|
|
| Home |
| Bible Study Issues |
| Doctrines |
| Exploring Denominations |
| Genesis Corner |
| Prophecy |
| "Well Said" |
| Funnies |
| Bookstore |
| Links |
| Who We Are |
| Our Beliefs |
| Contact Us |
 |
Who
Should You Believe? Revised March 6, 2004
Contents:
The Six Major Schools of Prophetic Interpretation
If any person asserts that a particular view of prophecy is correct, he will immediately find himself in opposition to the majority of interpreters. This leads to a question. If there is so much disagreement on what prophecy means, how can we be sure that any one particular interpretation is correct? And, if we cannot be sure of our interpretation, how can we be sure of the kingdom which is promised to us? On the answers to these questions rides the fate of all who would claim the promises of God.
While it is possible to break down the various schools of thought in a host of different ways, they fall generally into six major approaches. These six are Historical/Critical (H/C), Dispensationalist/Futurist (D/F), Preterist, Historicist, Eclectic, and Covenant. Most of the remaining differences are minor subdivisions of the primary six. For example, the Premillennial, Amillennial, and Postmillennial schools are subdivisions of the D/F school, based on their understanding of Revelation 20, and do not materially affect the rest of the D/F schema, and so I will not discuss them at length here.
The essential beliefs of the six schools of interpretation are as follows:
The Historical/Critical school believes that prophecies such as Daniel are not really prophecy, having been written at a time later than stated in the text, and were designed to act as encouragement to Israel rather than being true prophecy.
The Dispensationalist/Futurist school believes that God has operated under different rules in different "dispensations". The prophecies are to be interpreted exactly as written, without any continuity of Israel throughout redemptive history. They also believe that the seventieth week of Dan 9:24 has not happened, and will be in the future. This leads to predictions such as the restitution of literal Israel, with mass conversion of Jews, an antichrist who forms a one-world government, peace treaties with the Jews, and a physical battle of Armageddon.
The Full Preterist school believes that all prophecy has been fulfilled. The book of Revelation was written about AD60, rather than AD94 as many believe. Jesus came the second time in AD70 at the destruction of Jerusalem, which was the "midst" of the 70th week of Daniel 9:24-27. This coming was a spiritual rather than a physical event. In order to allow this interpretation, they maintain that the entire NT after the gospels is to be interpreted spiritually rather than physically.
The Historicist school believes that prophecy has been in large measure fulfilled through history, but that the second coming and events surrounding it have not yet happened. The physical promises to physical Israel became spiritual promises to spiritual Israel when the Jews rejected Christ. Rather than declare a priori that all texts should be read physically or that all texts should be read spiritually, historicists believe that the natural reading of texts should have the greatest weight, but that such a reading needs to take into account the linguistic and cultic elements of the day of the writer, as well as the conditionality of prophecy enunciated in Jeremiah 18:5-10.
The Eclectic school recognizes that prophecy is directing us toward the ultimate victory of God over evil, with the eventual establishment of God's eternal kingdom. The Old Testament sources of various passages are carefully identified in Revelation, but with symbolic rather than literal meanings attached to virtually all of the prophecies.
The Biblical Covenant school sees redemptive history as moving toward the goal of a perfect covenant relationship between God and his people. Prophecies primarily speak of the future in relationship to this covenant. The symbols of prophecy are generally to be interpreted as covenant language, and will result in a mix of symbolic and literal intent.
Because there are significant disagreements between various interpreters within each of the schools, this essay will necessarily treat each one with somewhat of a "broad brush." This means that some members of each school will possibly feel slighted. But, since our intent is not to deal with each one exhaustively, but to give a sketch outline, we will have to live with this deficiency.
Before we move into the details of each school, let us set the stage briefly. The Bible, in every page and every verse, reveals the plan of salvation. The core of that salvation is the atoning sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. Various authorities place the prophetic content of the Bible at about one fourth of the entire Bible.
19 "From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He. John 13:19 29 "And now I have told you before it comes to pass, that when it comes to pass, you may believe. John 14:29
There is one central purpose for the voluminous prophecies of the Bible. In Jesus’ own words, they are to reveal Him. Any interpretation which does not reveal the gospel is wrong.
There are three aspects to this faith-building
from prophecy. The first is that we learn again through the fulfillment of prophecy
of the reality and truthfulness of God. This is foundational. Without such faith,
anything said about God is merely words. The second aspect is the expectation
of both judgment and glory.
The Christian is ultimately assured of both
his own victory and of the destruction of his adversaries. The third element
is in the present. By seeing the working of prophecy in the world, the Christian
can see the working of the Holy Spirit in himself. It also allows each
Christian to more clearly see the actions of the enemy: Satan. This is a spiritual
battle, and God has given us temporal signposts for the progress of that battle.
If prophecy is interpreted in a manner which
does not show these elements, that interpretation is at best worthless, and
may actually obscure the truth of the gospel. Insofar as it takes attention
from the gospel, that interpretation is a lie, and a product of the father of
lies, Satan (John 8:44). It must be rejected. Without further introduction,
let us examine the four schools.
Historical-Critical School (H/C):
The H/C school is mentioned primarily for
completeness. Its interpretations carry no value whatsoever for the Christian,
since the foundation of this school is the denial of the truthfulness and inspiration
of the Bible. We will discuss one example only to illustrate.
The book of Daniel states that it was written
in the times of certain Babylonian and MedoPersian kings who lived in the sixth
and seventh century BC. H/C scholars insist that this is false. They point to
passages in chapters 8 and 11 which some interpret as applying to Antiochus
IV Epiphanes. They say that these passages were written about 165BC, during
the oppression of the Jews by Antiochus. H/C scholars insist that this must
be the case since "there is no such thing as predictive prophecy."
For additional evidence they point to six Greek words in the text which, they
insist, could not have been in the vocabulary of a sixth century BC Jew.
As we can easily see, this position flatly
says that God’s inspired writer is lying. While H/C’s will deny this,
their position denies the deity of God. The logical conclusion, which they cannot
evade, is that the plan of salvation is a fraud. Only the sacrifice of Jesus
on the cross can save us from sin. If God is not who He says He is, then we
are without hope.
Fortunately for us, the H/C’s are wrong
on both counts. We know that God is real, and the evidence is conclusive. Those
six Greek words are in fact "loan words", which one language borrows
from another. Further, archeological research has found that the Babylonian
and MedoPersian kings had Greek mercenaries as their palace guards, since their
own people could not be counted on to avoid being part of the various intrigues
of the day. So Daniel is vindicated. (There are other points, but they all have
been resolved in favor of the truth of Daniel’s narrative.)
At this point, I feel a general comment
must be made on archeology. Massive efforts have been made in the Middle East
to excavate the ancient cities of the Bible. In every case, the excavations
have supported the Bible accounts. There are no exceptions.
The views of the H/C’s deserve our
condemnation. By denying the deity of God, they deny His power and saving grace.
We should never allow them to divert us from the truth of the gospel. At the
same time, we should work to show them the wondrous mercy of our Savior. He
loves them as much as us, and is not willing that one of them should be lost.
Dispensationalist/Futurist School
(D/F):
(The following discussion is directed toward
what I call "Street" Dispensationalism. It is the form of Dispensationalism
preached from the pulpit and popularized in the Left Behind novels.
Since it is the form best known and widely accepted, I am directing my remarks
toward it. Advocates of "Progressive" Dispensationalism will have
to be disappointed that I am not discussing their flavor of belief.)
Dispensationalists get their name from their
teaching that God used different sets of rules for different periods (dispensations)
in history. In prophecy they teach a strictly literal understanding of the words
of prophecy. Since prophecies use Jewish imagery and the word "Israel,"
they demand that prophecy speaks of a restoration of a Jewish state. Further,
they regard the church as an "intercalation" in God's plan for the
Jews. It is said to have been unforeseen in the Old Testament. This means that
the church must be removed from the earth in the "secret rapture"
so that God can complete his plan for the Jews in the seven-year "great
tribulation."
A related part of the D/F schema is a displacement
of the seventieth week of Daniel 9:24 into the future, where it is coupled with
an antichrist who forms a one-world government (reconstituted Roman empire)
and signs a peace treaty with the Jews. This initiates the seven-year "great
tribulation" before the second coming.
We can already see that the D/F’s focus
not on the gospel, but on politics. This shows that at best their interpretations
are suspect. Their slavish focus on the Jews denies the fact that the Jews had
the kingdom taken from them (Matt 21:43) and that they are no longer the focus
of prophecy. (This issue is explored at length in "Who
are the Jews", "The Moral Purpose
of Prophecy", and "The Hope of Israel"
[off site] and will not be developed here. The book I
Want to be Left Behind is entirely devoted to this subject and can
be purchased here.) A few
key points need to be explored to show the source of their errors.
Daniel 9:24-27 describes a "seventy
week" block of probationary time for the Jews. If they failed the conditions
set out in verse 24, the termination of their status as the favored people of
God would ensue. Verse 25 defines the decree that begins the 490 year period.
This decree of restoration was given in 457 BC (Ezra 7). Sixty nine weeks (483
years) later, the Messiah was to be manifested. This occurred with the baptism
of Jesus in AD27. Verse 27 gives the time of the crucifixion, 3 ½ years later,
in AD31. The probation ended in AD34 at the end of the 490 years, when Stephen
brought God's covenant lawsuit against the Jews. Then the gospel went to the
Gentiles (Acts 8), and the church became the "holy nation" (1 Pet
2:9). (For a detailed discussion of this prophecy see our study of Dan
9, or chapter 3 of I Want
to be Left Behind .)
The D/F school begins by misunderstanding
the decree defined in Dan 9:25. They insist that it is a decree of "rebuilding",
and lean on modern mistranslations to support their position. If they would
look at the Word for what it actually says, they would learn that the decree
is a decree of "restoration". This fundamental error is the pillar
on which the rest of their interpretation rests.
By insisting on a decree of rebuilding,
the D/F’s are forced to accept the royal consent given to Nehemiah (Neh
2) as the decree. This completely fails to meet Daniel’s specifications
. It does not restore the people to the land. It does not restore
their self-government. It does not restore their legal observance of
God’s laws. It does mention repair of walls and gates. On this phantom
thread hangs their entire schema.
The timing of this event in 444BC causes
extreme problems for the D/F’s. If they count 483 years from 444BC, they
get to AD44, which is far beyond the time of Christ, who even they admit is
the Messiah. Since Dan 9 is a Messianic prophecy, the D/F’s have to call
on complex mathematical techniques to get the time span to end during the time
of Christ. They look in Dan 7:25 (and its repetitions in Dan and Rev) to derive
"360-day years." It does not concern
them that the Jews never had a 360-day year, and no evidence exists that the
Jews ever thought that prophecy used 360-day years (The Jews used intercalated
days and months to adjust to an ordinary 365 ¼ day solar year). This mathematical
legerdemain allows them to get more years between Nehemiah and Christ. D/F’s
insist that this recomputed number of days extends exactly from the day
of the royal consent to the day of the triumphal entry (some calculate to the
crucifixion).
The problem resulting from this is obvious.
If the 69 weeks end at the crucifixion (more or less), then the 70th
week doesn’t fit with the Messiah, since Jesus wasn’t around for the
next 7 (or even 3 ½) years. Having no possible match for the 70th week, instead
of reconsidering their foundation, the D/F’s throw it into the speculative
future, where literally anything goes. Their problem then compounds itself.
The seventieth week is book-ended with the
"secret rapture" removal of the church to be with Christ, and the
"glorious appearing" return of the church with Christ to set up the
"millennial kingdom." But this is two "second comings!"
This difficulty is dismissed by stating that "the second coming is a single
event in two phases." The fact that they are seven years apart doesn't
phase Dispensationalists. Nor do they notice the incongruity of this when compared
to having the Cross and the Triumphal Entry be two separate events (cf. Dan
9:26) only five days apart.
The next problem comes from Dan 2, and the
discussion of the ten toes. Daniel very clearly describes a progression from
the legs of iron (Rome) to the feet of iron and clay (the broken up Roman empire)
to the kingdom of God. This is an unbroken sequence, in which the kingdoms resulting
from the breakup of Rome "will not adhere to one another" (Dan 2:43).
Because the D/F’s haven’t figured out what to do with that pesky 70th
week, they look at the fact that "he will make a firm covenant with the
many for one week" (Dan 9:27), and figure that there must be some new character
who in modern times makes a peace treaty with (who else) the Jews. After all,
don’t the prophecies of the minor prophets refer to all nations coming
to Zion to worship? Therefore, there must be a reconstituted Roman empire, and
its leader must be the one who makes the treaty. But, there’s more!
Dan 7 refers to a little horn character
who persecutes the people of God. This guy comes out of the Roman beast, so
he must be the leader who makes (an breaks) the peace treaty with the Jews.
Behold! The Antichrist! Now they look at the deadly wound (Rev 13:3,12), and
tell us that he will be killed and miraculously resurrected. The story gets
more and more fantastic. Not one bit of it has anything to do with the gospel.
It serves purely as a diversion. But there is more.
Daniel 8 has another little horn character.
The D/F’s have decided that he is Antiochus IV Epiphanes, a notorious persecutor
of the Jews. (For a detailed study of this, click here.)
They don’t care that Antiochus simply doesn’t fit the specifications
of the prophecy. He is close enough for them. They repeat this error in Dan
11.
Revelation does not get by without similar
abuse. D/F’s see a physical field of blood up to horses’ bridles (Rev
14:20), an amount several times greater than all the blood of all the people
who ever lived. There is a whore large enough to be seated on seven mountains
at once (Rev 17:9). Real exegetical abuse comes in the treatment of the Jews.
The millennium (Rev 20) becomes a time when Jesus comes and by the force of
His presence, converts the entire Jewish nation. Even greater liberty is taken
with Armageddon (Rev 16:16).
D/F’s see Armageddon as a great physical
battle in which the forces of evil will take on Jesus’ troops. Yet, in
the text, there is not one hint of actual battle. Satan "gathers his forces",
then the seventh angel pours out his bowl and declares "it is done"
(Rev 16:17). Rather than fight Jesus, the wicked will actually hide from His
presence. It is instructive to look at this same point in time as pictured in
Rev 6.
15
And the kings of the earth and the great men and the commanders and the rich
and the strong and every slave and free man, hid themselves in the caves and
among the rocks of the mountains; The sort of liberties taken with scripture
by the D/F’s are so egregious that one must wonder how anyone can actually
believe these stories. They not only have nothing to do with the text, they
have nothing to do with the gospel. They are nothing more than fantastic fortune
telling which ignores the mighty truths which Jesus inspired His servants to
write for our instruction. And beyond this, they actively draw our vision away
from Christ.
Allow me to review the key issues. First,
The D/F’s insist on a literal interpretation of prophecy. This is totally
arbitrary, and simply ignores the mass of OT evidence that the Jews WOULD lose
their favored position with God. It further ignores the NT evidence that the
Jews DID lose that status. Second, the D/F’s refuse to properly
understand Dan 9:24-27. Rather than reconsider
their position when the dates will not work out, they twist the Word until they
force it to fit their interpretation. This leaves them unable to accept the
unity of the prophecy, and the D/F’s then engage in flights of fancy regarding
the far future.
These arbitrary and capricious distortions
of God’s Word must be condemned. They are not simply differences of opinion
between honest men. They are active deceptions which must be avoided by Christians.
They take attention away from the Great Controversy between Christ and Satan.
In doing so, they blind us to the nature and person of Satan’s agents.
This restricts our ability to combat evil.
We must pray that the D/F’s who have
been so deluded by a slick presentation can begin to see the truth. God is "not
willing that any should perish" (2 Pet 3:9 KJV), and neither should we.
We must confront the evil, and rescue the evil-doer. D/F’s need to see
that all prophecy reveals God’s power and providence.
(Just like the Dispensationalists, Preterists
come in several flavors. Their disagreements are sufficiently great that some
"Partial" Preterists regard "Full" Preterists as heretics.
Unfortunately, space does not allow a full discussion of their differences.
Suffice it to say that Partial Preterists are waiting for some sort of ultimate
denouement to redemptive history. Full Preterists disagree, and are discussed
below.)
The Preterist school is probably the most
difficult of all schools to discuss, for its members are careful scholars, rejecting
the facile excesses of the D/F’s, yet arriving at conclusions which seem
strange to most Christians. Their fundamental claim is that the second coming
was a spiritual event occurring in AD70, and that we now live in the
kingdom of God, and are full recipients of all the promises of God in the here
and now. As one of them has written:
"You can know the joy of having
received all the promises the OT saints were eagerly awaiting. You
can acknowledge the fact that you are a full-fledged child of God living
in His eternal kingdom right now, and enjoying the benefits of a fully
accomplished salvation! ...
"You can also have the confidence
of knowing that you are living in the Kingdom age (you can call it the "Church
age" if you like), and that it is everlasting in its duration!"
---Kenneth J. Davies, What the Heck is a Preterist (and Why Would I Want to
Become One)? (excitement in the original) 26 For if we go on sinning willfully
after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice
for sins,
27 but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and the fury
of a fire which will consume the adversaries. Heb 10:26-27 14
I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ
Jesus. Phil 3:14
16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall
on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from
the wrath of the Lamb;
17 for the great day of their wrath has come; and who is able
to stand? " Rev 6:15-17
The Preterists begin their hermeneutic by taking a rigid position toward the NT "imminency" statements.
34 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place. Matt 24:34
This, and a host of texts like it, seem to point to a second coming within a few years (40 by their calculation). Simply put, either the second coming was in the first century AD, or God is a liar. Since God cannot lie (Titus 1:2), and there was no physical second coming, the only possible answer is that it was a spiritual event. This leaves the Preterists with a problem (one of several), since 2 Peter 3 has a decidedly physical tone, speaking of the destruction of the world by fire (vv. 7, 10, 12). They fix this difficulty by declaring that the entire NT after Acts 1:10 refers to spiritual truths, which have no physical element. This appears to deal handily with such difficulties such as being "seated" with God (Eph 2:6), and the "fire" of 2 Peter 3.
With their careful approach, why shouldn’t we believe the Preterists? A full discussion of this would take a book, so we will hit a few high points here. The first is to look at the question that began the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24.
1 And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.
2 And He answered and said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down."
3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?" Matt 24:1-3
It is easy to look at this and see that there are two questions here. The first is, "When will the temple be destroyed?" This is identified by "these things." Portions of what Jesus says are identified by this key phrase (in both English and Greek). When Jesus says that "all these things" will happen before "this generation" passes away, he is speaking of the destruction of the Temple, not his return in power and glory (v. 30). That event is "the end of the age." The Greek word for "end" here is "synteleia," and it refers to a "consummation" of events (cf. Heb 9:26). That is, it refers to many threads coming to a common conclusion. Jesus uses this same word to describe "the end of the age" in the parables of the tares and the net (Matt 13:36-43; 47-50). In both of these stories, the wicked and righteous are separated at the synteleia when Christ returns. Clearly, this event has not happened.
At this point, we need to look at another aspect of the 2,300 days of Dan 8:14. As we noted, this prophecy extends to 1844. No prophecy, in their view, has a time marker beyond AD70. If the Preterists are correct, then the prophecy is wrong. Therefore, they are forced to accept an incorrect understanding of the prophecy in order to make it fit their schema. This is improper. But, even if we allow them their understanding of the 2,300 days, Dan 11:22 leaves them without an excuse.
22 "And the overflowing forces will be flooded away before him and shattered, and also the prince of the covenant. Dan 11:22
The "prince of the covenant" can be no one other than Jesus, the Messiah. Daniel had already used this term to refer to Jesus in Dan 9:24-27, and this is the only passage in scripture that links "prince" and "covenant" other than 11:22. Therefore, the remaining half of the chapter, with references to events that occur far after AD70, stands in stark contradiction to the Preterist schema. This problem cannot be avoided. Prophecy projects its view far beyond AD70. Because of this fact alone, the Preterists cannot be correct.
Let us now review, in no particular order, a few other problems which the Preterist must confront.
The book of Revelation is commonly thought to have been written about AD92-95. This date is 20+ years after the proposed second coming. Preterists challenge the late date of Revelation, and make some very cogent arguments for a date in the AD60’s. If the late date is correct, it is fatal to their arguments. If the early date is correct, it allows their position, but proves nothing.
9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was departing, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them;
11 and they also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? 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." Acts 1:9-11
The story of the translation of Jesus into heaven is very physical. Jesus disappeared into a physical cloud. There is not the slightest hint of a spiritual event. The disciples were "gazing intently", a physical action. The angels, without equivocation or qualification state that Jesus will return in exactly "the same way". The only logical conclusion is that "the same way" means a physical, not a spiritual return.
Jesus was resurrected physically. In fact, Jesus made a point of having Thomas (John 20:24-28) touch Him in order to prove the physical nature of His resurrection. Even the primary definition of the word is physical.
anastasis {an-as'-tas-is}
1) a raising up, rising (e.g. from a seat)
2) a rising from the dead
2 a) that of Christ
2 b) that of all men at the end of this present age
2 c) the resurrection of certain ones who were restored to life
In the face of this, and in the absence of any statement whatever which would substitute a spiritual resurrection for physical resurrection, the Preterists insist that the resurrection is spiritual. They declare that when a person converts to Christianity he is "resurrected" "from death into life", using a metaphor commonly used by Paul.
12 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 1 Cor 15:12-14
Unfortunately for the Preterists, their position simply cannot stand up to the plain language of Paul. Verse 13 equates Christ’s resurrection with the "resurrection of the dead". Christ’s resurrection was from physical death, and therefore the "resurrection of the dead" must also be physical, not spiritual. This brings us to another hermeneutical error made by the Preterists.
Preterists, being careful students, explore the meaning of words carefully. Words such as "generation", "age", "life", and "death" get explored at length. Unfortunately, a blind spot develops in these studies. Once a word usage is determined, it is stated to be the only use of the word. One such example is "death".
Paul uses "death" in a spiritual sense in many places.
5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ by grace you have been saved Eph 2:5
As we saw in the example above, this is not the only way he uses it.
38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers,
39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. Rom 8:38-39
In this text, if "death" means spiritual death, then Paul’s statement is gibberish, since spiritual death means separation from Christ, and Paul has said that "death" cannot separate us from Christ! Therefore, "death" in this text must be physical. For us to take the primary meaning of "death" as spiritual in this text is arbitrary and unjustified. God did not inspire the scriptures in a way designed to hide meaning from us. He inspired them to reveal Himself to us. To arbitrarily change the meaning of a word, without support from scripture, is to declare that our understanding is higher than God’s. We should condemn such an assertion. We must learn what God put in the scriptures, not what man would like to put in them.
Various words are used in different ways depending on context. "Death" is not the only one. If we look at Paul’s use of the word "fulfill", we will find more than one use, depending on the context. Is there any reason to expect that the word "age" should be any different? Yet the Preterists require that there can only be two "ages": the "age" of the Jews and the Kingdom "age". They say that the age of the Jews, the old covenant, ended with the destruction of the temple in AD70. To show the error of their system, let us re-examine the prophecy on which this is based.
Dan 9:24-27 predicts the arrival and crucifixion of the Messiah. 483 years after the decree of Artaxerxes I (Ezra 7), the Messiah would appear (v25). The Messiah would then strengthen the covenant "for one week", or seven years (v27). That would be the end of the 70 weeks. The destruction of Jerusalem is also predicted (vv. 26-27), but the time of that destruction is left open. That is, the destruction of Jerusalem had no fixed relationship to the end of the covenant at the end of the 70 weeks.
The decree was given in 457BC, Jesus was baptized in 27AD, and the end of the 70 weeks was in 34AD. This was the end of the old covenant, the covenant with the Jews. We can see this in the book of Acts. After the crucifixion the disciples continued in Palestine, preaching to the Jews. This continued up to the stoning of Stephen in AD34 (Acts 7). This act of rebellion finished the 70 weeks, and the old covenant with the Jews ended. The very next chapter (Acts 8:4) begins the preaching of the gospel to the gentiles. This was the beginning of the new covenant.
Preterists deny this conclusion, and state that the old covenant was in force until the destruction of Jerusalem brought about the end of the sacrificial system foretold in Dan 9:27. Their foundation for this is suspect.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease Dan 9:27a (KJV)
The "midst" of the week points to the cross, which was at the middle of the seven year period. This is the time when the sacrifices and offerings ("oblations") of the Mosaic sanctuary system stopped in God’s eyes. Once Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross was complete, God signified the end of all blood sacrifices by tearing the veil shielding public view from the Holy of Holies (Matt 27:51). The fact that the building still stood was irrelevant. We had a "better sacrifice" (Heb 9:23-28) which took the place of all the other sacrifices. It can be unequivocally be said that all sacrifices ended at the cross, exactly as foretold in Daniel. Further, since the end of the probationary 490 years was in AD34, every day after that was part of the new covenant, or church age. The old covenant had ended. Any interpretation which extends the old covenant to AD70 must therefore be rejected. The Jews broke the covenant repeatedly (Is 24:5, 33:8), and God finally ended their probation in AD34.
Preterists insist that Jesus’ use of "age" (Matt 12:32, etc.) refers to the old and new covenant ages. They then say that the new covenant age applies to the time after the second coming "in AD70". As we have seen, if we apply their definitions, then the time does not work out, so once again, the Preterist schema fails.
A full detailing of all of the failings of the Preterist schema would require a book. Let us review a few final texts to show what will truly happen.
21 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God,
22 who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. 2 Cor 1:21-22
The word translated "pledge" is an interesting one.
arrhabon {ar-hrab-ohn'}
1) an earnest
1 a) money which in purchases is given as a pledge or down payment that the full amount will subsequently be paid
The Holy Spirit is the earnest money which is paid to guarantee later full payment of an obligation. God, through Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross, has guaranteed us full participation in His kingdom as kings and priests. God is obligated to come through with His end of the bargain so long as we keep up ours by trusting fully in Christ. Preterists insist that this debt is already paid. Yet, they are unable to tell us what we have now that is any different than the disciples had at Pentecost.
In fact, there is NO CHANGE in the members of the church which can be identified as happening in AD70 (or later for that matter). Where is the glory the Preterists claim? It doesn’t exist. We do not see God "face to face" as promised! (1 Cor 13:12) Further, the "eternal" life we are promised seems to them to be simply some sort of communion with the Eternal God in this physical life, and not one of them with which I have communicated is able to suggest what happens after physical death in this "eternal" life.
In other words, the statements regarding our full receipt of the promises overlooks the fact that there is no fundamental change which has occurred in Christians since outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost, AD31. To say that we literally "reign" now, but in some other realm of which we have no perception is a sophistry without meaning. It becomes a hollow claim without substance, and takes away the hope which still awaits. The scriptures detail that hope for us.
1 Cor 15:12-14 (quoted earlier) identifies the "resurrection of the dead" as a physical event, just as Christ’s resurrection was physical. Therefore, we look forward to a physical resurrection into life which is eternal in duration, not just in spiritual character.
5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
7 But the present heavens and earth by His word are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. 2 Pet 3:5-7
This passage sets a physical stage, noting the physical creation of the heavens and earth and the world’s physical destruction (of its surface and inhabitants) by water. The second part of the parallel then says, "the present heavens and earth … are being reserved for fire". Peter, having set out to make a physical statement, completes that physical statement. At that day of judgment, all of the "ungodly men" will be destroyed physically by fire. Before we see the confirmation of this in Revelation, let us note that the presence of "ungodly men" today confirms that the second coming has not happened, because they are to be destroyed at the second coming. Let us now look to Revelation.
8 "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." Rev 21:8
Combined with 2 Peter 3, we can now clearly see that everyone who has died will be physically resurrected, and the wicked will be thrown into the lake of fire to be killed the second and final time. This is very physical. And it has not happened.
We could pursue many other avenues to show the shortcomings of the Preterist position, but space prevents it. I believe that we have adequately shown that the Preterist position rests on shaky pillars.
The Preterists appear to be faithful Christians, but, contrary to their fervent protestations, they are without hope. Such a position destroys the glory of the final victory of the gospel, and turns away the believer from the truth. This is to be rejected. We must not allow ourselves to be deluded by "cunningly devised fables" (2 Pet 1:16 KJV).
A proper understanding of prophecy and methods of study will allow the Preterists to see the glory that awaits. We should pray that they can come to see the true focus of the gospel. We will literally, physically, and spiritually become members of the heavenly kingdom. As believers, we hold title to that position. At the second coming, we will be able to exercise the privileges of that title.
I do not believe that anyone will seriously dispute the fact that the Great Controversy between God and Satan is primarily spiritual, not physical.
12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. Eph 6:12
Even so, this battle is fought on a physical stage, for the hearts of physical beings. As a result, prophecy is necessarily a physically framed panorama of the spiritual war. Prophecies give temporal beings temporal signposts in the spiritual drama.
19 "From now on I am telling you before it comes to pass, so that when it does occur, you may believe that I am He. John 13:19 (see also John 14:29)
Historicists rejoice in the moral purpose of prophecy, which begins with a backward look at fulfilled prophecy which confirms the deity of God. This confirmation gives us faith in the future fulfillment of prophecy. And both of these facts allow us to see the working of prophecy in the present, both around us and in us. Such a clear picture allows the identification of the actions of the devil through his "seducing spirits" (1 Tim 4:1), and gives the Christian the tools to avoid Satan.
Context is the key word in the historicist method. Before we can determine how to understand a particular statement in prophecy, we must understand its context. This includes not only the grammar of a given text, but the setting provided by the verses around it, and the historical setting of the writer. The historical setting includes not only the time, but the language, location, and culture of the prophet. Only when all of this is taken into account will a proper understanding be gained. A brief excursion into Dan 9:26 is illustrative.
26 "Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Dan 9:26a
Many interpreters look at the destruction of Jerusalem with modern eyes. They take the "people" to be the army of Titus, which physically destroyed Jerusalem, and then make Titus the "prince who is to come". This error comes from a failure to look at all of the context. The first level of context is the surrounding texts. The preceding verse introduced "Messiah the Prince" who "is to come" at the end of the 69 weeks. Therefore, the "prince who is to come" is Jesus.
This leads to a conclusion which is strange by western thought. Jesus’ "people" were the Jews, but the Romans physically destroyed Jerusalem. Unfortunately, many interpreters stop here. They reject the correct conclusion because of a western thought pattern. We have to go further back in the chapter to see the true context and meaning.
12 "Thus He has confirmed His words which He had spoken against us and against our rulers who ruled us, to bring on us great calamity; for under the whole heaven there has not been done anything like what was done to Jerusalem. Dan 9:12
In this verse we see the complete context. The Jews had rebelled against God, and their disobedience led God to destroy Jerusalem the first time. Therefore, the Jews were responsible for the destruction of the city. Physically, the Jews did not carry out the destruction. Neither did God, in any direct physical sense such as at Sodom and Gomorrah. Nebuchadnezzar’s army actually destroyed Jerusalem. But the Jews were responsible for the destruction because of their disobedience, and in Jewish thought, they destroyed the city. Daniel was a Jew, and his writing confirms that he was part of this tradition. When this context is understood, we can clearly see that in 9:26 the "prince" is Jesus, and the "people" are the Jews. Daniel is pointing out the fact that the Jews will be responsible for the destruction of their holy city.
By using context carefully, the historicist is able to avoid the excesses of the rigid literalism of the D/F’s and the tunnel vision of the rigid spiritualism of the Preterists. The careful historicist will use all of the tools available, including the word study employed by the Preterist. However, he will be careful not to misapply the word study the way Preterists do. Let us look at one example.
Daniel 9:24 refers to anointing "the most holy". Interpreters debate whether this refers to anointing the sanctuary or anointing Jesus. Word study helps us here. The Hebrew qodesh translated "holy", is used over 300 times in the OT. It is used in repeated form in 9:24 and about 40 other places. In all of the other places (with only one disputed exception), it is used to refer to an object rather than a person. This means that Daniel is referring to a "thing". When we then consider "anointing", we find that the only "thing" which was ever anointed was the sanctuary. Only one conclusion is possible: "the most holy" refers to the sanctuary.
We can see that while proper study can be demanding, the rewards are substantial. By adherence to proper principles of study, we can gain a clear understanding of the prophet’s message, and we can become "a workman who does not need to be ashamed, handling accurately the word of truth." (2 Tim 2:15) Proper study will always be uplifting, bringing new light to the student, revealing again and again the beauty of the gospel.
This is not the place to do a detailed study of any prophecy, but, to show how even those using presumably correct methods can err, let us examine two passages.
15 And the four angels, who had been prepared for the hour and day and month and year, were released, so that they might kill a third of mankind. Rev 9:15
Certain historicist interpreters take the phrase "the hour and day and month and year", and apply the "year for a day" principle to it. In doing so, they come up with a period slightly over 400 years, which, depending on how you view certain details, happens to equal the duration of the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately for these exegetes, their level of care is not up to the proper standard, because the phrase in question does not refer to a duration of time. This phrase begins in both English and Greek with the definite article "the". Therefore, the phrase is a formulaic literary way of saying that the angels were prepared for that specific point in time. When the error is corrected, a different understanding of the prophecy emerges.
1 And when He broke the seventh seal, there was silence in heaven for about half an hour. Rev 8:1
This is another place where the year for a day principle gets applied overzealously. Some interpreters multiply out the half hour to become seven days, and say that it is the "time of flight" for Jesus in transit from heaven to earth at the second coming. While this fanciful exercise may be satisfying for some, it ignores the context.
John was a devout Jew. He grew up steeped in Jewish traditions, and the apocalypse is totally filled with such imagery. The half hour of silence is part of that imagery.
17 "When he goes in to make atonement in the holy place, no one shall be in the tent of meeting until he comes out, that he may make atonement for himself and for his household and for all the assembly of Israel. Lev 16:17
The silence is part of the day of atonement ritual. At the time noted in Lev 16:17, the entire camp was to be outside the tabernacle. They waited in silence until they heard the bells on the high priest’s robe tinkle when he left the holy of holies. The sound of the bells showed that God had accepted both the high priest and the cleansing sacrifice he presented. Unfortunately, this little bit of "trivia" is not stated directly in scripture. It is, however, well documented outside of scripture. Its omission from holy writ has led many interpreters to overlook the fact that it is simply part of the day of atonement tapestry in Revelation 8, and they give it a meaning that does not match the setting. We will now look at one more example will show why Historicism is not the best approach to prophetic interpretation.
The messages to the seven churches in Revelation 2-3 are often considered to be a prophecy of the stages of development of the church over the two millennia since the cross. Historicists teach this concept in their books, and others, even Dispensationalists, often agree with it. The idea has an elegant sort of internal logic, since each of the seven messages ends with "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches." This statement seems to reach out over the ages for our ears. I will agree that we all should listen to the messages. They are as pertinent today as they were in John's day. But are they a statement of prophetic ages?
Scripture contains no suggestion that the messages to the churches speak of time periods. This means that applying them in this way is to take them out of context. And the structure of the book suggests that they are not intended in that manner. Instead, John begins the book with a greeting that is typical of an apostolic letter. The messages to the churches clearly fit within such a letter. And the book ends (22:8-21) as well with a conclusion to an apostolic letter. If the visions in the middle were absent, no one would even think to apply the messages as prophetic periods.
Revelation 1:10 introduces the messages with "a voice like a trumpet." Revelation 4:1 introduces the symbolic visions. This similarity should suggest that the two sections of the book are reiterations of each other. And when examined carefully, this is what is seen. The seals, trumpets, and bowls present redemptive history as the promise to those who accept the gospel, the warning of woe for those who reject it, and the execution of that woe. This is the pattern of the messages. Those messages present promises to those who overcome, and warnings to those who do not. When the symbolic visions move into judgment (Revelation 17-20) we see the final execution of the warnings to the churches. Therefore, the book is primarily an epistle, with an amplifying symbolic prophecy in the middle. The application of the messages to the churches as prophetic periods does not work with this outline, and should be rejected as unbiblical.
Historicism has much to say about the progress of prophetic history. Indeed, no school of interpretation can truly exist without a degree of historicism. But when it is applied to every element in a book with prophetic elements, it extends beyond its proper bounds.
Perhaps in a response to the excesses of the Dispensationalist and Historicist schools, a number of scholars have developed eclectic interpretations of prophecy. They recognize that the book of Revelation is given in "signs" (Greek semaino, Rev 1:1), and find the historical use of those symbols in the Old Testament. Some of them have done very valuable work in exploring the original meaning of those signs. Eventually they show that the language is intended to be a reassurance to God's people. Unfortunately, after all this work, they seem to have not gotten to a point of identifying the real, physical goal of the gospel. We are to be reassured, but of what? Yes, they generally identify the victory of good over evil, but after that, the picture gets quite fuzzy.
I hesitate to be particularly harsh with Eclectic interpreters, since they are trying to be careful. But they miss one particular feature of prophecy. Even though they generally identify elements of the covenant within prophecy, they seem not to understand that the covenant is the prophecy. And with this I will move on. Eclectic scholars have provided us with a large volume of good work, and it is valuable reading. But without the final element, it fails to firmly grasp the truth.
Biblical Covenant Eschatology:
(I have inserted the word "Biblical" into the title of this school since some scholars call Full Preterism "Covenant Eschatology." The mor complete title should avoid the possibility of confusion.)
This is where all scholarship eventually should end up. The history of the world since the fall is the story of the covenant. God has expressed this contract with man in various ways at various times. But the bottom line is essentially this: If you follow me, I will rescue you. If you refuse my grace, you will suffer the natural result of sin: death.
The covenant is the core of all prophecy. When Judah was sent to exile in Babylon, it was for failure to follow God (Jer 25). When Daniel was given the future of his people in Daniel 9, it was given in covenant language. John's apocalypse is saturated with covenant language. Our very salvation is part of the covenant.
Failure to recognize the covenant as the foundation of God's oracles to the prophets of all ages has led many interpreters into flights of fancy. For example, the Futurist insistence that Revelation 4:1 begins a description of earthly woes for the Jews ignores the fact that the covenant applies to Christians as well.
Certainly it is possible to make errors
while focusing on the covenant. Having a correct interpretive method is only
the first step in gaining a proper understanding of prophecy. But without it,
an incorrect understanding is a near certainty.
It is vitally important, when studying prophecy,
to use a proper study method (hermeneutic). Failure to do so will give results
which are not only incorrect, but which destroy our view of the gospel. At the
same time, that hermeneutic must be properly applied. Those of us who read the
work of others must carefully examine each writer’s use of scripture to
be certain of the truth of his conclusions.
First, a rigidly literalistic
or rigidly spiritualistic application of scripture is to be condemned. The
complete context must be respected to properly understand the writing of
the prophet.
Second, the complete voice
of scripture must be heard on any particular point. All scripture will be
in agreement, and one part of scripture will amplify another.
Third, the complete prophecy
must be kept in view. An interpretation which bypasses "inconvenient"
details bypasses the truth. God states that "all scripture" (2 Tim
2:15) is for our benefit. This includes all prophecy, including those "inconvenient"
details.
Finally, the complete gospel
must always be kept in view. Any interpretation which does not more fully raise
the gospel into our view must be rejected. God has prepared His kingdom of glory
for us where there will be no more sin, no more tears, and no more struggle.
We must always keep our eyes focused on "the prize of the upward call of
God" (Phil 3:14). No one will enter that kingdom based on his heritage
or his merits, but only by his dependence on the cleansing blood of our Savior.