|
|
|
|
How
would you respond to the claim that Preterism “spiritualizes” everything? Response by: Don K. Preston, Edward E. Stevens, David B. Curtis, Steve & Tom Kloske A well-known Futurist author and speaker claims,
“Preterists . . . overall tend to allegorize key texts (i.e. Matthew
24:29-31). Allegorizing occurs when an interpreter brings into a text a meaning,
based on ideas, from outside the text. Thus, their interpretation cannot be
supported from a normal reading of the words and phrases.”
Preterists do
not allegorize. We do honor the metaphoric nature of apocalyptic
language. We honor the type/anti-type use of language. We honor the inspired
application of Old Testament prophecy by New Testament writers.
Where in the
words “animal sacrifices” is one compelled to see Jesus’ sacrifice?
“Lamb” does not mean “Jesus.” Yet, “Christ is our Passover.” Does
the literal word “
The New
Testament writers viewed
Preterism
honors the shadow-v.-reality doctrines. The New Testament inspired
writers say that the literal realities anticipated coming spiritual realities.
It is not “allegorizing” to honor these applications.
So, when the
New Testament writers make a spiritual application of Old Testament prophecies, it
is not allegorizing. Through inspiration, they revealed what those Old
Testament realities foreshadowed. In other words, the spiritual meaning was
there all along, recorded, but “unrevealed.” To reject the spiritual
application that the New Testament writers make of Old Testament prophecies
therefore, denies the inspiration of the New Testament authors who claimed to be
revealing what the Old Testament prophets foretold, but did not understand (1
Peter 1:10-12).
It is no
surprise that futurists accuse preterists of “spiritualizing” everything,
especially since preterists accuse them of “literalizing” everything. But
both extremes are equally wrong. It is just as fallacious to “spiritualize”
all the literal language in the Bible as it is to “literalize” all the
figurative language in the Bible.
The Bible contains all kinds of language (figurative,
literal, historical, symbolic, apocalyptic, typological, poetic, hyperbolic,
parabolic, etc.). Each type should be interpreted “according to its own
particular genre” (or kind of literature). Historical narrative needs to be
interpreted historically and literally. Apocalyptic language needs to be
interpreted apocalyptically.
Apocalyptic language (like the book of Revelation) should
be interpreted like a political cartoon in the newspaper at election time. You
know, the ones in the editorial section picturing donkeys and elephants dressed
up in weird costumes doing idiotic things! Most Americans understand what the
donkeys and elephants symbolize (the two major political parties), but the point
of the cartoon is not always as obvious. Sometimes we have to get a little more
background information on the political figures and events before we enjoy the
satirical humor intended by the cartoonist.
The same is true of the apocalyptic language in the Bible.
Before we try to interpret all the weird characters, costumes, and activity
described in the book of Revelation, we need to first acquaint ourselves with
the history, culture, language, religion, and politics of the times in which
that book was written.
The fundamental task of a Biblical interpreter is to
discover exactly what the original AUTHOR intended to communicate to his
original AUDIENCE at that specific TIME and PLACE under that specific set of
CIRCUMSTANCES (i.e., “Audience Relevance”).
To accomplish that task, we must ask a lot of questions
like:
1. Who wrote this? Who was he? What kind of person was he?
etc.
2. To whom was it written? Who were they? What kind of
people were they? etc.
3. When was it written? What do we know about those times
in which it was written?
4. Where was it written? What do we know about those
places where it was written from and where it was written to?
5. Why was it written? What do we know about the
circumstances which called forth this writing?
By answering as fully as possible these kinds of questions
about a piece of writing, we will come a lot closer to discovering exactly what
the writer intended to communicate to his original audience, and also probably
discover what kind of language the author is using, so we can interpret it
correctly (either literally or figuratively).
We all need to be careful when interpreting Biblical
language. Handle it according to the type of language it really is. If it is
literal, take it literally. If it is figurative, then take it figuratively. And
we must keep in mind that some sentences may incorporate several of these types
of literature in it. There is not a “one size fits all” hermeneutic. Each
piece of writing must be interpreted according to the kinds of literature
contained within it, with due respect to its original author, audience and
historical circumstances.
Preterists are just as guilty of
“overly-spiritualizing” Biblical language as the futurists are guilty of
“overly-literalizing” it. Both are extremes that need to be avoided. All of
us need to interpret Scripture according to the particular kind of language it
uses.
Preterism only
spiritualizes what the Biblical text tells us is spiritual. For example:
When is the kingdom to come?
Is it here now, or is it yet future? When Jesus began to
preach, He said that the
Matthew 12:28 (NASB) “But if
I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the
Now, if the
Luke 17:20 (NASB) Now having
been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He
answered them and said, “The
We see this same idea with the resurrection, which Paul
said was near in his day:
Acts 24:15 (NKJV) “I have
hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be
(mello—about
to be) a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust.
If the TIME of the resurrection is seen as AD 70 (the end
of the Old Covenant age), then we know that the NATURE of the resurrection was
spiritual, rather than physical. The previous illustration that the
It is clear in
the discussion of Preterism that there is a major controversy concerning the use
of “literal” and “spiritual,” or, more precisely, the idea of
spiritualizing the language of the text. Preterists have, by and large,
been accused of spiritualizing the text when it benefits them, while
literalizing it when it supports their position. Is this a fair accusation?
Is it accurate?
Perhaps so, but the use of spiritualizing or literalizing
should be judged on its evidential merits and not dismissed by a broad-brush
stroke that leaves the reader questioning the credibility of the author. For
example, who would “literalize” Matthew 5:27-28 in the discussion of sin and
the penalty for it?Jesus declares a strong response, but does it leave the
listener questioning the literal meaning of His words? Not at all! Those
who heard His words knew He was not advocating mutilation of the body to secure
salvation of the soul.
Having said that, the question still remains; how
does one determine when to use a literal or spiritual interpretation? First and
foremost, we believe you start with a literal approach. This means whenever
possible, you attempt to interpret the text literally, but as mentioned
above, there are times when that is simply impossible.
Another point
in this debate is how ”literal” and “spiritual” interpretation cuts both
ways. It is not only the Preterist that attempts to use both
figures of language when interpreting Scriptures. The millennialist also
tries to present his position by literalizing or spiritualizing certain
language words or phrases in a favorable light.
As we plowed through hundreds of books, we noticed a
common thread that Preterists have been accused of: using the literal or
spiritual interpretation whenever it benefited their position. The simplest
example also reveals the most fundamental flaw in any interpretative approach:
attempting to use contemporary situations to interpret ancient contexts.
One of the most visible and prolific writers concerning
the neo-millennial positions is also one of the worst offenders. As a
writer of many prophetic volumes, who seems consumed with proving the Second
Coming of Jesus is literally near or around the corner, he violates his own
reasoning when he uses the text of Revelation non-literally to illustrate his
reasoning skills. For example, he does not accept the literal meaning of
the following text in Revelation: “what must soon take place” and
“because the time is near.” Likewise: “Behold I am coming soon”
Rev. 22:7, 12, 20 and other descriptions such as “he had seven horns and seven
spirits of God sent out into all the earth” see Rev. 5:6b or “. . . a woman
clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars
on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give
birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven; an enormous red dragon with
seven horns and seven crowns on his head. His tail swept a third of the
stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth.” Now who feels
qualified to “literalize” these with confidence so as to explain their
meaning clearly? Even this particular prophecy author would not attempt
such a foolish approach.
The point is simple—whenever possible attempt a literal
interpretation, but when a literal interpretation is not only impossible, but
ridiculous, then seek out the figurative or spiritual interpretation. This
should be a fundamental point of interpretation. Admittedly, it leaves the
interpretation open to much speculation, but by staying with the essence
of the context, fanciful scenarios are eliminated. If anyone
suggests an interpretation so foreign to the nature of the Scripture that it is
against the nature of God, Jesus, the Spirit or even common sense, then avoid it
altogether. But if there is merit to the suggestion, and upon prayerful
reflection and intense study it seems possible, then minimally it should be
considered.
Preterism, we believe, has the most consistent and most
conservative approach to the subject of the Second Coming. It leaves the
text in its own context and is faithful to the maxim of allowing Scripture to
interpret Scripture! Preterism has no aspects of “media
interpretation,” allows no pressure from contemporary events and is not
subject to the whims of cultural, economic, and social movements.
It is an attempt to understand Scripture as the original
audience would have understood it! |
|
|