Have there been any exegetical rebuttals of full preterism that you’re aware of?  I was just browsing Keith Mathison’s book on post-millennialism and he includes a rebuttal of FP based on creedal tradition and the authority of the Holy Spirit to the Church.  As far as I can tell, this is the standard rebuttal.  Has anyone published a critique of FP strictly from the Biblical text?

__________________________________

Mr. Edwards:

Yes, indeed, there is such an exegetical critique of hyper (or full) preterism, and better yet, it is still in print.    I refer you to “When Shall These Things Be?”  A Reformed Approach to Hyper-Preterism (P & R, 2004).  The book is edited by Keith Mathison, whom you mention.  For more information on this volume, Click here: Amazon.com: When Shall These Things Be: A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism: Books: Keith A. Mathison

As with most volumes like this where there are multiple contributors, some of the chapters are better than others.   It is also a bit problematic when the contributors don't agree among themselves.  In this case, two authors don't see eye to eye about the date of the Book of Revelation--Ken Gentry argues for an early date (pre-A.D. 70), while Simon Kistemaker argues for the traditional (and late) dating of about 95 A.D.

Those minor criticisms aside, there are two real gems here which make the book well worth the purchase price.  

The first is Robert Strimple’s marvelous essay, “Hyper Preterism on the Resurrection of the Body.”  In my humble estimation, Strimple completely destroys the various schemes offered by hyper-preterists to define the resurrection body so as to escape the obvious implications of the biblical teaching of a future, bodily, resurrection of believers.  Strimple’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians 15 is utterly compelling and he does the very thing you are seeking--a refutation of full or “hyper” preterism directly from the biblical text.  Strimple clearly exposes hyper-preterism for what it is--an unbiblical heresy.

The second outstanding essay is Charles Hill’s piece, “Eschatology in the Wake of Jerusalem’s Fall."  Hill deals with the pink elephant in the eschatological room, namely, "why, if hyper-preterism is true, did no one in the early church (post A. D. 70) ever say anything about the fact that the second coming of Christ, the general resurrection, and the final judgment, had already taken place?"  Hill's essay is compelling and I think his thesis is also problematic for those partial-preterists who see in the events of A.D. 70 a genuine parousia of our Lord (but who don't buy into the hyper-preterist heresy).

I also found Keith Mathison’s essay “The Eschatological Time Texts of the New Testament” to be very useful in showing the inability of the hyper-preterists to deal with the same “time-texts" which they claim support their  view.  I'm not fully on board with Mathison's treatment of some of these terms, but he does take them away from the full preterists, and that is a good thing.

When Shall These Things Be? is hated by hyper-preterists (read the reviews on Amazon).  I take that to be a very good sign that the arrow has struck its intended mark.

Hope that helps!

_________________________________ 

 Joel Asks (Sept 2006):

“What is the most logical method of interpreting the final 3 1/2 days of Daniel's prophecy of 70 weeks.  I see the messianic fulfillment and how the one who confirms a covenant is Christ, not an anti-Christ figure, but still have difficulty with the last 3 1/2 `days.’ While the previous 69.5 weeks can reasonably interpreted as years, it seems like most interpretations end up extending the time period indefinitely or imposing a gap between the first and second halves of the `week.’”

Joel:

This is a question that troubled me for some time as I was working my way from premillennialism toward amillennialism.  When I read Meredith Kline’s essay (“The Covenant of the Seventy Weeks”--  Click here: Covenant_70th_Week) all of a sudden the answer hit me--and it had been right in front of me the whole time.  In the ninth chapter of Daniel's prophecy, not only was Daniel talking about the Messiah and not an Antichrist (based upon the glorious things that are to be accomplished by the Messiah before end of the 70 weeks–see Daniel 9:24), but in the Book of Revelation, John actually tells us what happens during the last 3 ½ years of Daniel’s 70th week!  It is a time of tribulation for the people of God.

In Revelation 12:14, John speaks of a “time, and times, and half a time.”  The same time reference also appears in Revelation 11:1-2 and 13:5-6 (forty-two months).  Obviously, this is figurative language depicting the fulfillment of that eschatological time of tribulation predicted by Daniel and left open-ended in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks.  Kline argues that this is the period of time of the church in the wilderness (“The Covenant of the Seventy Weeks,” 469).  Likewise, Beale holds that these references are based upon the eschatological period of tribulation foretold by Daniel not only in Daniel 9:27, but throughout his entire prophecy (Beale, The Book of Revelation, 565). 

In Revelation 11, the forty-two months are connected to Elijah’s ministry of judgment, and to Israel’s time in the wilderness (which included forty-two campsites), and which may have entailed forty-two years in the wilderness-- if Israel came under God’s judgment after spending an initial two years in the wilderness before coming under curse.

Therefore,  Daniel is predicting a time of tribulation for the people of God after the Messiah comes, but before the last Jubilee (since the seventy-sevens of Daniel’s prophecy are ten Jubilee eras–see Kline’s essay, where he argue for this point).  As we see in Revelation 12:5-6, John tells us that this three and a half “years” of tribulation are inaugurated at Christ’s resurrection and will be consummated at his second coming (Beale, Revelation, 567).  When we notice that Christ’s own public ministry lasted three and one-half years, the image should be pretty clear--it applies to the entire church age.  

Nick asks (February 17, 2008):  

Dr. Riddlebarger:  How do we/should we discern the times without either, falling into error,(as the cults or some eschatological schemes) or becoming complacent or paranoid and so avoid deception?

______________________________________

Nick:

Another great question.  Before I tackle it, let me just say, "OK, I know that some of you are thinking, at last, a practical question!”  Actually, I think most questions dealing with eschatology are quite practical.  But thanks Nick, for asking us to deal with a very important and practical matter.  "How do we discern the signs of the times?"

The place to start is with the biblical boundaries.  Let me say from the outset that  Jesus is crystal clear that no one knows the day and hour of his return (Matthew 24:36).  So, whenever anyone sets a date and claims to have figured out when and how Jesus will return, we can almost be certain that will be the one date upon which the Lord will not return.  (Are you getting that Harold Camping?  No, of course not).  

Yet, in the very same discourse when Jesus tells us that we cannot know when he is coming back, Jesus gives his disciples a whole list of signs of the end in response to a series of questions they have put to him.  Jesus does this to make a very important point.  

First, Jesus warns his disciples to be on guard for false teachers who will deceive the people of God.  This warning is very much like that given to the church by John regarding that series of antichrists who will come and deny that Jesus is God in human flesh (1 John 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 John 1:7).  The presence of false teachers is a sign of the end, and they will be present with us until Christ returns.  The very fact that Jesus warns us of this means that we cannot be complacent about orthodoxy.  The church will always be under attack from within by those who will attempt to draw followers unto themselves, and away from Christ.  In this case, the presence of the sign (false teachers), carries with it the warning to be diligent (oppose them with the truth).  

But Jesus also warns the disciples of great upheaval among the nations.  “You will hear of wars and rumors of wars.”  Furthermore, he tells us that there will be famines and earthquakes, which Jesus describes as birth pains (Matthew 24:8).  I believe that these signs of the end, which began in the lifetime of his apostles, will continue until our Lord’s return (cf., Hagner, Matthew 14-28, Word Biblical Commentary, 33B, 692).  Since Jesus speaks of these signs as birth pains, I take him to mean that there will intermittent periods of turmoil and peace and then when the tumult reaches its zenith, our Lord will suddenly return.  This means that it will be nearly impossible to figure out when Jesus will return, because a time of great tumult and distress for the people of God, might be followed by a period of great blessing.

But why would Jesus speak of those signs which precede his coming, and then in the parables of Matthew 25, tell us that his coming will be delayed (Matthew 25:5)?  Here, the implication is that Jesus’ coming is off in the distant future.  The reason is simple.  Wars and rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, and false teachers will be present the entire time from our Lord’s death and resurrection until his Second Advent.  The signs of the end are exactly that.  When we see them, we know our Lord will return.  But as Jesus told his disciples, “the bridegroom was delayed,” so that God’s people must keep watch (Matthew 25:5; 13), because they do not know the day or the hour of our Lord’s return.

In other words, the signs of the end are the guarantee that our Lord will come again.  But these signs are like birth pains, so there will be alternating times of trouble and peace, increasing in intensity before the end.  Our inability to know when the Lord will return becomes the incentive to watch and wait in expectation.  The tension between signs which precede our Lord’s return and the suddenness of his coming is certainly deliberate.  Our Lord’s warning to keep watch means that we cannot set dates, and the signs of the end warn us not to be idle before that day comes.  There is much to do.  As Luther once said, “even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.”

Adding to Jesus’ teaching on this, we have Paul’s discussion of the mysterious man of sin in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12.  Paul speaks of a principle of evil which was already present when he wrote this epistle (vv. 6-7).  Paul also speaks of a mysterious restrainer, who keeps this evil in check until being taken out of the way (v. 7) when the end is finally at hand (v. 8).  At that point, the man of sin (whose appearance is tied to a great apostasy, v. 3), is revealed, so that he might be destroyed on the day of judgment.  This passage is very similar to what John describes in verses 7-10, of Revelation 20.  When Satan is released from the abyss, the nations are again deceived, and then revolt against Christ and his church, only to be destroyed at the Lord’s coming.

All of that is to say, the signs may all be present, but God’s time for Christ to return is not yet.  Remember, the entire Reformed tradition saw in the papacy and in the geo-political events of the late sixteenth-early seventeenth century, all of the signs of the end.  They were right.  All the signs were there!  But the preaching of the gospel (the restraining power) kept Rome in check, and after the days of Cromwell and the restoration of the Stuart monarchy, the gospel flourished for a time and postmillennial expectations became commonplace.  

That is why we must be very careful to keep the proper perspective on these things.  When we identify the signs of the end, we have every reason to hope that our redemption draws nigh.  But with Luther, we plant that apple tree knowing that only our Father in heaven knows the date of Jesus’ return!

 __________________________________________

Melissa asks (February, 21, 2008):

Dear Mr. Riddlebarger, I have been listening to your series (Amillennialism 101) with great interest.  Having only been taught and believing premil dispensationalism (but with a lot of questions about it), I do find compelling arguments in your series.  I am seriously studying this matter for myself and trying to set aside my presuppositions and beliefs.

I was just wondering how amils interpret passages such as Matt 19:28 (referring to the regeneration specifically) and also Rev 3:10 in which believers will be kept from the hour of testing.  Any response would be most appreciated.

__________________________

Melissa:

While you make an important point about presuppostions, and then ask about two different passages, all of these matters are closely related.  So I'll tackle them together in one Q & A.

First, you are absolutely right when you stress setting aside dispensational presuppositions when analyzing verses such as these.  These are both important passages to dispensationalists, because they make perfect sense when read through the dispensational lens.  So, for the sake of argument, let us analyze the two verses apart from the dispensational grid, and then see if they make  better sense on amillennial presuppositions.

Matthew 19:28 reads, “Jesus said to them, `Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel’” (ESV).   Dispensationalists understand this passage as teaching that there will be a future restoration of the nation of Israel, in which the disciples will exercise an important role in an earthly millennial kingdom (Campbell and Townsend, A Case for Premillennialism, Moody, 1992, 176-178).  John Walvoord says that this “is clearly a picture of the millennial earth, not heaven” (Walvoord, Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, Moody, 1974, 146). 

I beg to differ.  The problem for dispensationalists in particular, and premillennarians in general, is that Jesus says this will happen when he sits on his throne, “in the new world.”  In the Greek text, the phrase is en te palingenesia, which literally means “rebirth” or “regeneration.”  The phrase en te palingenesia may be used in a similar sense to the way the word apokatastaseos is used in Acts 3:21, where it is translated “restoration.”  The temporal aspect of this renewal or rebirth is tied to what follows (“when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne”), simply meaning that this is a reference to the renewal of the world at the end of the age, and is not a reference to an earthly millennium (see Hagner, Matthew 14-28 Word Biblical Commentary 33a, Word, 1995, 565).

Since the contrast between "this age" and "the age to come" is a contrast between the temporal and the eternal (see the discussion of the "two-age model in my A Case for Amillennialism, 81-99), this cannot be a reference to an earthly millennium after Christ comes back.  When Jesus returns, he judges the world (Matthew 25:31-46; Revelation 20:11-15) raises the dead (1 Corinthians 15:12-57; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11) and makes all things new (2 Peter 3:3-15).  This makes it pretty clear that there is no one left on the earth in natural bodies over which the disciples can rule!  In other words, this is a reference to the eternal state, not an earthly millennium.
 
On the dispensational/premillennial scheme, Jesus is telling the disciples that they will rule over Israel during the millennial age, while on the amillennial view, the rule depicted here is when the twelve disciples represent the true Israel and are vindicated by Jesus himself.  In effect, Jesus is telling those who gave up everything to follow him, that they will be vindicated in the end.

As for Revelation 3:10, the passage reads, “because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth” (ESV).  Dispensationalists believe that this is a reference to the rapture, in which the faithful church (symbolized by the church in Philadelphia) is removed from the earth immediately before the beginning of the seven-year tribulation period.  Indeed, dispensational presuppositions require that the Gentile church be removed from the earth at the start of the Seventieth Week of Daniel’s prophecy (Daniel 9:24-27), so this verse is taken as proof of that pre-determined fact.

The problem is that dispensational presuppositions clearly get in the way of the text, and when you set them aside it is easy to see a better way to understand this verse.  John tells the church of Philadelphia (the actual church in Philadelphia at the time John writes this letter about. A.D. 95),  that a world-wide hour of trial is coming--perhaps a reference to persecution of the faithful by the beast from the sea (Revelation 13:1-10) and the beast from the land (Revelation :1311-18)--and that this particular congregation will be spared from this extensive period of tribulation because they have been faithful.  Jesus will preserve them.

Notice that the same power which kept them strong, will preserve them (vv. 7-8)–  “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.  “‘I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut. I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name.” It is this same power (weak in man’s eyes) which will maintain for them their status (v. 9)– “Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet and they will learn that I have loved you.”

Because the Philadelphian Christians have been faithful witnesses to Christ in the past, Jesus now tells them that he will be faithful to them when some sort of horrible tribulation comes upon them in the near future.  In other words, Jesus himself will preserve this congregation in the midst of whatever trial is about to come upon them.  There is no hint here that these people will be taken out of the world before the trial comes, much less does this passage event remotely hint at the dispensationalist’s rapture. 

But this passage does tell this congregation that when the hour of trial comes, they will be "kept" (preserved) from its evil effects.  We know this because the same Greek word translated as “keep from” (tereso)  appears only here (with ek, “from”) and in John 17:15, where we read, “I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one.” 

I would argue that John is saying pretty much the same thing to the Philadelphians in Revelation 3:10, that Jesus said to his disciples in John 17:15.  He will preserve his people in the midst of tribulation by protecting them from the evil around them.

This is why your first point, about setting aside your presuppositions for a time to investigate this matter, is so wise.  Yes, dispensationalists can make sense of these passages in light of those particular presuppositions.  But their presuppositions are clearly faulty on a number of levels, and as we’ve just seen, the amillennial reading of these passages makes far better sense of these verses.

___________________________________________

Reg asks (February 2008):

Dr. Riddlebarger:  I have read both of your recent books and found them compelling.  There is one passage of Scripture however which I cannot seem to integrate into amillenialism or even other biblical end times passages, that is Zechariah 14:16-21.  How does this passage fit into the scheme of things. Is this a description of life in the New Jerusalem?  If so what's with the sacrifices, the curse of no rain, etc?  I hope you can explain this for me.  Thanks.

Eric asks (July 2006):  

Premillenialists insist that Zechariah 14 is support for their view. I disagree.  But I am not currently able to explain very well why I disagree. Part of the reason I disagree is simply because so much other Scripture disproves the premillenial theory. One problem is that a few translations, including the KJV, translate Zechariah 14:1 as "the day of the Lord" cometh. Other translations translate it as "A day of the Lord comes...". I definitely believe "a day of the Lord" is the correct way of translating it, but I wondered if you could shed some light on this.

Verse 2 seems to be describing what happened in 70 AD. Verse 4 is one that premillenialists interpret literally but I believe it is referring to the first coming of Christ when he stood on the Mount of Olives. I believe the splitting of the mountain is figurative and refers to the divide that was created between those that are saved and those that are not.  Verse 5 again seems to be referring to 70 AD. But premillenialists point to where it says "the LORD my God shall come, and all the saints with thee". I believe that is a reference to the first coming but I don't know how to back that up with Scripture. Maybe you can help.  I believe verse 8 is fulfilled in John 7:37-39 where it talks about the living water that comes from the Holy Spirit.  Anyway, while I believe the entire passage refers to the first coming of Christ, as well as 70 AD, it is difficult to prove that. So, what is your interpretation of Zechariah 14?

____________________________

In answering the basic question, “how does one interpret Zechariah 14?” we need to admit from the outset that this is a very difficult passage, in part, because it is never directly quoted in the New Testament, and given a definitive interpretation--although there are a number of allusions (echoes) to it, especially in the Book of Revelation (see, for example, the Scripture index in Beale’s work, The Book of Revelation, Eerdmans, 1999, 1196-1197).

Dispensationalists believe the prophecy describes Christ’s second coming, and the establishment of the subsequent millennial kingdom on the earth (Walvoord, Major Bible Prophecies, Zondervan, 94.)  Walvoord believes that vs. 16-21 specifically refer to the sacrifices made in Jerusalem during the future millennial kingdom (Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, Zondervan, 310-311).  J. D. Pentecost believes that these verses refer to Christ’s rule and punishment of any sin which may break out in the millennial age during Christ’s rule (Pentecost, Things to Come, Zondervan, 503).

Calvin saw the passage as tied to the time of Antichrist (Commentaries on the Twelve Minor Prophets, 5:405).  The great puritan John Owen saw this passage fulfilled in the end-times glory of the church (see Iain Murray’s The Puritan Hope, Banner of Truth, 1971, 38, where Murray cites Owen’s sermon “The Advantage of the Kingdom of Christ in the Shaking of the Kingdoms of the World”).  Gary DeMar, argues that this prophecy is fulfilled by the events of A.D. 70, when Jesus returns in the clouds to judge both Jerusalem and the temple (DeMar, Last Days Madness, American Vision 1999, 437-443).

One very helpful interpretation of this passage is found in Gerard Van Groningen’s Messianic Revelation in the Old Testament (Baker, 1990), 911-913).  Van Groningen argues that as we attempt to understand this most difficult passage, there are three very important things to keep in mind.  

First, the prophecy is apocalyptic in terms of its structure.  The use of dramatic symbols and metaphors (the reference to the Mount of Olives splitting open forming a large valley, “living water,” etc.) tells us that a literal interpretation is not likely, and that the prophecy will remain somewhat mysterious until the coming of the Messiah and the dawn of the messianic age.  

Second, there is a fair bit of prophetic perspective throughout the chapter.  In other words, in previous chapters of his prophecy (especially chapter 13), Zechariah has been predicting what will happen when the messianic age dawns–the Messiah will be pierced, and a fountain will be opened the cleansing of sin, which is a reference to Christ’s satisfaction for our sins upon the cross.  By using images from Israel’s past (i.e., during the days of Uzziah) when YHWH defended his people, Zechariah is now pointing ahead to the fact that although additional trials and tribulation will certainly come, God will continue to deliver his people in the most amazing of ways.  Zechariah foretells of how YHWH will defeat his enemies on behalf of his people (v. 3), that he will reign over the entire cosmos (vv. 4-5), and that he will rule over the nations (vv. 12-15), so as to provide freedom for his people to worship (v. 16).  He will restrain those who oppose his rule (v. 17-19).  Indeed, his Spirit will sanctify all of life (vv. 20-21) which clearly anticipates, and presupposes the out-pouring of the Spirit @ Pentecost.  

Third, this is the final chapter of Zechariah’s prophecy and is clearly messianic.  The death of the Messiah on behalf of his people (depicted in chapter 13), secures the benefits God’s people will enjoy as enumerated in chapter 14.  That YHWH rules and subdues his enemies while protecting his people, is the result of the Shepherd’s death and the cleaning fountain which results.  Jesus’ death is dawn of the new creation and establishes the conditions depicted in chapter 14.

To put it simply, Van Groningen sees Zechariah 14 as a prophecy of the messianic age yet to come, using apocalyptic language and symbols which relate the past experience of God’s people (in great tribulation) to their future expectations in the messianic age to come.  What comes about in chapter 14, clearly flows out of the Messiah’s death and subsequent rule, ensuring that the messianic kingdom yet to come will completely surpass anything that the theocratic kingdom of Israel could ever bring about or experience.

Meredith Kline takes this same general interpretative approach, but takes the prophecy one step farther (which I think is very helpful).  What is inaugurated by the Messiah (all of the blessings secured by the Messiah’s death, and the cleansing and sanctifying power which results) is ultimately brought to realization by the divine warrior (Jesus) who brings judgment to the nations (vv. 3-5), the establishment of the new creation (v. 6 ff).  According to Kline, at that time “the saints will possess a holy and blessed world, purged of all of God’s enemies.  The consummation of joy and glory typified by the Feast of Tabernacles will be realized.  And echoing Zechariah 6:8; 14:9 characterizes that day as the time when Yahweh alone will be king over the whole world” (Kline, Glory in Our Midst: A Biblical-Theological Reading of Zechariah’s Night Visions, Two-Age Press, 2001, 216).