![[doh!]](../images/doh.gif "plug your nose, then the argument won't stink so badly")
Back to The PreteristSite Home Page
It is axiomatic to good debate form to acknowledge when an opponent has made a good point. Sadly, however, with the specious abuse of proof-texting, it is even more axiomatic to show how a potentially good point in isolation is a bad point when taken holistically [1]. Unfortunately, this article is not about good points at all, but incredibly stupid ones that persons appearing to be functioning with fully equipped brains somehow find persuasive judging by the number of times they are regurgitated in debate. Now this being said, every group under the sun has their over-eager but ignorant adherents such as well-meaning young earth creationists who make such inane comments as, "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?" Those of us who are a bit more informed may groan inwardly and be embarrassed that this person would be representing our side. However, in this piece, I am going to dissect two arguments that even the most prominent of heretical hyperpreterists (yes I realize that is redundant) seem to think are actually good, and apparently do so without holding their nose or crossing their fingers behind their backs. This work like my others, may be expanded and revised as I find additional information.
So which of the two candidate "arguments" is dumb and which one is dumber? Well I could have decided this question in a few different ways, but since I don't happen to have an extra sheep fleece laying around, I chose to bestow the "dumber" award on the one which is quoted most often. Drum roll please.....
Some Hymenæan preterists make more nuanced arguments than the above. If so, they are not the ones I am addressing. The vast majority I run into do not make their statements any more precise than the examples above followed by a hearty round of chest-pounding by any of their cohorts in attendance either in a discussion thread or chat room.
Well now let's have at it.
This is so patently ignorant it is hard to know where to begin. In fact, it is a prime example of the purple cow fallacy so popular amongst the more benighted of the futurist crowd. It always does give me a tickle when I see the hyperpreterists making the same eisegetical errors as Tim LaHaye.
The big honking error here is the disregard of context and presumption that ALL must mean every single utterance made by a prophet that was written down. What is so ironic about this is that such Hymenæan preterists in the Matthean account of the Olivet Discourse will argue that ALL cannot be so hyperliterally and pedantically construed.
Luke 21:20-23: But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation is near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those who are in the midst of her depart, and let not those who are in the country enter her. For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For there will be great distress in the land and wrath upon this people.
Now one must ask oneself, are all prophecies which are written about vengeance? Heck if we are going to be so literal with this verse why limit the ALL to simply the Scriptures? The text doesn't say that does it? It says ALL things written will be fulfilled, so I guess every crackpot prophet who wrote something down was vindicated at that time. No? Okay so it isn't really ALL things.... just ALL Biblical prophecy? Okay, what about previously fulfilled prophecy? Was that once again fulfilled in AD70? No? It appears this "taking Jesus at His Word" thing isn't as simplistic as it is argued. The all things which were fulfilled were all the things that were written concerning God's judgment upon the nation of Israel for their sins.
This limited context of "all things" is made patently clear in the wording of the questions of the three disciples of which Luke 21:22 is part of the answer as follows:
Matthew 24:3: Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?
Luke 21:7: Teacher, but when will these things be? And what sign will there be when these things are about to take place?
Mark 13:4: Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign when all these things will be fulfilled?
So when Jesus later mentions the fulfillment of "all things" the referent is "all things" of which He was previously speaking (i.e. the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem) which have their grounding in written Old Testament prophecy.
As Gary DeMar often states, and to which I agree without reservation, the Bible is the best interpreter of the Bible. So while it is pathetically easy to prove that "all" doesn't necessarily mean "all" in every context (a feat which the hyperpreterists do themselves in other instances), I will limit my exercise of letting the Bible shut the mouth of the foolish with examples specifically dealing with prophecy, judgment, or the work of Christ which is the context in our subject verse.
Ezekiel 12:23: The days are at hand, and the fulfillment of every vision.
Wow, this is a remarkably similar passage. Back in Ezekiel's day God promised the fulfillment of EVERY vision. Well now party people, did "every vision" include this one:
Numbers 24:17: I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; A Star shall come out of Jacob; A Scepter shall rise out of Israel, and batter the brow of Moab,and destroy all the sons of tumult.
No??? Well goooshhhh, poof goes the prooftext. The context is similar, one of a specific judgment, in a specific period of time, regarding specific punishments. This is NOT rocket science folks.
Let's throw another one into the mix to liven up the punch:
John 19:28: After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, "I thirst!"
ALL things were accomplished? Well now fancy that. How could ALL things (and Jesus doesn't even limit himself to visions or things that are written) be accomplished then if they had to wait until AD70 to be so?
![[sigh]](../images/sigh.gif "pffttttt!")
Honestly, I do not know how any reasonably theologically seasoned person could take this objection seriously. This is a classic example of an argument proving too much; thus proving nothing and falling on its own sword. The "proof-text" for this argument is Hebrews 9:28, but it does us well to view the surrounding context.
Hebrews 9:23-28: Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another - He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.
The passage is presently a two-fold comparison. Men die once, then they are judged either to everlasting life or everlasting death. Christ came to earth once to physically die and physically appear before His Father as the penultimate sin-offering, and after that He will appear a "second" time for salvation. Now the word "second" implies a "first" which is of the same character in some sense. So what was the nature of the "first" appearance/coming? It was physical. So must be the "second" or this counting of "comings" is meaningless (and the hyperpreterist cannot claim that Jesus simply appears before His Father a second time since He was already presently seated there).
The heretical preterist will argue that the "second" coming predicted here was the judgment-coming upon Jerusalem in AD70. That cannot be correct for multiple reasons. First, it is not of the same nature as the "first" appearance which makes labeling it a "second" appearance utterly inane. Secondly, if any kind of spiritual or judgment qualifies as part of the "count of the 'comings'" so to speak, hyperpreterists themselves would be teaching a third, fourth, fifth and so forth "coming" themselves. Why? Are we to presume that Jesus didn't "come" in any fashion whatsoever between AD33 or so and AD70? Absolutely not. Jesus Himself said:
John 14:23: Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
Thus even hyperpreterists must believe in more than "two comings" of Christ since He comes to each person at their conversion. If the hyperpreterist starts discounting some "types" of "comings" as not "counting" then he has sold the farm.
Christ will bodily return in the future once and that event is concurrent with the general resurrection. It is referred to as the "second" for it is the "second" in a series of like events, the first of which was His bodily coming and sacrifice in the Incarnation. This does not preclude other "comings" that are not of the same nature, they would not be second, third, and fourth and so on, comings because they are not the same thing to be counted as one in a series of like things, as the word "coming" is very flexible.
This thorny bush that the hyperpreterist finds himself in gets even pricklier when this verse is taken into account:
Matthew 26:64 (NAB): Jesus said to him in reply, "You have said so. But I tell you: From now on you will see 'the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power' and 'coming on the clouds of heaven.'"
I purposefully chose a translation that captures the meaning of the Greek (of which no hyperpreterist that I am aware of would disagree) - from that moment forward Jesus WAS coming and REIGNING. His "coming" is synonomous with His reign (as per Daniel 7) and continues until all His enemies are made footstools for His feet (as per Psalm 110 and the numerous New Testament allusions to that Psalm). Thus this "judgment coming" that was physically manifested in AD70 is not a "second" of anything, but is merely an expression of the current Reign and Judgment of the King of which His "first" and "second" comings are bookends.
Further, the passage in Hebrews tells us that this "second" coming will bring salvation and salvation is juxtaposed here to the final judgement which happens after man's death. This is not an event "in history" but an event that consummates history. I will end this piece with two very pertinent quotes from Leon Morris [2]
"Judgement is not some horrible event to be set against the gospel. It is the outworking of the essential message of the gospel."
"The doctrine of final judgment enshrines many important truths. It stresses man's accountability and the certainty that justice will finally triumph over all the wrongs which are part and parcel of life here and now. The former gives a dignity to the humblest action, the latter brings calmness and assurance to those in the thick of battle. This doctrine gives meaning to life. The Greek idea of history as a cyclic process shut men up to a treadmill in which they might strive mightily, but neither god nor man could advance. The Christian view of judgment means that history moves toward a goal. OC Quick refers to 'God's completing act of fellowship of redeemed souls in a universe which is at once a new world and the perfection of the old.' Judgment protects the idea of the triumph of God and of good. It is unthinkable that the present conflict between good and evil should last throughout eternity. Judgment means that evil will be disposed of authoritatively, decisively, finally. Judgment means that in the end God's will will be perfectly done."
I had forgotten about this piece of inanity when originally writing this piece but it was brought to mind while reading Dr. Geisler's A Friendly Response to Hank Hanegraaff's Book, The Last Disciple. Now I having the pleasure (and I mean that sincerely) to discuss the issue of preterism with Dr. Geisler years before Hank's book came out while I was applying at Southern Evangelical Seminary can say that he repeats the phrase "historical-grammatical method" as a mantra and shows little understanding that this is the exact methodology that preterists do in fact use instead assuming they do not because they don't agree with his conclusions.
However, none of the above is the reason for Dr. Geisler's inclusion in this piece which primarily is dedicated to the Absolutely Worsttm arguments that hyperpreterists use against preterists, but since he falls into one of the same traps as they, it deserves mention. Specially, Dr. Geisler claims that "First, if this [Hank's position that soon means soon and that near and at hand both mean what they literally say] is precisely what he means in the whole book, then, as already noted, the heretical view of full preterism follows." This kind of statement is WAY below Dr. Geisler's level of scholarship and thinking. Let's think about this for a second. Let's say that I said, "My trip to your house for a ten year visit is at hand." Would you then assume that the end of my visit was just as "at hand" as the beginning? OF COURSE NOT. You would assume that the beginning of my visit was to happen soon and that the end of it would happen "five years later" and thus is at least that far away. It is no different with the Book of Revelation. Jesus promises that the events are to happen soon, that they are near, that they are at hand. One of those events is the so-called "Millennium." Now would any reasonable person assume that Jesus intended to communicate that the beginning and the end of the Millennium were to occur simultaneously? OF COURSE NOT. The end of the "millennium" once started, is at least a "thousand years" away - no matter how that thousand years is defined. This my friends is what is called a no-brainer.
Amen and Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus.
One hyperpreterist has claimed that the fact that there are things such as "Four Views" books which propose four different orthodox eschatologies is a proof against orthodoxy since allegedly (by Hyperpreterist Hyper-illogic) orthodoxy requires only one correct view on every single point. This is disposed of here: A Mack Truck
[1] Hicks, Tyler Scripture In Isolation: The Alternative to Sola Scriptura. Go Back
[2] Morris, Leon The Biblical Doctrine of Judgment, WM. B. Eerdman's Publishing Co., Grand Rapids 3, Michigan, pgs 66, 72. Go Back
Back to The PreteristSite Home Page