|
|
|
|
Preterism . . . it's About Time by Brian Martin (After reading the article below, click on the links in it for more detailed articles on those particular topics. Although at this time these articles are all from the book Behind the Veil of Moses, we are not trying to "push" this particular book over others. Because we own the copyright it is the easiest and quickest text to post. We hope to add articles from others soon.) Have
you become confused, perhaps even disillusioned, over the continuous
exclamations that Jesus is about to return; confused over significant
dates passing by, and we still haven’t been “raptured” away; how
every headline is touted to be a fulfillment of Bible prophecy, making
the Second Coming so close we can almost see it? If
so, then it’s about time—about time you checked out Preterism. What
is Preterism? It’s about time—the time that Jesus and the inspired
authors of the New Testament said He would return. Have you ever noticed
the multiple time statements in the New Testament that speak of
Christ’s soon return? Near,
soon, at hand, shortly, this generation, some of you standing here,
etc. Nearly every New Testament book has at least one. Did He return
during that generation, or didn’t He? Obviously He didn’t return in
the manner in which we have been taught to expect that return. So what
do we do with all of those time statements? Generally, we’ve been
taught to give them alternate meanings—meanings that can encompass at
least 2,000 years. But
what if it’s not the time statements which need an alternate
definition? What if our perception of the manner in which Jesus was to return is incorrect? Don’t think that
is so far-fetched—the Jews missed their Messiah, not because He
didn’t come at the time they
expected Him, but because He didn’t come in the manner
they expected Him. Dare we even entertain the thought that we may have
done the same thing with His Second Coming? As an oversimplification,
consider these opening verses from Revelation: The
Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants —
things which must shortly
take place. . . . Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every
eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. Rev 1:1 NKJV Did
every eye see Jesus return on
the clouds shortly after
Revelation was written? Not according to the way we understand the terms
“every eye shall see Him” and “shortly.” Therefore we must
redefine at least one of these terms—but which one? Futurism tells us
that it is fighting for the literal
interpretation of the Bible when it states that “every eye” means
that a physical, visible return of Christ will be seen by all. Therefore
“shortly” must have some type of elastic meaning. For some reason
Futurism is not so compelled to fight for the literal
interpretation of time statements. Not just this time statement—all of
the time statements in the New Testament regarding the Second Coming. But
if we do take the time statement shortly
literally, what is to be done with “every eye shall see Him”?
Consider the following verse: I
pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened . . . . Eph Are
we to believe that there are actually eyes on our hearts? If not, have
we abandoned the literal interpretation of Scripture? Surely this verse
speaks of spiritual discernment, which the NKJV confirms by translating
it eyes of your understanding.
So we see that some things can be “seen” even though they are not
visible! Could this possibly be applied somehow to “every eye shall
see Him”? What about the following verse: And
he [John the Baptist]
went into all the region around the Here
the inspired author tells us
that this prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled in the ministry of John the
Baptist. Did all literal flesh
literally see the salvation of
God? Of course not. Could it be that, in fighting for the literal
interpretation of Scripture, we have been "literalizing" the
wrong portions? Make no mistake about it, some portion of our text (and
the Second Coming as a whole) must have a spiritual meaning. We can’t
say that every physical eye
literally saw Jesus on literal clouds shortly (in the literal sense) after Revelation was written. But
which do we “spiritualize”—the substance (or manner) of His
return, or the timing? Traditionally we have been taught to spiritualize
the timing. All of those inspired
New Testament time statements don’t mean what we would normally,
literally, take them to mean. However, consider the fact that God is
often portrayed in Scriptures as “coming
on the clouds” in judgment against His enemies and deliverance of
His people (Ps 104:3; Isa 19:1; Joel 2:1-2; Nah 1:2-3; Zeph 1:14-15).
Were those literal comings? Yes, there was a literal judgment and/or
deliverance, but did anyone visibly see
God? Consider also that there is not
one verse in the New Testament which even hints that Christ’s
return would be beyond the New Testament generation. Space
prohibits us from exploring the fact that the Bible never speaks of the
“end of time,” but of the “time of the end”—a huge difference.
Also, the Bible never speaks of the end of
the world, but of the end of the age—not our present Christian
age, which is everlasting (Heb The
term Preterism comes from the Latin word praeter,
which means past. Unlike Futurism, which spiritualizes the time
statements in order to put the fulfillment of prophecy in our future,
Preterism interprets them literally, and thus believes that Bible
prophecy about the Last Days
was fulfilled in the New Testament generation—hence the word
“past.” Futurism claims the substance of prophecy must be literal;
therefore the time statements are not. Preterism, on the other hand,
claims just the opposite—the time statements are literal, therefore at
least some prophecies must have “spiritual” fulfillments. Which is
correct? When we consider the facts that the New Testament gives
spiritual fulfillments for Old Testament prophecies
(e.g., My kingdom is not of this world; John
the Baptist was “Elijah”), and never “spiritualizes” a
time statement, we feel that Preterism is truer to Biblical precedent. If
we maintain that the Second Coming entails the literal
destruction of the earth and worldwide catastrophes, how is it that
some of the Thessalonians thought that it had already taken place (2
Thess 2:1-2)? On the other hand, if the Second Coming follows the Old
Testament precedents of God coming in judgment and deliverance, often
via the agent of foreign armies, then we can see in the destruction of So,
as you can see, Preterism is about time. And it’s about time for a
Scriptural response to those who claim that Bible prophecy wasn’t
fulfilled when it was supposed to be, and to those who are constantly
claiming that it is being fulfilled in today’s headlines. Is it about
time for you to explore Preterism further? For
further study of Preterism, we recommend the following: What Happened in 70 A.D?, by Edward E. Stevens The Parousia of Christ,
by J. Stuart Russell Behind
the Veil of Moses, by Brian L.
Martin
|
|
|
