What Do Preterists Believe?

From Lesson 213 of the Biblical Framework Series

Charlie Clough

Let’s look at preterism per se. We want to understand this position of taking this cluster of events and moving it and attaching it to AD 70. On page 120 I introduce preterism and I point out there are two basic passages, one is Matt. 24, the Mount Olivet Discourse, and the second is John’s book of Revelation. Those are the two key battlegrounds for this area. So know your Scripture, know where the controversy is going on. I want to read some quotes, just so you understand, when I go through on page 121 and we start going through this stuff I don’t want you to think that Charles Clough is making all this up. I’ve got a series of quotes here; you listen, that’s all you have to do, just listen. I’m not saying these are right, in fact I’m going to show they’re not, but I want you to hear this with your own ears. These aren’t my words; these are the words of the preterits themselves.

Here’s what one author said about the Great Tribulation. (Quote), “The Great Tribulation took place in the fall of Israel. It will not be repeated and thus is not a future event.” (End quote). It’s clear that they believe the Tribulation is past. The great apostasy, that’s one of the signs of the Tribulation, (quote) “happened in the first century. We therefore have no Biblical warrant to expect increasing apostasy as history progresses. Instead we should expect the increasing Christianization of the world.” (End quote) You see that on every continent, don’t you? “The last days,” according to preterists, “is a Biblical expression for the period between Christ’s advent and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The last days of Israel, that’s what is meant by the last days.”

See what’s happening; understand here, this is slick. Errors aren’t as easy as you think, there’s enough truth mixed with every error to make it attractive. If it weren’t attractive it wouldn’t be a problem. So if you think that’s something’s obviously in error, you might just back up a little bit because most error isn’t clear, and watch how they’re redefining words, the Tribulation is past, the great apostasy happened in the first century, the last days are the last days of Israel.

The antichrist, “that’s a term used by John to describe the widespread apostasy of the Christian Church prior to the fall of Jerusalem.” The rapture, “that is a catching up of the living saints to meet the Lord in the air. The Bible doesn’t teach any such separation between the Second Coming and the rapture; they are simply different aspects of the last day.” That’s a chunk they’ve left here but they cluster it, they keep the rapture and the return clustered. The beast, if the book of Revelation is past, who was the beast, they’ve got an answer. “The beast of Revelation was a symbol of both Nero in particular and the Roman Empire in general.” So they’ve got an explanation for the beast. The false prophet, this is a good one, “The false prophet of Revelation was none other than the leadership of apostate Israel who rejected Christ and worshiped the beast,” and the beast was wrong and that’s true, there were apostates in Israel that went along with Rome. Herod was one of them. The millennium, that’s “the Kingdom of Jesus Christ which He established at His First Advent, the period between the First and Second Advents of Christ, the millennium is going on now,” listen to this, the millennium “is going on now, with Christians reigning as kings on earth.”

The first resurrection of Rev. 20:5, that’s a spiritual resurrection, that’s our justification and regeneration in Christ. The thousand years, the Millennial Kingdom of Revelation, you know it’s supposed to be a thousand years; “that is a large rounded off number, the number ten contains the idea of a fullness of quantity, in other words, it stands for many-ness, a thousand multiples and intensifies this ten times ten times ten in order to express vastness. It represents a vast undefined period of time, it might require a million years.” (End quote) The new creation, Rev. 21, the new creation follows the return of Christ in the millennium. The new creation (quote) “it’s already begun. The Bible describes our salvation in Christ both now and in eternity as a new heaven and a new earth.” (End quote) The New Jerusalem, what’s that? That’s “the city of God which is the Church.” What did I say about replacement theology?

See what’s happening here? Watch how words are being redefined, because if you run across some of these people you will be misled if you listen to their words because they define the words differently than you do. Armageddon, what was Armageddon, that’s in the book of Revelation. “It was for St. John a symbol of defeat and desolation, a waterloo signifying the defeat of those who set themselves against God, who obey false prophets instead of the true. There never will be a literal battle of Armageddon for there is no such place.” (End quote) I think you’ve gotten enough of that.

Let’s go to page 121. Last time we dealt with the first paragraph, we said that basically the middle sentence of that paragraph, “the same metaphorical interpretation methodology” of Augustine, etc. In the second paragraph, “Preterism thus is bound logically, theologically, and hermeneutically to amillennial or postmillennial views. It cannot coexist with premillennialism.” I think I’ve shown why that’s so, there’s a certain structure here that follows.

The bottom paragraph; now we get into some texts. “What exegetical justification do preterists offer? They cite New Testament texts that seem to anticipate the soon coming of Christ. With these texts in hand, they appeal to believers to defend the inerrancy of Scripture by adopting preterism.” Do you catch the argument that they’re making here? Sproul makes this argument. What he’s saying is if you interpret the text of the New Testament and you read in the New Testament that Jesus is coming soon, He would have had to have come soon or that’s a false text. So 70 AD is when He came, and that saves us from the liberals who want to ridicule the text. In other words they’re talking about… we’re just trying to keep inerrancy going here.

“It has a powerful appeal to evangelical Christians who haven’t studied carefully the cited New Testament texts. Jesus, they point out, clearly stated that his Mt. Olivet prophecies were going to be fulfilled in ‘this generation,’ i.e., the one present as He spoke.” Let me show the text, turn to Matt. 24. This is a favorite text, so let’s look at it. Matt. 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 they asked Him these questions that led to the Mount Olivet discourse, “when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your coming, and the end of the age.”

Now skip down to verse 34. Verse 34 is one of the preterists proof tests. “Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.” You can see, you hit this raw and you say well gee, maybe there’s something to this. It says “this generation will not pass away until all these things” be fulfilled. So there’s one of their key proof texts. We’ll deal with that verse, but let’s continue in the notes. “The detailed, additional revelation of Matthew 24 events through the Apostle John,” what I mean by that is the book of Revelation, in other words the book of Revelation is an amplification of Matt. 24. John the Apostle later wrote and expanded upon the Lord Jesus’ preliminary discussion in Matt. 24. And Matt. 24 is an expansion of the Old Testament prophecies. So when you read the book of Revelation you read about something is “at hand,” it’s “about to come to pass shortly.”

“Preterists claim that they are literally interpreting these texts while their opponents (futurists) depart from literal interpretation.” Let me show you what they’re talking about. Turn to Rev. 1:1, “The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the thing which must shortly take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John.” Verse 3, “Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near.” Rev. 2:16, “Repent therefore,” He says to one of the churches, “or else I am coming to you quickly and I will make war against them with the sword of My mouth.” Rev. 3:11, “I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, in order that no one take your crown.”

We could go on through the Revelation but let’s skip to Rev. 22:6, “And he said to me, “These words are faithful and true,’ and the Lord, the God of the spirits of the prophets, sent His angel to show to His bond-servants the things which must shortly take place.” Verse 7, “And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.” Verse 10, “And he said to me, ‘Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near.’”

Verse 12, “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.” And finally verse 20, “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.”

It’s this string of verses that appears to teach that Jesus was to come very shortly, and the liberal critics, the preterists are right here, the liberal critics have seized upon this to say, “See, the New Testament church actually thought Jesus would come back soon.” The second statement: “Jesus did not come back soon.” Conclusion: “The Bible was wrong, Jesus was wrong, and the apostles are wrong.” Well, Christians don’t want that, so the preterists are saying, “Well gee, we’ve got to rethink our interpretation, maybe He did come back soon and we missed it, namely AD 70, so if we can show that Jesus came back in AD 70 we save the Bible, apparently, from this criticism.” This is where they’re coming from. I’m just portraying what the preterists are saying.

I’m not saying these are right, in fact I’m going to show they’re not, but I want you to hear this with your own ears. These aren’t my words; these are the words of the preterists themselves.

Beginning on page 122 I’m going to start dismantling the preterist position.