Egypt demonstrates the lengths that God is willing to go to keep His promises and the power of God to do so. Jesus is pointing to the Sadducees and saying that the God who sustains life after death, and who delivered Israel from the mighty pharaohs not only can resurrect the physically dead, but MUST resurrect the dead or the promise falters. The Sadducees are thus mistaken for they deny the power of God and they do not understand the resurrection.

All in all, Jesus refutes the Sadducees by demonstrating that their perceived conflict between resurrection and the levirate marriage law rests on the Sadducees misunderstanding of the very scripture they refer to; since the levirate marriage law requires that death annuls the covenantal bond of marriage before the widow can take another brother to marriage, none of the womans prior marital relationships would continue into the resurrected state. We still hold to that today as seen in the reciting of the marriage vow till death do us part. Paul states this concept in

Romans as he uses the unconverted sinner married to the law having to die to that law for sin to have no right and the person if free to marry Christ.

Jesus then addresses their implied critique, PROVING resurrection of the body through a citation of Exo. 3:6. The fact that death annuls a covenantal bond and the fact that God initiated the Exodus out of Egypt on the basis of his covenant with the patriarchs must imply that they are still alive to God. The Exodus story

demonstrates the power of God and His zeal for His covenantal word in the promise to give the land of Canaan to the patriarchs and their posterity. promise will in due course require a bodily resurrection. This unilateral

This fact proves the

necessity of a bodily resurrection and the irrevocable promise that the original borders given to Abraham will once again be instituted. The Jewish heritage whose faith was in God will be resurrected to inhabit that land or else God breaks His covenant. To over look this aspect is to make the same mistake as the Sadducees.

44

Mark 12:24-27 points to a bodily resurrection or else Jesus rebuttal would fail. Although this passage does not explicitly state that a bodily resurrection is necessary, it does not need to because it is necessary in the language of the resurrection and the Sadducees scenario of the woman with seven husbands who are all brothers. The analysis of the passage requires that a rising from among the dead (12:25) is essential in Jesus logic. Follow me; If Abraham, Isaac, and Jacobs

current non-corporeal condition is a representation of the resurrected state and NOT an interim state, they would have already undergone a death that would END the covenant with God therefore Jesus argument would fail.

Resurrection requires death, but death annuls a covenant.

To argue for a

resurrection based on Gods covenantal faithfulness demands a kind of preliminary death that would require a resurrection yet no so final and complete as to annul a covenant. Jesus argument requires a persons continued existence in a non-

physical state after a physical death, yet the future embodiment must be in sight.

With this view, we can make these distinctions;

Although physical death annuls covenants between humans, it cannot annul covenants with God since all people, including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, continue living with respect to God EVEN AFTER PHYSICAL DEATH (Luke 20:38). God is the God of the living and not the dead.

With this in mind, resurrection must ALWAYS refer to the restoration and rising of the same physical body. If the body that died is not the body that is

resurrected but is ANOTHER BODY, then there is no resurrection; there is only decomposition of the dead body and the creation of a NEW body. Christ grounds His understanding of the resurrection in Gods faithfulness to the Abrahamic covenant as exhibited in context of Exo. 3:6.

45

To infer that the only resurrection we will undergo is only spiritual in nature is making the same mistakes as the Sadducees. To infer that the resurrection does not pertain to the same body that died but another body, is making the same mistake as the Sadducees and is inconsistent with Jesus logic in Mark 12:24-27.

For a resurrection to occur something has to die.

Yet death annuls a covenant.

Abrahams body had the life taken out of it and now it is with God. This life is alive and never died to God although the body is in the ground. This spirit of Abraham can not undergo resurrection because it never died. The only part of Abraham that died was his body fell limp at the leaving of the spirit. To place Abrahams spirit in a newly created body would not meet the definition of a resurrection for nothing that was dead came back to life.

46

2 Timothy 2:18 concerning the resurrection. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. KJV men who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some. ASV Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some. What was the RESULT of the teaching of these people? The NIV states, Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus. 2 Tim. 2:17 This teaching overthrows the faith and is contrary to the teachings of Paul and scripture. It is safe to say that this teaching is not only heretical but is also

dangerous and should have no part in any circles of the Christian faith. To welcome this would be to expose the congregation to a flesh eating cancer. What was this

teaching? the resurrection is past already. For the preterists reading this, let me explain. Wesley states that the foundation of this belief was one, Saying the resurrection is already past - Perhaps asserting that it is only the spiritual passing from death unto life. John Wesley Jamieson-Fausset-Brown says this about the heritical teaching: 18. erred-Greek, "missed the aim" (see 1Ti 6:21). is past already-has already taken place. The beginnings of the subsequent Gnostic heresy already existed. They "wrested" (2Pe 3:16) Paul's own words (Ro 6:4; Eph 2:6; Col 2:12) "to their own destruction," as though the resurrection was merely the spiritual raising of souls from the death of sin. Compare 1Co 15:12, where he shows all our hopes of future glory rest on the literal reality of the resurrection. To believe it past (as the Seleucians or Hermians did, according to Augustine [Epistles, 119.55, To Januarius, 4]), is to deny it in its true sense. overthrow-trying to subvert "the foundation" on which alone faith can rest secure (2Ti 2:19; compare Tit 1:11).

47

Matthew Henry states that, They did not deny the resurrection, but they corrupted that true doctrine.

Yet the preterist might say, yes, but when Paul wrote this, the resurrection was not past but a future event. This is true, and is still true. However, it is the NATURE of the resurrection that causes the distress with Paul because Paul understood the physical nature of the resurrection the same as Christ did. I say this because, had Paul taught a spiritual resurrection only and not a physical resurrection of the body, then Hymenaeus and Philetus would only have a timing issue alone for the nature of the resurrection would have not been in danger. This would not destroy the faith. We will discuss the preterist response to this shortly.

This resurrection is not the same experienced by Tabitha, Lazarus, or even the dead that came from the grave in Matthew for these were not clothed in the glorified, immortal body at that time. N.T. Wright, one of the worlds foremost scholars on Pauline literature states this concerning Pauls writings on the physical resurrection, St. Paul is very clear that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead already, but that nobody else has yet. Secondly, our physical state. The New Testament says that when Christ does return, the dead will experience a whole new life: not just our soul, but our bodies. This teaching that there would be a spiritual resurrection only cuts to the very hope of the Christian faith as JFB states of a future glory that rests in the literal reality of resurrection upon which is the foundation where faith can rest assured. Hymenaeus and Philetus could have taught two lines of thought in this vein: They could have taught that the resurrection had already occurred in a spiritual form and this would be the only form in which the resurrection would occur. They were teaching the Gnostic doctrine of the Nicholaitans, which in essence was a doctrine similar to the teachings of the Sadducees, which stated that there was no such thing as the resurrection of the body.

48

The Nicholaitans taught that we "spiritually" pass from death to life, but because the physical body is "evil" it will not be raised from the dead. This is contrary to what Paul teaches in that he makes the clear connections that just as Christ rose from the dead, so shall we. If this is not the case then our faith is futile. Christ has risen from the dead in a physical body of flesh and bone; so shall we. This new body will be one fit for eternity, not mired by sin; it shall take on incorruptible glory. This

resurrected body will be clothed in glory; the same glory that the angels who sinned disrobed of in the epistle of Jude. It is the same glory that Adam, prior to sin, was clothed in for when they sinned, the glory left the body and they knew they were naked.

The preterist will assert that at the time Paul was writing this, to say the resurrection was in the past was incorrect, but now that it has spiritually happened in 70 AD, it is now not an issue. This is like saying, Im right so you cant say that Im wrong which doesnt speak to the question it only tried to avoid inspection. Nor does it fit the intended physical resurrection Jesus based his logic on in Mark.

The second defense is that Paul didnt object to their idea of a non-physical resurrection, just the timing of the resurrection. First, it is not certain that these men were teaching a non-physical resurrection however that would be the obvious choice taking the Gnostic influences of that time. They could have been teaching that the resurrection that occurred at the time of Christs resurrection as seen in Matt. 27:51-53 was all that their was going to be. This is the second option and one that I think is less superior than the first yet more in line with the times than the preterist view. And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

49

It is obvious that a condemnation of the timing would implicitly recognize the gross error in the nature or scope of the event and would almost imply the error of the nature of the resurrection. For example, when I say that full Preterism states that the resurrection is in the past, everyone reading that would immediately recognize that such a person must be either oblivious to reality or that a serious redefinition of the nature is necessary to even have an error in timing. Error in timing demands an redefinition of nature. Given the Gnostic teaching at that time that material was evil and that material included the body, it is highly more likely that the very nature of the resurrection was in view.

Paul anathematizes an incorrect view of the resurrection in 1Cor 15:12-19 as there were those that stated that there was no resurrection of the dead then carries it to its logical conclusion that if there is no resurrection of the dead, then we, of all men, should be pitied and our faith is in vain and we are still lost in our sins. Again we see that the denial of the bodily resurrection of the believers would entail the logical denial of the bodily resurrection of Christ and as a result, put them outside the realm of acceptable Christian teaching.

Looking at the verses in question; [12] Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? [13] But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: [14] And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain. [15] Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. [16] For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: [17] And if Christ be not raised, your faith [is] vain; ye are yet in your sins. [18] Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. [19] If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. (1Cr 15:12-19 KJV)

50

The preterist would say what Christ really meant was that, [12] Now if Christ be preached that he [physically] rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no [spiritual] resurrection of the dead? [13] But if there be no [spiritual] resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not [physically] risen: Besides the fact that this make so sense at all and switching the meanings in mid stream like that would cause more confusion than clarity, in the context of that culture they knew that dead bodies didnt normally come back to life; yet CHRIST DID.

What Paul is saying is that if they deny the physical resurrection of the dead, they must then deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. If this is denied then we are lost in our sins and our faith is futile. I