The editor of Quest, published by a "Preterist" group called "Holy Ground Ministries" (from Riverside, New Jersey, USA), says in the May '97 newsletter: "Preterism as a movement within Christianity is YOUNG and there are so many areas of UNEXPLORED turf (Holy Ground) within Scripture" (pg. 2) [caps mine].

This was sent by Bill Kanengiser, who was directing me to read Philip Mauro on "Daniel's 70 weeks." I had already read Mauro, and even critiqued his "hatchet-job" on Daniel, and also critiqued a lame "repeat" of Mauro's views by Donald Hochner on the "Preterist Archive" website (www.preteristarchive.com). The foregoing quotation, however, focuses on a "valid point" which I am more-and-more finding to be a "general rule" with Christians who believe the Second Coming of Christ is yet future — and that is, this is a "new" subject to most, and they do not yet know what "Preterism" is. Hence, the purpose of this short article is to furnish a short "Primer" on the subject.

 1—What is "Preterism"?

It is believing that prophetic events have been fulfilled in the past and are not to be viewed as events of the future.

 2—What is involved in "Preterism"?

It involves any prophetic event which is viewed as having been fulfilled, such as the Second Coming of Christ, which is said to have taken place in A.D.70.

 3—Does "Preterism" cover more than the Second Coming?

There are some who call themselves "Full Preterist" and some who call themselves "Part Preterist." The "Full Preties" hold that "everything" has been fulfilled, including the Second Coming, the Rapture, the Antichrist, the Tribulation, the Millennium, the Resurrection, the Judgment — you name it. "Part Preties" hold that only some of these things were fulfilled.

 4—Who "defines" the theory or theories of "Preterism"?

The definitions in this category vary, as there is not, to my knowledge, a "Confession of Faith" or anything similar which serves as a "standard" or "symbol." What is available are the writings of certain men, and consequently miscellaneous differences on "interpretations." Books by J. Stuart Russell, John L. Bray, Max King, and the materials available on various websites are somewhat "representative" of much of modern Preterism. Read this explanation: http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/dennis-todd_p_01.html

 5—Where did "Preterism" come from?

A basic "guiding principle"of Preterism is that uninspired men are capable of discerning and declaring the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. The first instance of the "exercise" of this alleged capability, as it relates to prophecies such as those in Daniel, was by the Jewish author(s) of the books of Maccabees in the Apocrypha. It was alleged that Antiochus Epiphanes and his "pig" fulfilled the "abomination of desolation" (1 Maccabees 1).

 6—Was Antiochus and the pig the fulfillment of Daniel?

NO — Jesus placed Daniel's "abomination of desolation" beyond His own lifetime (Matthew 24:15). This is the only reference to Daniel in the New Testament; if we are bound to the record of the Bible, we must reject the Jewish theory. There was no "prophet" on the scene during the time of the Maccabees (1 Maccabees 4:46), and it was not a prophet who proclaimed that the prophecy of Daniel was fulfilled. Perhaps no other single idea has done more to mislead people about Daniel than the theory about Antiochus and the pig.

YES — it is borrowed from Jewish sources which concocted the "historical fulfillment" theory and drafted a "parallel" of certain historical events which were supposedly a "match" to Daniel. But it is "full of holes," and many of them are cited by Keil & Delitzsch in their commentary on Daniel. The purpose served by the Jewish "chronology" is elimination of prophecies by Daniel on the Second Coming of Christ.

 8—What is the source of the "A.D.70" theory?

This theory arose as a result of the theories of Josephus, the Pharisee Priest who wrote under the authority of the Roman Emperor Titus. Despite the fact Josephus believed in the Maccabees' view about Antiochus in relation to fulfilling the prophecies of Daniel, when he wrote the history of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem, he abridged his view to "make room" to incorporate Titus and the Romans as "also" fulfilling Daniel (Josephus Kregel Pub., pg. 227).

9—Just how did Josephus' theories on Daniel

become associated with Christian teachings?

Later "church" writers, such as Eusebius, adopted the view of Josephus that the Romans "fulfilled" writings by Daniel, and associated the "abomination of desolation" (Matthew 24:15) with this idea. Eusebius appealed to Josephus as "history" for the fulfillment of the "abomination of desolation," making Daniel and Matthew 24:15 apply to A.D.70. The "forty year" theory as a "time frame" may also have been "fathered" by Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History pgs. 86-87, 93-94).

The writings of "Saint" Jerome on Daniel also contributed to the confusion on the prophecies of Daniel, as many writers followed the ideas of this fourth century author.

 10—To what extent is the Preterism of Josephus accepted?

Daniel Whitby is an example of the "stock" placed upon the writings of Jospehus by those who view A.D.70 as of prophetic significance. A "footnote" in Whiston's translation of Josephus, states: "Dr. Whitby well observes, no small part of the evidence for the truth of the Christian religion does depend upon the 'completions' of the prophecies, and it is believed 'Josephus' history' furnishes a record of 'their exact completions' " (pg. 589) [emphasis mine].

In the "Introduction" to Josephus, the writer says, "But for the variations in Josephus, he might imperceptibly have been set up as equal to writers chosen by God to describe his ways and doings. The Antiquities would have become a substitute for the Bible..." (pg. xv) [emphasis mine].

11—What about the more "modern" Preterists;

...how do they view Josephus?

One finds modern Preterist sources relying heavily upon the writings of Josephus, so far as they can allege a "physical" type of "evidence;" but in the absence of physical evidence of the more substantial and important events (such as the Return, Bodily Resurrection, and Judgment), the "interpretation" becomes another sort, and it is alleged that these took place "invisibly," or in some "spiritual" sense. Josephus makes no report of "seeing" Jesus, the Resurrection, and the Judgment, so it is necessary for Preterists to make the prophecies to have an "unseen" fulfillment. And this you must accept "by faith."

So the "hermeneutic" of Preterism is geared to writings by a Pharisee Priest (who was not a believer in Jesus Christ) as being the "rule" by which to determine prophetic fulfillments, and where there is no "physical" evidence, then one must resort to the "spiritual" sense. This parallels the usual "adjustment" of interpretation made by "predictors" whose "predictions" have failed, and some other "sense" is then adopted. Preterists simply do it in a "retrospective" manner.

 12—Does Preterism allege "Scriptural" support?

Preterism begins with the presupposition that the Return of Christ took place in A.D.70, then it proceeds to impose this idea upon the Bible teaching of the "imminence" of the Return. Imminence becomes "prediction" in the mind of the Preterist! Thus, any Scripture that implies the imminence of the Return of Christ is applied by the Preterist to A.D.70, in accordance with the presupposed theory.

 13—What is the basic error in their approach?

A basic error involves skirting of the fact that (1) Jesus said He did not "know" the time of His Return, and (2) that it was "not for you to know" the times or seasons for the events which the Father has put "in His own power" (1 Thessalonians 5:1-2; Acts 1:8; Matthew 24:36; Mark 13:32). Preterist interpretations rest upon the assumption that Jesus did in fact know when He would return, and that He "predicted" an alleged "time frame" for His coming; Preterism also imposes "prediction" into the teachings of the Apostles, as if they knew the "times' and seasons" were within a "time frame."

 14—What are primary verses to which Preterists appeal?

The ones which are the "sugar-sticks" are all in Matthew — 10:23, 16:28, & 24:34.

 15—Please comment on Matthew 10:23.

Matthew 10:23 is obviously referring to the "coming" of Jesus into the "cities" of Israel where He sent the disciples (see Matthew 11:1). The disciples were sent on a "short" mission to "cities of Israel," and they would not finish it before Jesus had also "come" to preach in those "cities." The Preterist view would have this mean that the Second Coming would occur before the disciples had completed this "short" mission! In fact, they would still be on this mission up to A.D.70!

 16—Please comment on Matthew 16:28.

Matthew 16:28 could only be the "coming" described in 17:1-9, as Peter relates in 2 Peter 1:16-18. The Preterist view that this refers to a "coming" in A.D.70 makes this a "prediction," which would mean that Jesus did know when He would return. What Jesus did know (and state) was that only "some" (Peter, James, John) would see the "Transfiguration," which they did. Preterists teach that only John was alive in A.D.70, which would mean he alone would have "seen" the Coming, clearly contradicting what Jesus said — "some."

 17—Please comment on Matthew 24:34.

Matthew 24:34 has the word "generation," which the Preterists insist is a "40 year period of time," or "time frame," when in fact, it refers to the "progeny" that is traced as far back as Cain, and the case of the slaying of Zacharias in 2 Chronicles 24 (Matthew 23:35).

The Preterists make a play on "the Greek," when in fact, the Greek words derive from the same word and all are defined to mean "progeny" by the New Analytical Greek Lexicon. The word is not referring to a "period of time." The Preterist view again is based on the error that Jesus knew when He would return and was making a "prediction," clearly contradicting Scriptures which teach otherwise.

 18—What about other verses?

Other than these verses, on writings by the Apostles it is necessary for Preterists to allege that the Apostles knew the "times and seasons," and were making "predictions." With such erroneous presuppositions, all of the verses that teach the "imminence" of the Return are viewed erroneously as being predictions.

But if it is accepted that Jesus did not know when He would return, and that it was not for the disciples to know, then all that is taught by Jesus and the Apostles is the imminence of the Return. And when Peter was met with an objection which related to the matter of "time" — "Where is the promise of His coming?" (as if it had been "too long" for the promise of His coming to be taken seriously), Peter's reply discounted the significance of any length of time involved, as he referred to this in relation to God's "clock" on time (2 Peter 3:8). Viewed on God's "calendar," it's hardly been "two days" since Jesus went back to Heaven. And what Peter said about this matter in his epistle is just as valid today as it was in his day.

*  "BOB'S LIST" — UPON REQUEST, Bob will add you to his E-MAIL LIST to receive his regular articles, many featuring comments on Preterism. Several recent refutations of the Preterism advocated by both the "Part-Preties" and "Full-Preties" are available in our email Files. At your request, we will add your name to our mailing list. "Back articles" are also available on request.

Author: Bob L. Ross

—————————————————

 CHARLES HADDON SPURGEON

"If I read the word aright, and it is honest to admit that there is much room for difference of opinion here, the day will come, when the Lord Jesus will descend from heaven with a shout, with the trump of the archangel and the voice of God. Some think that this descent of the Lord will be Post-millennial — that is, 'after the thousand years' of his reign. I CANNOT THINK SO. I conceive that the advent will be PRE-millennial — that He will come first; and then will come the millennium as the result of his personal reign upon earth. But whether or no, this much is the fact, that Christ will suddenly come, come to reign, and come to judge the earth in righteousness." [from Justification & Glory MTP Vol 11, Year 1865, pg. 249, Romans 8:30 (age 31)]