Opinions on faith and life

Refuting Preterism

[Note: this is about “full preterism”, where nothing at all remains of Bible prophecy. I consider “partial preterism” to be completely untenable due to even greater inconsistency than full preterism.]

In general, if the detailed prophecies of the last days are symbolic, what reality do they point to? John was shown a vision of “things that must soon/quickly take place”, but what were the things to be? If they pointed to nothing that could be seen or observed, then why give the prophecy at all, and why in such detail? The whole Revelation is stripped of all meaning and relevance if we were never to take it as a prophecy of real and observable events. The same can be said for Daniel, whose prophecies were undeniably literal (see the book “Daniel in the Critics’ Den” by Sir Robert Anderson, or later similar books by Josh McDowell or Joyce Baldwin).

As a precedent for literal fulfillments we can look to the OT prophecies of the Messiah, who would both suffer and reign, die and live, be destroyed and live forever. Preterists, using the same principles of interpretation they now use, would not have looked for a literal coming of the Messiah at all, yet in hindsight we cannot deny it. And what about Jesus on the road to Emmaus with two disciples? “He said to them, ’How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.” (Luke 24:25-26).

Daniel

see also Bible Prophecy: Past or Future?

If preterists accept that the first 69 of Daniel’s 70-weeks prophecy were “weeks of years” or 70x7 years, then the last “week” must also be a period of 7 years, rather than 7 days to match the final week of Jesus’ mortal life. But nothing happened in that time frame; the Temple was not destroyed until 70 years after Jesus was born, ten times longer than all the other “weeks”. No explanation is given for this special treatment; it is thus the fallacy of special pleading.

Some say that the phrase “abomination of desolation” really means that Jesus would destroy the temple defiled by the Jews, 3-1/2 years after he was baptized by John and began his public ministry. Thus he would be the “prince” that would put an end to the sacrifices and offerings halfway through an alleged 7-year covenant begun at his baptism. Yet there are several critical flaws in this argument.

First of all, note the purpose of Daniel’s prophecy (Dan. 9:24-27):

  1. It concerns the people of Israel and Jerusalem.
  2. to finish (complete) transgression.
  3. to put an end to sin.
  4. to atone for wickedness.
  5. to bring in everlasting righteousness.
  6. to seal up (complete) vision and prophecy.
  7. to anoint the Most Holy Place in the Temple.

Now note the clear sequence of events, regardless of the length of time:

  1. Command to rebuild Jerusalem
  2. Arrival of the Anointed One
  3. Death of the Anointed One
  4. Destruction of the city and sanctuary
  5. The end comes like a flood
  6. Cointinuing war until the end
  7. Desolations
  8. “He” confirms a covenant with many for one ’seven’
  9. The same “he” ends sacrifice and offering at the midpoint
  10. The same “he” will do something to the temple, and finally an end is decreed upon “him”. (There is disagreement over whether it should read “abomination that defiles” or “one who causes desolation will come upon the wing of the temple”.)

Preterism necessarily includes a form of Replacement Theology, where most or all of every prophecy concerning the nation of Israel is appropriated by the church. So they see the purpose of the prophecy as about figurative, spiritual Israel and not the literal, physical nation. The preterist interpretation of this prophecy could not stand without it.

But even if this were true, the sequence cannot be denied. While all prophetic views largely agree on the first five to seven items, the sticking point is on the identity of “he”: is it Jesus or someone evil? Let us examine each of the remaining items in the list:

But most critical of all is the undeniable fact that the covenant is not confirmed until after the city and sanctuary are destroyed. Even if preterists take Jesus’ baptism as the covenant’s beginning, it still predates his death. In other words, the sequence according to this argument is as follows:

  1. Jesus confirms a covenant with many for one ’seven’.
  2. Jesus ends sacrifice and offering at the midpoint.
  3. Jesus causes desolation upon the wing of the temple.
  4. The city and sanctuary are destroyed.

Either the stated sequence of Daniel is true, or the preterist sequence is true; both annot be true. Regardless of what or when preterism claims the final ’seven’ began, it has to happen after the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.

Yet some preterists hold that this sequence is anything but clear. Operating from the presumption that the prophecy can only be speaking of one particular temple, the events are shuffled according to whether or not the temple is standing. That is,

  1. Events of AD 26–30:
    • Jesus’ death (vs. 26a)
    • He confirms a covenant for one ’seven’ (vs. 27a)
    • He ends sacrifice and offering midway (vs. 27b)
  2. Events of AD 66–70:
    • Jerusalem and temple destroyed (vs. 26b)
    • War and desolations to the end (vs. 26c)
    • The abominable temple and city are destroyed (vs. 27c)

Yet even in each sub-list there is a critical error: why is the death of Jesus before the confirmation of the covenant, which is before the ending of sacrifice by his death? Why are Jerusalem and the temple destroyed before the war and desolations, then destroyed again? This too must be shuffled in order to fit Preterist belief.

[One might recognize the so-called chiastic format in each sub-list, where arguments lead up to a central point and then go back in referse order. But this is not a rhetorical passage, and the chiasm is not in the text itself but only in the Preterist interpretation.]

One wonders how the angel could have made the Preterist interpretation any less clear. And we have precedent for multiple temples, since the one standing in Jesus’ day was at least the second. Preterism must also brush off the “span of time” indicators “the end will come… war will continue until the end” as limited to 70 AD. But a circular argument always seems airtight.

The Gospels

[Note that “ekklesia” was a common word for any community or gathering, including those of the heathen.]

Jesus only mentioned the future ekklesia once (Mt. 16:18). His primary mission was to “the lost sheep of Israel” (Mt. 15:24), so we can’t presume that all or even most of what He said concerned the coming ekklesia. His reference to “other sheep not of this pen” (John 10:16) is the only other clear reference to the gentile believers, again in the future.

If Jesus is to be taken literally when referring to “the abomination of desolation” and the destruction of the Temple and “this generation”, then He must also be taken literally when He said all of the following:

It is another case of special pleading to take only some of Jesus’ predictions literally, since there is nothing in the context to indicate a parable or figurative speech. (Contrast with His statement to the Jews in John 2:13-22 after he drove the merchants from the Temple. They asked for a sign of His authority and He said He’d “destroy this temple and raise it again in three days”. But John adds, “But the temple he had spoken of was his body.”)

Acts

There could not be a clearer statement of delayed prophecy than that of James at the Jerusalem Council: “Israel is being set aside until the Lord takes from among the gentiles a people for Himself. Then He’ll return to rebuild David’s fallen tabernacle” (Acts 15:13-18). Israel’s “being set aside” was not completed until the Temple was destroyed in 70 AD. So if that marks the end of all the prophecies, then the Gentiles were never gathered since the setting aside must precede the gathering. Neither can the setting aside have been completed with Jesus’ death and resurrection, since it is only afterwards when James says it’s “being” set aside (at least present and ongoing, but possibly also future). And clearly, “David’s fallen tabernacle” had not yet been rebuilt. Israel did not have a sovereign kingdom in the first century, and its presence was not drawing the Gentiles to seek the Lord. Just as Peter’s citation of Joel at Pentecost did not see the fulfillment of every detail of the prophecy (e.g., signs in the heavens), so also the gathering of the Gentiles beginning in the first century did not constitute the final fulfillment of Amos 9:11-12 as referenced by James.

The Letters

Paul wrote, “Concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered to him, we ask you, brothers and sisters, not to become easily unsettled or alarmed by the teaching allegedly from us… asserting that the day of the Lord has already come.” (2 Thes. 2:1-2) A figurative or symbolic coming would hardly alarm anyone, especially if the judgments to follow were likewise symbolic. The people’s very alarm was ample proof that they believed in the literal fulfillment of the coming of the Lord and the Tribulation to follow.

Preterists may argue that the people could only have been fooled if they understood that this was all symbolic, since it was not observable. But again, they were not only fooled but fearful— a reaction that makes no sense if the judgments were likewise symbolic. And once again it would be special pleading to take the signs as symbolic but the persecutions as literal.

The Revelation

Scholars have determined* that the Revelation was seen and written toward the end of the reign of Domitian, the Roman emperor following Nero. Nero died in 68 AD and Domitian in 96 AD (see http://www.roman-emperors.org/domitian.htm). The consensus is that it was seen and written around 95 AD. So the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD was long past and thus not the fulfillment of Revelation. And since there is little doubt that Revelation is referring to the same final “week” as Daniel, it must therefore be that prophecy’s final and complete fulfillment.

* Citing Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Victorinus, Eusebius, and Jerome. Some who are not scholars have tried to argue that the references in these writings were ambiguous; e.g. “The problem here is that the word ’it’ in the Greek could refer to the visions John saw, the book he wrote, or John himself.” (http://mikeblume.com/revdate.htm) But such alleged ambiguities are not mentioned by scholars, and ’it’ would not refer to John himself.

Preterists may ask why John would not mention the destruction of the Temple if it post-dated it, but there is no compelling reason for him to do so since this was not a historical record but a vision from God. And we might also ask why none of the early “church fathers” mentioned it as being a fulfillment of John’s prophecy.

The letter to Laodicea in Rev. 3:17 treats it as a prosperous city. But it had been ruined by an earthquake around 61 AD, which makes a date during Nero’s reign impossible. Cities could not so quickly be rebuilt, much less return to a high level of prosperity.

Polycarp states that his church, the church in Smyrna, was not even in existence in the days of the apostle Paul, leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem. Symrna is never mentioned in the Book of Acts, or in any other New Testament epistle. (source). How did this church so suddenly appear, and so quickly be slandered by “those who say they are Jews but are not”?

If Nero had been the Antichrist, he would have been destroyed as scripture states in 2 Thes. 2:8 (“whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.”). But Nero committed suicide, two years before the Temple was destroyed. There is also no evidence that Nero ever set foot in Jerusalem, much less the Temple. And there is no evidence of a mark on the heads or hands of the people so that they could buy and sell, any time in history. Preterists must somehow justify naming Nero as the literal Antichrist while making everything else about him symbolic-- and symbolic of what, they cannot say.

Conclusion

Preterism can only stand by denying historical evidence for the date of the Revelation, and by inconsistently applying the label of “symbolic” to select scriptures. Paul warned against such teachings in 2 Tim. 2:17b-18: “Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have departed from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some.”

John was undeniably the last apostle to die, yet he of all people should have been “caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air” (1 Thes. 4:17) had all things been fulfilled by 70 AD. There was no return of Jesus to rescue Israel or keep the Temple from being destroyed, and clearly Satan has not been bound for a thousand years nor thrown into the Lake of Fire. To say this all happened but life goes on as if it didn’t, is to remove all meaning from words and make it impossible to really know anything at all-- including whether Jesus rose from the dead.


Additional reading: