ERROR IV: "Christ failed to return before His generation passed away"

  1. Jesus taught His Return would come to pass before the Apostle's generation passed away, LINK.
  2. Jesus' Apostles understood, expected & taught Christ's Return before their generation passed away, LINK.
  3. Though "neither the day nor the hour," (date & time), of Christ's Return was known by Jesus & His Apostles, they did plainly understand which generation would see it, their generation, LINK. The individuals who saw the Master go away were to be the very ones to see Him come back, as all the parables of a returning master describe, LINK.
Timeline: 
` AGAINST ERROR

Norman L. Geisler and "This Generation"

Norman L. Geisler and "This Generation"
by Gary DeMar
7/10/2007

One of the foundation stones of dispensationalism in particular and futurism in general is the claim that “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 either refers to a future generation (“the generation that sees these signs”) or the Jewish race. Norman Geisler, in his critique of Hank Hanegraaff’s The Apocalypse Code, argues that the Greek word genea should be translated “race.” He writes: “as virtually all acknowledge, it can mean ‘this [Jewish] race’ will not pass away—which it has not. Greek experts Arndt and Gingrich acknowledge that the term genea can have an ethnic use of ‘family, descent, . . . clan, then race’ (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 249, emphasis added).” Notice that Geisler says “can have.” The problem is, there is no place in the NT where genea is translated as “race,” and the lexicon cited by Geisler does not point to a verse where “race” would be the appropriate translation.1 Moreover, Geisler does not tell his readers that the Greek-English Lexicon also states that genea (generation) means “the sum total of those born at the same time, expanded to include all those living at a given time. Generation, contemporaries.”2 The passages referenced as examples of this definition are Matthew 24:34, Mark 13:30, and Luke 21:32 where the text reads “this generation.”

I’m surprised that Geisler would even consider the genea–as–race argument. While the Scofield Reference Bible takes this position, almost no one today, including dispensational authors, argue that “this generation” should be translated “this race.”

There are two problems with the “race” translation. First, as we’ve seen, the Greek word used in Matthew 24:34 is genea, a word that in other contexts means “generation.” Try using “race” where “generation” appears in these verses: Matthew 1:17; 11:16; 12:39, 41, 42, 45; 16:4; 17:17; Mark 8:12, 38; 9:19; 13:30; Luke 1:48, 50; 7:31; 9:41; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 16:8; 17:25; 21:32. Geisler even admits this, but claims that it can have a different meaning in a “prophetic context.” What is the basis for this line of argument? He never tells us.

Second, if Jesus wanted to say that “this race will not pass away until all of these things take place,” He would have used the Greek word genos to clear up any possible confusion. He uses genea (“generation”) not genos (“race”).

Third, there is a logical problem if genea is translated “race.” Since “race” is a reference to the Jewish race, Matthew 24:34 would read this way: “This Jewish race will not pass away until all these things take place. When all these things take place, then Jewish race will pass away.” This doesn’t make any sense, especially for a premillennialist like Geisler who believes the Jews will reign with Jesus for a thousand years after the period described by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse. Fellow dispensationalist Stanley Toussaint dismisses Geisler’s line of argument:

It is difficult for dispensational premillennialists to take this view because this would imply that Israel would cease to exist as a nation after the Lord’s return: “This race of Israel will not pass away until the Second Advent.” But Israel must continue after the Second Advent into the millennium in order to fulfill the promises God made to that nation.

Fourth, each and every time “this generation” is used in the gospels, it refers to the generation to whom Jesus was speaking. The use of the near demonstrative “this” locks the time of “this generation” that was near to Jesus. If Jesus had a future generation in mind, He would have said “that generation,” as in, “that generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” Consider what these Bible commentators say about the meaning of “this generation”:

  • D.A. Carson: “[This generation] can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke.”4
  • William Sanford LaSor: “If ‘this generation’ is taken literally, all of the predictions were to take place within the life-span of those living at that time.”5
  • John Lightfoot: “Hence it appears plain enough, that the foregoing verses are not to be understood of the last judgment, but, as we said, of the destruction of Jerusalem. There were some among the disciples (particularly John), who lived to see these things come to pass. With Matt. xvi. 28, compare John xxi. 22. And there were some Rabbins alive at the time when Christ spoke these things, that lived until the city was destroyed.”6
  • Thomas Newton: “It is to me a wonder how any man can refer part of the foregoing discourse to the destruction of Jerusalem, and part to the end of the world, or any other distant event, when it is said so positively here in the conclusion, All these things shall be fulfilled in this generation.”7
  • “[T]he obvious meaning of the words ‘this generation’ is the people contemporary with Jesus. Nothing can be gained by trying to take the word in any sense other than its normal one: in Mark (elsewhere in 8:12, 9:19) the word always has this meaning.”8
  • John Gill: “This is a full and clear proof, that not any thing that is said before [v. 34], relates to the second coming of Christ, the day of judgment, and the end of the world; but that all belongs to the coming of the son of man in the destruction of Jerusalem, and to the end of the Jewish state.”9
  • William Lane: “The significance of the temporal reference has been debated, but in Mark ‘this generation’ clearly designates the contemporaries of Jesus (see on Chs. 8:12, 38; 9:19) and there is no consideration from the context which lends support to any other proposal. Jesus solemnly affirms that the generation contemporary with his disciples will witness the fulfillment of his prophetic word, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of the Temple.”10
  • “Matthew uses genea here for the tenth time. Though his use of the term has a range of emphases, it consistently refers to (the time span of) a single human generation. All the alternative senses proposed here (the Jewish people; humanity; the generation of the end-time signs; wicked people) are artificial and based on the need to protect Jesus from error. ‘This generation’ is the generation of Jesus’ contemporaries.”

Norman Geisler needs to take a second look at his claim that “this generation” can be translated as “this race.” All the evidence points to the generation Jesus was addressing and not the “Jewish race” or a future generation.

Gary DeMar is the President of American Vision.

1 The King James Version translates genos as “generation” in 1 Peter 2:9.

2I’m using the fourth revised edition of Arndt and Gingrich (1952). The page number in this edition on genea is 153.

3Stanley D. Toussaint, “A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse,” Bibliotheca Sacra (October December 2004), 483–484.

4D.A. Carson, “Matthew” in The Expositor=s Bible Commentary, gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985), 8:507

5William Sanford LaSor, The Truth About Armageddon: What the Bible Says About the End Times (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987), 122.

6John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica, 4 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [1658–1674] 1859), 2:320.

7Thomas Newton, Dissertations on the Prophecies Which Have Remarkably Been Fulfilled (1754).

8Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator's Handbook of the Gospel of Mark (New York: United Bible Societies, 1961), 419.

9John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament, 3:296.

10William L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 480.

11John Nolland The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 988–989.

Timeline: 
` AGAINST ERROR

A Response to Ray Comfort’s “The End of the Age?”: Part 1

From: http://www.americanvision.org/garyblog/?p=26

A Response to Ray Comfort’s “The End of the Age?”: Part 1

Biblical Studies, eschatology May 17th, 2008
By Gary DeMar

Ray Comfort has put himself on the front lines defending the Christian faith by confronting the spirit of the age and those who promote it. So Ray, if you ever read this, don’t take it as an attack on you or your ministry. It’s just my attempt to get you to take a fresh look at prophecy. After reading your short article, it seems to me that you have repeated the arguments of others without actually studying the issue for yourself. If I’m wrong about this, I apologize in advance. Either way, it’s my firm conviction that your views on Bible prophecy cannot be supported by a careful reading of the Bible. (Comfort’scomments from his article “The End of the Age?“ are in bold and appeared on the website of Christian Worldview Network on May 14, 2008.)

Don’t let doomsday prophets fool you. Just because there’s been another big earthquake, it doesn’t signal the end of the world. It does, however, bring us closer to what the Bible calls “the end of the age.” Do you want evidence that the Bible is the Word of God? Of course you don’t, but here it is anyway: Look at the signs the Bible speaks of (combined from Matthew 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; 1 Timothy 4; and 2 Timothy 3), and relate that to contemporary life on earth.

I was hopeful when you began your article with “Don’t let doomsday prophets fool you” and your admonition that another big earthquake does not “signal the end of the world.” Then you had to throw in “however” and appeal to the Olivet Discourse (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). The Olivet Discourse is describing what will take place before “this generation” passes away” (Matt. 24:34). The events of Matthew 24 take place before “this generation” passes away (v. 34). Jesus always uses “this generation” to refer to His contemporaries (Matt. 11:16; 12:41, 42; 23:36; Mark 8:12; 13:30; Luke 7:31; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51; 17:25; 21:32). He never uses “this generation” to refer to a future generation.

For those who claim that “generation” (genea) really means “race,” there are two problems. First, the Greek word genea cannot be made to mean “race,” as in the “Jewish race.” Genea means “generation” (e.g., Matt. 1:17; Luke 1:48; 9:41; Acts 14:16; 15:21; Eph. 3:5; Col. 1:26). The Greek word for “race” is genos. If Jesus had wanted to identify the Jewish race, He could have used genos. He didn’t. Second, there is the logic of the verse. If genea is translated as “race,” as in the “Jewish race,” then Matthew 24:34 would read, “This Jewish race will not pass away until all these things take place.” So when “all these things take place,” the Jewish race will pass away. One additional argument needs to be dealt with.

A popular way to interpret Matthew 24:34 is to have it read like this: “The generation that sees these signs will not pass away until all these things take place.” I can get a verse to say almost anything if I get to add words to it. Also, notice how “the” is substituted for “this.” We are told by Jesus which generation will see “all these things”: “so, YOU too, when YOU see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door” (Matt. 24:33). The “you” is a reference to Jesus’ audience. Follow the use of “you” throughout the chapter and notice that the second person plural refers to Jesus’ present audience (Matt. 24:2, 4, 6, 9, 15, etc.). If Jesus had a future generation in mind, He would have said “when that generation passes away.” Jesus uses the near demonstrate “this” to indicate the generation that was present with Him. One last point needs to be considered. Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that Jesus was referring to a future generation. What words would He have used if He had wanted to specify that it was His first-century audience that would see all these things? He couldn’t have used “you” or “this generation” since futurists claim these words refer to a future time and audience. To be continued. . .

Timeline: 
` AGAINST ERROR

Does the Bible Teach a Pre-Tribulational Rapture in our future?

The most popular end-time event is the rapture. The rapture, in its most
basic form, is the belief that the church will be taken off the earth sometime
before, during, or after a future Great Tribulation. Actually, there are
five rapture positions: pre-tribulational, post-tribulational, mid-tribulational,
partial, and pre-wrath. The pre-tribulational rapture is the most popular
expression of the doctrine. The Left Behind series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry
Jenkins capitalizes on the belief that the church will be taken off the earth
“in the twinkling of an eye” at the beginning of the seven-year tribulation
period, thus avoiding its horrors.
The doctrine has been criticized since its inception in the early part of
the nineteenth century when it was first taught. As you consider some of
the texts used to support the doctrine, ask yourself this question: Is it self-evident
from the following “rapture texts” that they teach a “taking away of
the church” prior to a future seven-year period of unprecedented tribulation?
The arguments used by adherents of the pre-tribulational rapture position are
complex, since no single verse actually teaches the doctrine. The complexity
of these arguments requires that we consider the strongest texts used to
support the position.
 
It should be kept in mind that the entire pre-tribulational scheme is
based on a unique interpretation of Daniel 9:24–27. The dispensationalist
maintains that the last seven years (the seventieth “week”) is still future and
that the rapture will inaugurate this final week (seven years) of the seventy
weeks (490 years). This supposedly will give God the opportunity to deal
exclusively with Israel as a nation again. of course, even a cursory reading
of Daniel 9:24–27 will that nothing is mentioned about the church being
taken away in a rapture prior to the opening of the 70th week, that is,
seven years.
 
Revelation 4:1
 
Let’s begin our study of the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine by taking
a close look at Revelation 4:1:
 
After these things I looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven,
and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking
with me, said, ‘Come up here, and I will show you what must take place
after these things.’”
 
John Walvoord, an ardent believer in the pre-tribulational rapture, imports
an already-constructed pre-tribulational rapture theory into texts that say
nothing about the church being taken to heaven. His exposition of Revelation
4:1 is evidence of this:
 
It is clear from the context that this is not an explicit reference to the
Rapture of the church, as John was not actually translated [raptured]; in fact
he was still in his natural body on the island of Patmos. He was translated
into scenes of heaven only temporarily. Though there is no authority for
connecting the Rapture with this expression, there does seem to be a
typical representation of the order of events, namely, the church age first,
then the Rapture, then the church in heaven.1
 
If one takes Walvoord’s position, then Rosenthal is correct: There is no
verse that explicitly teaches the doctrine!2 All of the texts used to support
the rapture theory presuppose the validity of the theory, a theory that does
not have a single text to support it. The doctrine has been constructed before
texts have been evaluated.
 
 
 
This unsound approach to Bible interpretation has done little to dissuade
the adherents of the various rapture theories. Grant R. Jeffrey, for example,
begins with Revelation 4:1 as one of the “five definitive indications supporting
the pre-tribulation Rapture.”3 Here’s how the argument goes for those who
see the rapture of the church in this verse:
 
• The voice that John heard was “like the sound of a trumpet speaking.”
• When Jesus returns to rapture His church, He will do so “with the
trumpet of God” (1 Thess. 4:16).
• Since a trumpet is used just prior to the rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,
we should assume that a rapture is in view when “a door [is] standing
open in heaven,” presumably to receive the raptured church (Rev.
4:1–2).
• The church is no longer mentioned in Revelation; therefore, the church
must have been raptured.
• John’s being directed to “Come up here” is a depiction of the rapture
in the same way that the church will be “caught up” at the time of the
pre-tribulational rapture. Jeffrey writes, “When John was ‘in the Spirit’
 
… he was ‘Raptured up’ to Heaven….”4
 
This approach stretches the Bible to fit an already developed theory of the
rapture. The doctrine is read into the text.5
 
As has been noted, the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine assumes that the
seventieth week of Daniel is separated from the sixty-ninth week and is yet
to be fulfilled. The dispensational interpretation also assumes that Revelation
was written about a time period in the remote future rather than for the
people for whom events were to happen “shortly” (Rev. 1:1). For the readers
of the prophecy in the first century, “the time is near” (1:3). Revelation was
written before A.D. 70. Its purpose was to describe events leading up to and
including the destruction of Jerusalem. The evidence for a pre-A.D. 70 date
is overwhelming.6 For one thing, the temple was still standing when John
received the Revelation and wrote it down for the “seven churches” (Rev.
11:1–2), churches that were in existence in John’s day. Jesus assured the first
readers of Revelation that He would be coming “quickly” (2:16; 3:11; 22:7,
12, 20). Those who claim to hold a literal interpretation want to avoid the
obvious conclusion of these verses—the prophecy is describing events that
refer to the first-century church. This does not mean that Revelation has no
meaning for today’s church. The crucifixion occurred before the destruction
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, and no one claims that Christ’s death has no
meaning for today. Numerous events in the Old Testament are history, but
they have meaning and application for our day as well: “Now these things
happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction,
upon whom the ends of the ages have come” (1 Cor. 10:11).
 
 
But let’s get back to the supposed evidence for a pre-tribulational rapture
in Revelation 4:1. First, John didn’t hear a trumpet. He heard a voice “like
the sound of a trumpet speaking.” Second, it is fallacious to argue that the
absence of a reference to the church indicates its rapture (absence from the
earth). Hal Lindsey states, “Since the Church is mentioned nineteen times
in the first three chapters under divine outline of ‘the things which are,’
and since the Church is not mentioned or implied as being on earth even
once after the statement ‘Come up here, and I will show you what must take
place after these things,’ I conclude that it is the end of the Church age that
is meant here, and that the Church is in heaven thereafter until it returns as
the bride of Christ in Revelation 19:7–14.”7 Notice that no text states this.
These are Lindsey’s conclusions.
 
 
Let’s test Lindsey’s hypothesis. The first three chapters of Revelation deal with
churches, assemblies of saints in Asia Minor in the first century: the church in
Ephesus (2:1), the church in Smyrna (2:8), the church in Pergamum (2:12),
the church in Thyatira (2:18), the church in Sardis (3:1), the church in Philadelphia
(3:7), and the church in Laodicea (3:14). After chapter three, Jesus
(1:1) deals with those who make up the church—the “saints” (5:8; 8:3, 4;
11:18; 13:7, 10; 14:12; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:8). In the first three chapters,
local churches are addressed, not the church generally. After chapter three
the “saints,” individuals who make up the seven churches in Asia Minor and
elsewhere, are referred to. Is there exegetical evidence for this interpretation?
Yes. “To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been
sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call
upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours” (1 Cor. 1:2;
cf. 6:1–6; 14:33; 2 Cor. 2:1). Is Paul describing two groups of people? No!
The saints constitute the church.
 
 
It takes amazing hermeneutical manipulation to create a doctrine where
none exists. Lindsey’s view must be read into the text. He begins with his
pre-tribulational rapture theology (still not documented by arguments from
Scripture) and forces it on a verse that must be twisted to prove what he claims it
teaches. Nothing like what Lindsey believes can be found in Revelation 4:1.
Let’s continue by applying Lindsey’s hermeneutical logic to other passages.
The words church and churches appear just once in Hebrews (12:23) and twice
in 2 Corinthians (1:1 and 2:14): “The church is not mentioned as such in
Mark, Luke, John, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John, or Jude,
and not until chapter 16 of Romans. Unless we are prepared to relegate large
chunks of the NT to a limbo of irrelevance to the Church, we cannot make
the mention or omission of the term ‘church’ a criterion for determining the
applicability of a passage to saints of the present age.”8
 
Is Bible interpretation based on word counts? The same reasoning process
has been taken with the book of Esther by liberal scholars: “There can be
no doubt that the historicity and canonicity of Esther has been the most
debated of all the Old Testament books. Even some Jewish scholars questioned
its inclusion in the Old Testament because of the absence of God’s
name.”9 If word counts are to be so heavily relied upon then Lindsey refutes
his own argument. He finds the antichrist all over Revelation, but the word
is nowhere to be found.
 
 
If chapters 4–19 are not about the church, then what group of people
would Jesus as the true author of Revelation have in mind? The dispensationalist
believes that these passages describe the time of the great tribulation,
when Israel, not the church, is in view. But word-count exegesis leaves us
in something of a dilemma since the word Israelonly appears once after the
supposed rapture of the church, and not until Revelation 7:4! One would
think that if the church is in view in the first three chapters because the
words church and churches are used nineteen times, then shouldn’t we expect
to find the word Israelused more than once after chapter three if this entire
seven-year period is about Israel? The word Israeldoes appear in 21:12, but
the word churches appears in 22:16. Revelation 22:16 demonstrates that the
entire book is “for the churches,” not just the first three chapters.
 
 
A glaring inconsistency can be found in Tim LaHaye’s defense of an any-moment
rapture based on Revelation 4:1. He states that the “first-century
church believed in the imminent return of Christ, possibly during their
lifetime.”10 He means by this that first-century Christians and Christians
thereafter believed that Jesus could come at any moment. But later in the
same book he writes, “Chapter 1 is the introduction; chapters 2 and 3 [of
Revelation] cover the church age, using seven historical churches to describe
the entire age. (For example, the church in Ephesus is the only one that refers
to apostles because the first-century church alone included apostles.)”11
 
Chuck Smith, another popular prophecy writer, pushes the same idea while
maintaining that Jesus’ coming is always imminent, that is, that He could
come at any moment. But like LaHaye, he contradicts himself when he
writes that “each of these seven churches . . . represents a particular period
of Church history. For instance, the church at Smyrna represents the Church
of the second through fourth centuries—a time when persecution was horrible
and as many as six million Christians were executed for their faith. The
church at Pergamum represents the beginning of the church-state system
that developed under Constantine. And so on.”12
 
How could Christians believe that Jesus could come at any moment and
also believe that He would not come until the last of the seven representative
churches (Laodicea) appeared? This destroys the dispensationalist’s doctrine
of imminency, the any-moment rapture of the church. It also destroys literalism
since the seven churches are purported to represent seven distinct periods
of the church age, not individual churches. William Hendriksen comments
on the seven churches/seven ages view:
 
The notion that these seven churches describe seven successive periods
of Church history hardly needs refutation. To say nothing about the
humorous—if it were not so deplorable—exegesis which, for example,
makes the church of Sardis, which was dead, refer to the glorious age of
the Reformation; it should be clear to every student of Scripture that there
is not one atom of evidence in all the sacred writings which in any way
corroborates this thoroughly arbitrary method of cutting up the history
of the Church and assigning the resulting pieces to the respective epistles
of Revelation 2 and 3.13
 
According to dispensationalists, the rapture is a two-stage event: Jesus
comes for His saints before the seven-year tribulation period and with His
saints at the end of the tribulation period to defeat antichrist and set up
the millennial kingdom (Rev. 19). But there is no mention of the church in
Revelation 19 following Jesus on His “white horse” (19:11). The “armies
of heaven,” not the church, follow Jesus on their “white horses” (19:14).
If dispensationalists maintain that the “armies of heaven” are the church or
saints, then this only shows that the word church does not have to appear
for it to be present. A final point needs to be made. Dispensationalists teach
that Jesus coming on “a white horse” in Revelation 19 is the second coming.
Robert L. Thomas is a representative of this popular position:
 
This picture climaxes the NT emphasis on the second coming of
Christ as the fulfillment and vindication of the Christian hope (e.g., Matt.
13:41–42; 25:41; Rom. 2:5; 2 Thess. 1:7–8, 9–10; 2:8) . . . . It answers
specifically to the theme verse of Rev. 1:7 which tells of the worldwide
audience this event will have (cf. Matt. 24:27–31). . . . In fact, this is
the only event in Revelation that corresponds to that coming narrowly
construed to refer to Christ’s personal coming.14
 
In Acts 1:9–11 we are told that “a cloud received Him out of their
sight” (1:9). No horse was involved. “This Jesus, who has been taken up
from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him
go into heaven” (1:11). Jesus did not go into heaven on a horse, and He will
not return on a horse.
 
 
Like the dispensational hermeneutical methodology in general, the pre-tribulational
rapture doctrine is a gigantic hoax. Because the pre-tribulational
rapture is a pillar of the dispensational system, we should expect to find
proof of its existence in clear texts. Even one text would suffice. There is
not a single passage that clearly and dogmatically supports a pre-tribulational
rapture. If so many people believe the pre-tribulational rapture doctrine,
why is it that no verse can be appealed to that explicitly teaches it? Most
pre-tribulationists have never been challenged to produce a verse.
 
1 Thessalonians 4:16–17
 
In a debate on eschatology with Dave Hunt, I challenged him to point to
one verse that explicitly taught a pre-tribulational rapture. He immediately
appealed to 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17. Read it for yourself. The idea of a
pre-tribulational rapture must be assumed by the reader and imposed on the
text. Sound biblical interpretation, however, requires textual proof before a
doctrine can be formulated.
 
 
Historically, the church understood 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17 to refer to
the general resurrection of the saints. The text simply describes the raising of
those who are “in Christ.” No mention is made of the church being raptured
either before or after a tribulation period. Nothing in the text even points
to a tribulation period. Anthony Hoekema, an amillennialist, rejects the idea
that the Apostle Paul was teaching a pre-tribulational rapture:
 
What this passage clearly teaches is that at the time of the Lord’s return
all the believing dead (the “dead in Christ”) will be raised, and all believers
who are still alive will be transformed and glorified (see 1 Corinthians
15:51–52); then these two groups will be caught up to meet the Lord in
the air. What these words do not teach is that after this meeting in the
air the Lord will reverse his direction and go back to heaven, taking the
raised and transformed members of the church with him. The passage
does not breathe a word of this. To be sure, verse 17 ends with the words,
“and so we shall always be with the Lord.” But Paul does not say where
we shall always be with the Lord. The idea that after meeting the Lord
in the air we shall be with him for seven years in heaven and later for a
thousand years in the air above the earth is pure inference and nothing
more. Everlasting oneness with Christ in glory is the clear teaching of
this passage, not a pre-tribulational Rapture.15
 
Non-pre-millennialists do not deny the rapture as such (even though the
word is not found in Scripture); they only deny the dispensationalists’ version
of it. Not only is the Bible on the side of those who view the rapture as the
general resurrection, so are eighteen hundred years of church history: “As an
established view, it can be traced back to J.N. Darby and the Plymouth Brethren
in the year 1830. Some scholars, seeking to prove error by association,
have attempted (perhaps unfairly) to trace its origin back two years earlier to
a charismatic, visionary woman named Margaret MacDonald.”16 Even pre-tribulational
dispensationalists admit the novelty of the position:
 
It is scarcely to be found in a single book or sermon through the period
of 1600 years! If any doubt this statement, let them search … the
remarks of the so-called Fathers, both pre and post Nicene, the theological
treatises of the scholastic divines, Roman Catholic writers of all shades of
thought, the literature of the Reformation, the sermons and expositions
of the Puritans, and the general theological works of the day. He will find
the “mystery” conspicuous by its absence.17
 
Here is a dispensationalist admitting that there is “scarcely” any historical
evidence to support the position. He’s too generous. There is no evidence. So
where does a dispensationalist get this doctrine? Tommy Ice, a fervent proponent
of dispensationalism, writes that the theory is based on “deduction”:
 
A certain theological climate needed to be created before pre-millennialism
would restore the Biblical doctrine of the pre-trib Rapture. Sufficient
development did not take place until after the French Revolution. The
factor of the Rapture has been clearly known by the church all along;
therefore, the issue is the timing of the event. Since neither pre nor post-tribs
have a proof text for the time of the Rapture (unless the promise made to the
church in Rev. 3:10 is an exception which promises deliverance—the
Rapture—from the future tribulation before the seven-year period begins),
18 then it is clear that this issue is the product of a deduction from
one’s overall system of theology, both for pre and posttribbers.19
 
What an admission! A pillar doctrine of dispensationalism does not have
a single text to prove it.20 Dispensationalism’s process of “deducing” the
rapture theory is this: First, create the system; second, create the doctrines
to make the system work; third, claim to have restored “the Biblical doctrine
of the pre-trib Rapture,” which is based on a “deduction from one’s overall
system of theology” because there are no verses that teach it; fourth, imply
that the early church, the “apostles of the apostles,” knew nothing of this
foundational doctrine. Bizarre. Millions of Christians today hold to a system
of interpretation (dispensationalism) that does not have one verse to prove
one of its foundational doctrines, the pre-tribulational rapture of the church,
the concept that makes dispensationalism dispensational. This system of
interpretation is a theological house of cards.
 
 
Hoping to seek historical validation for the pre-tribulation rapture, dispensationalists
have turned to an obscure and questionable source, Pseudo-Ephraem (probably a
seventh-century composition). While the sermon On the Last Times, the Antichrist,
and the End of the World claims to be authored by Ephraem of Nisibis (306–373),
no one really knows who wrote it or when it was written. Even so, pre-tribulationists
believe that it contains “two proto-rapture statements.”21 An appeal to Pseudo-Ephraem
is an act of desperation by those in need of historical support since they have no biblical
support for their position.
 
 
Titus 2:13
 
Dave Hunt, in How Close Are We?, maintains that “Paul called the Rapture
‘that blessed hope’” (Titus 2:13).22 There is no mention of a rapture, either
pre-, mid-, or post-tribulational in this passage. Hunt, as a pre-tribulationist,
asserts that “the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior” is a
description of Jesus’ coming at the end of the seven-year tribulation period
while the “blessed hope” is the rapture of the church prior to the tribulation
period. The belief that Titus 2:13 describes two comings must be read into
the passage. Paul was “awaiting our blessed hope” which was “the appearing
of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Even John Walvoord
believes that Titus 2:13 describes only one event.23
 
What is this “blessed hope”? It was the “appearing of the glory” of Jesus.
We have come across this language before in Matthew 16:27: “For the Son
of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels…” (Matt.
16:27; cf. Mark 8:38). When did this happen? “Truly I say to you, there are
some of those standing here who shall not taste death until they see the Son
of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 16:28). Jesus had His generation in
mind, not a distant generation.
 
 
Notice that Titus 2:13 describes the “appearing of the glory of our great
God and Savior, Jesus Christ.” Paul does not say that Jesus will appear, only
that “the glory” will appear. There is a significant difference in meaning.
Peter writes in a similar fashion:
 
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal among you, which
comes upon you for your testing, as though some strange thing were happening
to you; but to the degree that you share the sufferings of Christ,
keep on rejoicing; so that at the revelation of His glory, you may rejoice
with exultation (1 Peter 4:12–13).
 
First, Peter writes that his readers were personally involved in a “fiery
ordeal.” This was not some future event. Second, not only were they experiencing
a “fiery ordeal,” but they would “rejoice with exultation” at the
“revelation of His glory.” There is no indication that a long period of time
exists between their “fiery ordeal” and the “revelation of His glory.” In this
same chapter Peter writes that “the end of all things is at hand” (1 Peter 4:7),
at hand for those reading his letter in the first century. What was this “end”
that was “at hand”? Jay Adams’ comments summarize the argument:
 
 
[First] Peter was written before A.D. 70 (when the destruction of
Jerusalem took place)…. The persecution (and martyrdom) that these
(largely) Jewish Christians had been experiencing up until now stemmed
principally from unconverted Jews (indeed, his readers had found refuge
among Gentiles as resident aliens)…. [H]e refers to the severe trials that
came upon Christians who had fled Palestine under attack from their
unconverted fellow Jews. The end of all things (that had brought this
exile about) was near.
 
In six or seven years from the time of writing, the overthrow of Jerusalem,
with all its tragic stories, as foretold in Revelation and in the
Olivet Discourse upon which that part is based, would take place. Titus
and Vespasian would wipe out the old order once and for all. All those
forces that led to the persecution and exile of these Christians in Asia
Minor—the temple ceremonies (outdated by Christ’s death), Pharisaism
(with its distortion of O.T. law into a system of works-righteousness) and
the political stance of Palestinian Jewry toward Rome—would be erased.
The Roman armies would wipe Jewish opposition from the face of the
land. Those who survived the holocaust of A.D. 70 would themselves be
dispersed around the Mediterranean world. “So,” says Peter, “hold on; the
end is near.” The full end of the O.T. order (already made defunct by the
cross and the empty tomb) was about to occur.24
 
Third, if the “revelation of His glory” were a depiction of a pre-tribulational
rapture that is yet to occur, how would this distant event comfort those who
were involved in a “fiery ordeal” nearly two thousand years ago? In death
they saw Jesus “face to face” (1 Cor. 13:12; 2 Cor. 5:8). Did they not behold
the fullness of His glory at that time? In another context, the Apostle Paul
writes, “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy
to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Rom. 8:18). The
New American Standard translation does not catch the full meaning of this
passage. Following Robert Young’s Literal Translation of the Bible, we read,
“For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be
compared with the glory about to be revealed in us.” Whatever the glory is, it
was “about to be revealed” (see Rev. 2:10; 3:2, 10; 10:4; 12:4; 17:8). Peter
tells his readers that the “Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you” (1 Peter
4:14). This was a present condition, not something that the people in Peter’s
day would have to wait for in a future rapture.
 
 
 
If the “appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ”
(Titus 2:13) is neither a distant event nor the bodily return of Christ, then
what is it? The “appearing of the glory” is the coming of the fullness of the
New Covenant promises as outlined in the gospel. The Old Covenant came
with glory “which fades away” (1 Cor. 3:7, 10–11, 13). The New Covenant
has come with even more glory (3:8). “For if the ministry of condemnation
has glory, much more does the ministry of righteousness abound in glory.
For indeed what had glory, in this case has no glory on account of the glory
that surpasses it. For if that which fades away was with glory, much more
that which remains is in glory” (3:9–11).
 
 
With the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 the Old Covenant that had
faded in glory was obliterated. The gospel is the new glory which those
who are still attached to the fading glory of the Old Covenant do not see.
“And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing,
in whose case the god of this world [lit., age] has blinded the minds of the
unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ,
who is the image of God” (2 Cor. 4:3–4).
 
 
The blessed hope, therefore, is the coming of the fullness of the gospel
in the “glory of Christ.” This fullness was accomplished with the obliteration
of the symbols of the Old Covenant: the temple, priesthood, and
sacrificial system.
 
1 Corinthians 15
 
This section of Scripture falls into the same category as 1 Thessalonians
4:16–17. Again, no one denies that Christians are going to be raised; the
dispute is over when the event happens. The passage makes no mention
of a “secret rapture,” or Jesus coming “for His saints” before a future great
tribulation and then later returning “with His saints” after the great tribulation.
 
 
Nowhere in 1 Corinthians 15 will you find a discussion of the great
tribulation or an earthly millennial reign of Christ. The pre-tribulational
rapture must be read into 1 Corinthians 15. The chapter deals with resurrection
not rapture: first, the resurrection of Jesus; second, the resurrection
of Christians. Without the resurrection of Jesus there will be no resurrection
of Christians. The resurrection of believers comes just before the end: “But
each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s
at His coming, then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to
the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and
power” (15:23–24). This “resurrection of the dead” occurs after the period
of the kingdom (there must be something to deliver up) and just before
“the end.”
 
 
How do premillennialists fit an earthly millennium into these two verses?
You guessed it. There are gaps inserted to divide the passage into three
events: the pre-tribulational rapture, the coming of Christ seven years later,
and the resurrection of unbelievers at the end of the Millennium. Again,
these “gaps” or “intervals” must be read into the text. John 5:28–29 states
very clearly that believers and unbelievers will be raised at the same time,
not separated by a thousand years.
 
 
Christians must refuse to be guided by the latest interpretive trends or
to be swayed by current events. The Bible is the Christian’s guide, not the
conjectures of self-appointed prophecy “experts,” the latest newspaper headlines,
or the movements of national boundaries. The Bible is our starting
point regardless of what we think is going on in the world.
 
The only question is whether the Bible actually teaches these things.
If it does, then “let God be true but every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4). The
newspaper has no prerogative to challenge God’s word of truth. Nor do
those who read the newspapers. As faithful disciples of Christ, we are to
trust God as the sovereign controller over human history, “who works all
things after the counsel of His own will” (Eph. 1:1), declaring the end
from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying,
“My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose” (Isa.
46:10), so that “none can stay his hand” (Dan. 4:35). With the Psalmist
we should declare, “Whatever the Lord pleases, he does, in heaven and
on earth” (115:3).25
 
Returning to a true understanding of the Bible and its application to
presentday conditions will bring about great revival and reformation to a
world languishing in the pit of despair and darkness. Jesus is the answer. It
is in the world that God calls sinners to Himself.
 
 
 
Notes
 
1. John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody, 1966)
103.
 
2. For a critique of Walvoord’s position of John’s “translation” as a type of
rapture, see Robert H. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation (Grand Rapids,
MI: Zondervan, 1973), 68–9.
 
3. Grant Jeffrey, Armageddon: Appointment with Destiny (Toronto: Frontier Research,
1988), 135.
 
4. Jeffrey, Armageddon, 136.
 
5. See Hal Lindsey, The Rapture (New York: Bantam Books, 1983), 88–91.
 
6. See Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation,
2nd ed. (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999).
 
7. Hal Lindsey, The Rapture, 90.
 
8. Gundry, The Church and the Tribulation, 78. Also see Gundry’s First the Antichrist
 
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1997), 84–87.
 
9. Edward G. Dobson, “Esther,” Liberty Bible Commentary, eds. Edward E. Hindson
and Woodrow M. Kroll (Lynchburg, VA: The Old-Time Gospel Hour, 1982),
909.
 
10. Tim LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm: Why Christians Will Escape All the Tribulation
 
(Sisters, OR: Multnomah Press, 1992), 65.
 
11. LaHaye, No Fear of the Storm, 74.
 
12. Chuck Smith with David Wimbish, Dateline Earth: Countdown to Eternity (Old
Tappan, NJ: Chosen Books, 1989), 28–29.
 
13. William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of
Revelation, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, [1940] 1982), 60.
In his Dateline Earth, Chuck Smith identifies the Church of Sardis with the
Protestant Reformation because the Protestant Church celebrated Christmas.
“Should Christians stop celebrating on December 25?,” Smith asks. “Not
at all. We enjoy glorious liberty as children of God to celebrate or not to
celebrate, as we choose” (33). So why wasn’t this true for those who started
celebrating Christmas on December 25?
 
14. Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary (Chicago, IL:
Moody Press, 1995), 382.
 
15. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans,
1979), 168.
 
16. Marvin Rosenthal, Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church: A New Understanding of the
Rapture, the Tribulation, and the Second Coming (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson,
 
 
 
1990), 54. For a study on the preDarbyite source of the pre-tribulational
rapture, see Dave MacPherson, The Incredible Cover-Up (Medford, OR: Omega,
[1975] 1980 and The Rapture Plot (Simpsonville, SC: Millennium III Publishers,
1995). John L. Bray disputes the Darbyite and MacDonald sources. He
has traced its origin to Morgan Edwards, Two Academical Exercises on Subjects
Bearing the Following Titles: Millennium, and Last-Novelties (Philadelphia, PA:
Dobson and Lang, 1788). See Bray’s Morgan Edwards and the Pre-Tribulation
Rapture Teaching (1788), Lakeland, FL: John L. Bray Ministries, 1995) for
documentation on this theory.
 
17. H.A. Ironside, The Mysteries of God (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1908),
50.
 
18. Notice what Revelation 3:10 says: “Because you have kept the word of My
perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is
about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.” This passage
was written nearly two thousand years ago. The “hour of testing” was
“about to come upon the whole world [Greek, oikoumene: the inhabited earth].”
This means not long after the time it was spoken. That hour of testing was
the conflagration leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, the
tribulation period from which Christians were warned to “flee,” which they
did (Matt. 24:16).
 
19. Thomas D. Ice, “The Origin of the Pretrib Rapture: Part II,” Biblical Perspectives
 
(March/April 1989), 5. Emphasis added.
 
20. Ice and Demy attempt to get around this admission in The Truth About the
Rapture (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1996).
 
21. Timothy J. Demy, “Pseudo-Ephraem,” Dictionary of Premillennial Theology,
gen. ed. Mal Couch (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 1996), 329. Also see Demy
and Thomas D. Ice, “The Rapture and an Early Medieval Citation,” Bibliotheca
Sacra (July/September 1995), 306–17 and Grant R. Jeffrey, “A Pretrib
Rapture Statement in the Early Medieval Church,” gen. eds. Thomas Ice and
Timothy Demy, When the Trumpet Sounds (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1995),
105–125. For a refutation of Demy, Ice, and Jeffrey, see Gundry, “‘Pseudo-
Ephraem’ on Pretrib Preparation for a Posttrib Meeting with the Lord” in
 
First The Antichrist, 161–88.
 
22. Hunt, How Close Are We?, 199.
 
23. John F. Walvoord, The Prophecy Knowledge Handbook: All the Prophecies of Scripture
Explained in One Volume (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1990), 496–97.
 
24. Jay E. Adams, Trust and Obey: A Practical Commentary on First Peter (Phillipsburg,
NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), 129–30.
 
25. Greg L. Bahnsen, “The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism,” The
Journal of Christian Reconstruction, Symposium on the Millennium, ed. Gary
North, 3:2 (Winter 1976–77), 54.
 
“Does The Bible Teach a Pre-tribulational Rapture?” by Gary DeMar is
taken from chapter 17 of his book Last Days Madness. Copyright © 2005.
To order other books related to Bible prophecy go to www.AmericanVision.
org, or call 1-800-628-9460.
 
To contact American Vision by mail:
 
3150-A Florence Road
Powder Springs, GA 30127
 
 

Seven Problems with Futurist Theology

Seven Problems with Futurist Theology.
An objective measure of ‘Biblical’ Knowledge
Christianity cannot take the place of thinking, but it must be founded upon it. Albert Schweitzer.
By
Morrison Lee

Morrison Lee lives in South Korea and has a background in Communications, Theology, and Analytic Philosophy. He lectures in Rational Preterism – the measurement of Preterism by right thought.

In endtimes there are, most simply, three competing schemas of prophetic fulfillment, each with variations; firstly the Futurist view, secondly the Partial-Preterist view, and thirdly the Preterist (past) view. Together they teach all, some and none respectively.

The Futurist view asserts all the biblical facts of the second coming point to our future. The compromise Partial (part past, part future) view asserts some facts are past, and some point to our future. The Preterist view asserts no biblical prophecy remains to be fulfilled.

The Issue: objectivity and the measure of a ‘biblical’ view

A great deal has been written on these three views and a multitude of verses quoted on each side, but as yet no common measure has arisen upon which a determination can be made. Futurist and Partial-Preterists argue their own conclusions are ‘biblical,’ so the problem then is one of objectivity: what is the measure of ‘biblical?’ Is ‘biblical’ orthodoxy measured by traditional creeds? Is ‘biblical’ practical measured by usefulness? Is ‘biblical’ measured by the quantity of verses quoted? Is it the evidence theory of truth: ‘known to be true?’ Or is ‘biblical’ the consistency theory of truth: if it is consistent with our beliefs it is true. How to measure objectively which explanation is ‘biblical?’

The Facts

For simplicity of discussion both all future and some (partially) future are grouped together, both asserting a future second coming beyond the span of 2,000 years between the bible authors and now.

Q. What are the seven main assertions of Futurist theology?

  1. 2,000 year period of time asserted.
  2. Jesus’ coming Personally’ ‘Physically’ and ‘Visibly’ asserted.
  3. ‘Delay’ in coming asserted.
  4. ‘Gaps’ between verses and passages asserted
  5. Jesus coming asserted to be ‘literal.’
  6. ‘Many comings’ asserted by partial school.
  7. Asserts Jerusalem temple to be destroyed future to 2008.

Q. What are the seven main assertions of Preterist theology?

  1. Things promised and written to that generation fulfilled to them.
  2. All things to come upon [Jesus’] generation. Mtt 23:36
  3. All things fulfilled in [Jesus’] generation. Lk 21:32
  4. [Jesus’] generation not to pass away till all fulfilled. Mtt 24:34
  5. Jerusalem temple and end of age occur at the same time Mtt 24:1-3
  6. Jerusalem temple destroyed in AD70. History (Josephus. ‘Wars’)
  7. 2,000 years not a necessary concept

The Rule for Objective Biblical Knowledge

All knowledge is an acquaintance with facts, and all biblical knowledge is an acquaintance with biblical facts. A thing cannot be said to be ‘biblical’ unless there are biblical statements in the same terms to declare it so. The only objective measure of biblical-reality is this correspondence between statement with biblical fact in the same terms. This means that 2000 years can only be ‘biblical’ if a chronological term equal to 2000 years is observable in the Bible; again, a delay is only ‘biblical’ if a delay is observable in the Bible. The rule here is correspondence between statement and fact in the same terms. Which of the three explanations is ‘biblical’ by the measure of a correspondence between assertion and biblical fact in the same terms?

Apply Correspondence Rule to Assertions of Each

Futurism. What occurs when we apply the rule – does the assertion correspond with bible facts in the same terms - to the futurist view?

  1. No 2,000 year facts are observable in the bible.
  2. ‘Personally’ ‘physically’ and ‘visibly’ asserted, but ‘personally’ ‘physically’ and ‘visibly’ nowhere occur in an exhaustive concordance of the scriptures.(Strong’s)
  3. ‘Delay’ in coming asserted, but second coming ‘delay’ asserted by no bible author
  4. ‘Gaps’ between verses and passages asserted, but no ‘gaps’ stated by bible authors
  5. Jesus coming ‘literal.’ ‘Literal’ occurs nowhere in the biblical datum.
  6. ‘Many comings’ asserted by partial school. ‘Comings’ occurs only once in Ezek 43:11 with no observable relation to second coming.
  7. No Jerusalem temple exists in 2008 to be destroyed.

#1 In futurism the passing of 2000 years after the first coming is a necessary concept, yet no single biblical fact exists to prove #1. 2000 years because “it is literal” is assumed, yet 2000 years is nowhere observable in the facts.

#2 The terms found in the statements of #2 are nowhere observable in Strong’s exhaustive concordance of the KJV bible. I challenge you to do the experiment with Strong’s concordance. For example futurism asserts Jesus will return ‘Physically.’ In Strongs’ the term ‘Physically’ should occur alphabetically between ‘Phylacteries’ and ‘Physician,’ correct? ‘Physically’ is not there, because no such term as ‘Physically’ occurs in the bible! Do the experiment: look it up - ‘Phylacteries’ in Strong’s is followed immediately by ‘Physician.’ It is not there because it is a human invention, and similarly ‘Personally’ and ‘Visibly’, yet these three terms lie at the foundation of futurism.

#3 Again the assertion of a ‘delay’ corresponds to no observable bible fact in the same terms, in fact the bible author of Hebrews asserts precisely the contrary of what is asserted in #3, that there would be no delay. Heb 10:37 - ‘For yet a little while and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry’ [delay] Statement #3 of futurism fails on two counts of objectivity: (i) it cannot justify itself on evidence and (ii) it actually denies the bible statement; ‘He shall not tarry’ [delay], scarcely a ‘biblical’ proof to convince the candid enquirer, but essential to the ‘literal and therefore future’ theory.

#4 Here no objective division between passages is made by any biblical author, nor are any divisions suggested by biblical time facts at those places where a future division is supposed to occur. Lacking biblical statements for these claims, they must remain conjectural and merely mental constructs to prop up literalism.

#5 Figurative language is a common literary device of the Hebrew prophets. (eg. Ezekiel, Daniel, Ezekiel, Hosea, Joel). A literal Psalm 23 ‘thy rod and thy staff they comfort me’ demands the nonsensical idea that God has a literal rod and staff in heaven, when a metaphorical explanation would answer the import sufficiently. Literalism is not a rule stated in the biblical datum, nor can the notion of only and always literal axiom work in practice. To quote the moderate position of Alexander Campbell: ‘Now while we agree that there is but one meaning in every passage, we are not prepared to say that meaning is always literal.’ (Campbell 1831, p 431)

#6 Another error is the claim of a plurality of Jesus’ second comings. The claim corresponds to no relevant statement in biblical observation. Comings is only found once in Ezek 43:11, and merely relates to the progress of priests and their goings out thereof and their comings in therefrom, a context disconnected entirely from a discussion of the second coming. Further, a plurality of comings makes the term a ‘second’ coming a meaningless nonsense. ‘Many second comings’; eg.a ‘third’ or ‘fourth’ second comings? It is another fact-less device to prop up a literalism absent from the facts it claims to present.

#7 In AD 70 the holy city of Jerusalem was utterly desolated and never rebuilt. (See Josephus’ Antiquities and Wars of the Jews). Futurism places more emphasis on reading the scuttlebutt of modern-doomsayers in daily newspapers than reading the history of Jesus’ own generation. What happens when we close the newspaper and look at history?

A sample Preterist synthesis of prophecy and history informs us that Vespasian’s Roman army under his son Titus surrounded a Jerusalem besieged by civil war, and a holy temple occupied by: a generation of villains so mad, that had the Romans made a longer delay the city would have been swallowed up by the earth, or destroyed as Sodom… (Josephus. Wars 5:13:566) a national event described by this eyewitness as the greatest [national] misery since its foundation, (Wars 6:8:408) in which the number of those which perished [over 1,100,000] exceeded all the destructions ..ever brought on the world (Wars 6:9:429), a time when false prophets abounded, (Wars 6:5:285) “the daily sacrifice” failed (Wars 6:2:94) when famine affected the estimated 3,000,000 people in the city, (Wars 5:12) a famine so bad people searched the sewers for dung, (Wars 5:13:571) and one mother ate her own child for food (Wars 6:3:207 ) when a measure of wheat was sold for a talent of money (Wars 5:13:571) when men sought by death [by sword over death by starvation], but found it not, (Wars 5:12:517) a context when fire and blood mingled together, the blood in the lanes in such quantities that the whole city ran with blood, to such a degree indeed that the fire of many of the houses was quenched with these men’s blood (Wars 6:8:406ff) earthquakes (Wars 1:19:370 ) and signs in the heavens: (Antiquities 17:6:167 Eclipse, comet) a time when the sounds of trumpets (Wars 6:1:68) and the noise of horses (Wars 3:2:33) were sounds to inspire dread and torment, when the great plain in front of Jerusalem (Wars 5:2:67, 5:3:106ff) was leveled even wider by the four legions of the Roman army as numerous as locusts to make a greater plain for battle. The entire city was shut up, the national population captured in a kind of net. (Wars 6:1:160) The futurist cannot tell us anything of Jesus’ generation, but Preterism tells us it was an unsettled world revolved by wars, a world that saw the Roman government in great internal disorder by the continual changes of its rulers, and understood that every part of the habitable earth under them was in an unsettled and tottering condition.. (Wars 7:4:79)

To this near correspondence between biblical prophecy and fulfilled history futurism attaches no significance at all, revealing that historical ignorance is the true basis for futurism. The need to re-build a 1st century temple (so it may be re-destroyed in the 21st century) to prop up a theory lacking facts is so silly as to be almost fabulous. It is further evidence of futurism’s inferior explanatory power: it cannot explain the deeper significance of bible facts. These seven topics are major tenets of the futurist theory of the second coming.

Preterist. What occurs when we ask for biblical correspondence with the seven Preterist assertions? In this case –

  1. Things promised and written to that generation had a first meaning to them. A standard principle of modern historiography.
  2. All things to come upon [Jesus’] generation. Mtt 23:36 Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms.
  3. All things fulfilled in [Jesus’] generation. Lk 21:32 Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms.
  4. [Jesus’] generation not to pass away till all fulfilled. Mtt 24:34 Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms.
  5. Jerusalem temple and end of age occur at same time Mtt 24:1-3 Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms.
  6. Old covenant of Moses located in Jerusalem temple. 1 Kgs 8-9 Correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms.
  7. Jerusalem temple destroyed in AD70, (Josephus: Wars of the Jews). Correspondence between historical statement and biblical fact in nearly the same terms.

In Preterism tragic Jewish prophecy (Revelation) is explained by tragic Jewish history. Preterism has a very simple basis:

#1 Things promised and written to that generation had a first meaning to them. In thought the simplest view is always to be preferred. This principle is called Occam’s razor, where no more complexity is introduced than what the facts allow.

#2 Preterism simply accounts for genuine time facts relative to the time they were written, thus the generation spoken to is the same generation as ‘this generation’ to whom the things were promised. This is called ‘fact-for-fact’ correspondence’: it is express. The same also with statements #3 and #4.

#5 Asserts that the Jerusalem temple - which contained the institutions of Moses - also maintained them. This means that because the Mosaic covenant is in the Mosaic temple, the temple supports the Mosaic age. The conclusion is that when you end the temple you end the age. This is correspondence between statement and fact in the same terms.

#6 Explains the reason for #5 - the temple and the age end together – the reason being that the covenant was located in the Jerusalem temple. 1 Kings 8 – 9:1-9.

#7 Asserts that Jesus’ divine revelations to His generation may be answered by a correspondence with the historical state of affairs in that generation, (Josephus. Antiquities, Wars) which restores the prophetic credibility futurism steals from Jesus.

Clearly a Preterist (past view) has far more explanatory power of the temple’s historical and redemptive significance than futurism, and posses the firmest foundation in fact.

Conclusion of Comparison

Where biblical objectivity is measured by a correspondence between statement and biblical fact in the same terms, it must be concluded by all candid observer that the yet future premises are embarrassingly absent in every particular, while first century (Preterist) assertions are, by observation, legitimate statements of biblical authors.

Futurism springs from a rigid literalism which conjures, as if by magic: a delay not observable in the datum, gaps which correspond to no biblical datum in the same terms, multiple and fictitious comings which correspond to no biblical datum in the same terms, and the magical reappearance and re-destruction of a temple destroyed 2000 years ago. The most disturbing particular is that none of this speculation matches observable biblical fact (inthe- same-terms) at any single point, yet its followers claim complete certainty for it. The basis for all this mental machinery is literalism.

Proof of futurism’s entire structure is silence: Jesus hasn’t come back yet has He? The problem here is that the conclusion cannot be falsified or proven, even after 2000 years of failure. For 2000 years futurism has ignored the past and gazed off into the dim future offering; fictions instead of biblical facts, conjecture for proof, unbiblical terms as evidence, novelties like ‘comings’ as truth, and excuses like Christ was ‘delayed’ to explain its weakness. The yet-future-to-us view reminds one of a wobbly shack on a loose foundation, propped up by human buttresses and broken beams glued together and taped up, a patchwork of inventions. The real problem of futurism is not the formwork but the foundation of Knowing: it is not founded on any real, solid, biblical fact.

Futurists may believe they are right, but one may believe anything. True facts are the only measure of objective Knowledge, and without biblical facts to measure statements there can be no objective Knowledge. I will close with a quote from Karl Popper who wrote about ‘knowing’ in the absence of real facts. He said without real facts there can be no rational defense, but rather in their absence; ‘Our ‘knowledge’ is unmasked as being not only in the nature of belief, but of rationally indefensible belief – of an irrational faith.’ (Popper 1972 p5)

While little known and unfamiliar at present, Preterism possesses the singular merit of objectivity as the basis for a more rational and biblical explanation of the end time facts. I recommend it to the impartial Christian. morry_lee@yahoo.com.au

Campbell, A. The Millennial Harbinger. 1831 Reprinted College press 1987, Mo..
Popper, K.R. Conjectures and Refutations. Routledge, 5th ed revised 1989 UK.
Popper,K.R. Objective Knowledge. Oxford Press, 1972. USA
Strong, J. Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Nelson 1990. USA
-ooOOoo-