The Anti-Preterist’s Toolkit (2008 Edition)

   2008 was a very productive year for me. Not only was I able to make significant strides in my studies, but I also did quite a bit of writing, and consequently covered a great deal of theological ground. Naturally, a lot of the material I wrote has to do with Preterism and Hyper-Preterism. Therefore, I’ve put together a list of the most relevant articles, and am offering them to the reading public as a comprehensive all-you-need “toolkit” for refuting Preterism!

   Obviously, there is a good amount of information in these articles, and I wouldn’t expect anyone to read them all at once. With each article ranging, on an average, from 800 to 1,500 words each, the result is over 50,000 words of reading material that is equivalent to the length of a book. That means there’s a lot to keep an anti-preterist busy. With this in mind, I’ve given brief descriptions of each article, to make it easier to find the particular materials you are looking for.

   During the past year, I wrote many more articles which have minor relevance to the issues of Preterism. But only the ones that deal explicity with Preterist theology have been linked to below. The Lord willing, I hope that others will see the errors of this system and condescend to re-think their paradigms. I also hope that, by the Lord’s grace, He will enable me to advance this battle to a higher plane, now that I’ve re-entered the local church ministry (Southern Baptists, and you know we play for keeps). May God grant that 2009 will be a better, brighter, and even more productive year for Anti-Preterism.

***********

  10 Reasons Why “This Generation” Doesn’t Mean “My First Century Audience” (explains the various flaws arising from Preterist interpretation of Matt. 24: 34)

  Abomination of Desolation, The (proves that this had nothing to do with Roman armies, but is a future event tied to Antichrist)

  America Under Tribulation: Will Preterism Survive? (Is the tribulation around the corner? If so, how will Preterism be affected?)

  As The End Draws Nearer… (Preterist denial of a future rebuilt Babylon)

  Christians Must Renounce Heresy (The need for Christians to cut loose from Hyper-Preterism and embrace the Gospel)

  Consummation of The Age, The (A comprehensive study of the “sunteleia“)

  The Destruction of Jerusalem: Eschatological or Dispensational? (Was A.D. 70 really an eschatological terminus? Or did it in fact mark the close of a Dispensation?)

  Does Matthew 16: 28 Support Hyper-Preterism? (Proof that this oft-cited text points to the transfiguration, and not to A.D. 70)

  Gary DeMar’s Preterist Delusions: A Limited Geography (Part 1) (Debunking the Preterist notion that the Great Commission and second coming were localized events)

  Gary DeMar’s Preterist Delusions: A Limited Geography (Part 2) (Showing the inconsistencies of a “localized geography“)

  Great Hermeneutical Challenge, The (The need to return to New Testament methods of approach)

  Have All Things Continued As They Were From The Beginning of The Creation? (Parallels between our own age and the “days of Noah“)

  How Christians Fall Into Heresy (Detailed examination of the known risk factors for contracting Hyper-Preterist heresy)

  Hyper-Preterism Rejects The Cross (How denial of a future bodily resurrection nullifies Christ’s redemptive work)

  Hyper-Preterism’s “No Win” Argument (The inconsistencies of Hyper-Preterism’s “pan millennial” argument)

  In Defense of The Apostles’ Creed (Rebuttal of Hyper-Preterist John Riffe’s anti-orthodox sophistries)

  Infidelity of Preterism, The (Are the doctrines of Preterism symptomatic of an underlying irreverence?)

  Joel McDurmon’s Sleight-of-Hand Trick (Written to expose American Vision’s latent Anti-Semitism. Spawned Joel McDurmon’s “Coat-tails of a Heretic“)

  Key of Prophetical Interpretation, The (A handy tool by which to test when Scriptures are spiritually or literally fulfilled)

  Luke 21: 22 Not a Hyper-Preterist Proof-text (Uncovers the non-correlation between Luke 21 and Matthew 24, and snatches away another Hyper-Preterist “sugar stick“)

  Matthew 24: The Foundation of Preterist Interpretation (Reveals the intimate connection between the Great Tribulation and the events predicted in Daniel 11: 31-45. A key study.)

  Matthew 26: 64: Another Hyper-Preterist “Proof Text” Examined (Shows that the passage will be fulfilled when the Jews are converted to Christ)

  Meeting of the Minds: A Preterist/Futurist Scenario (Something George Orwell might have considered… if he were a Preterist!)

  “Mosaic Age” And Replacement Theology, The (Is there any such thing as a “Mosaic Age“? And how such a view supports Anti-Semitism)

  Nebuchadnezzar & The Typology of Antichrist (Interesting study of the prophetic relation between Antichrist and the King of Babylon)

  New Heavens and Earth: Literal or Figurative? (A detailed article on “creation theology.” Examines the subject from a Dispensational perspective)

  On A War That’s Being Won! (Chronicles the ongoing downfall of Hyper-Preterism)

  Preterism And Replacement Theology (The article that got attacked by American Vision)

  Preterism And The Upcoming Elections (Modern politics gives the lie to the “sustained progress” hoped for by Preterists)

  Preterism Leads To Epicureanism (How Preterism results in a selfish “live to yourself” mentality)

  Preterism’s Anti-Semitic Agenda (The connection between Preterism and Anti-Semitism uncovered once more)

  Prospect From Mount Olivet, A (Comparsion bwteeen the Olivet and Temple Discourses)

  Refuting Preterism: The First Foundation: “This Generation” (Proves that “this generation” really means the Jewish nation)

  Refuting Preterism: The Second Foundation: The “Timing Texts” (Detailed rebuttal of the “timing texts” used by Preterists)

  Response To Joel McDurmon’s “Coat-Tails of a Heretic” (Reply to American Vision’s criticism of Christianity’s pro-Israel stance)

  Resurrection and The Land Promises (If there is to be a physical resurrection, why won’t there be a return of Israel to the physical land God promised them?)

  A Serious Study of Matthew 10: 23 (Proves this has nothing to do with A.D. 70, but points to a future preaching ministry preceding Christ’s second advent)

  Sign of the Prophet Jonas, The (Examination of the 40-year period of Israel’s probation, and its relation to the Preterist “timing texts,” based on typology of Jonah’s ministry)

  “This Generation” Continues! (A look at the term “this generation,” which Hyper-Preterists use to support past-fulfillment of the parousia)

  “This Generation”–The Gateway To Hymeneusville (How a Preterist definition always leads right back around to Hyper-Preterism–no matter which way you dice it)

  “This Generation” Shall Never Fail (Does “this generation” really mean first-century disciples? or does the term have a much broader scope?)

  Threefold Plan of Attack, The (A foolproof strategy for combatting Hyper-Preterism)

  Unbelief of Preterism, The (A look at history of Preterist movement shows its alliance to skepticism and anti-supernaturalism)

  What Preterists Really Want (How Preterist theology attempts to overthrow the New Testament canon)

  Why Hyper-Preterism Logically Leads To Atheism (Shows how the “logic” is actually on the atheist’s side, and not on that of Hyper-Preterism)

  Vicious Circle of Preterist Addiction, The (Shows how Preterism is like a drug addiction which can destroy a person’s life)

  Zechariah 14: Preteristic or Pre-Millennial? (A critical look at this great O.T. eschatological chapter reveals that it in no way supports Preterism)

Luke 21: 22 Not a Hyper-Preterist Proof-Text

   Another one of the common proof-texts used by Hyper-Preterists in support of their view that Jesus Christ “returned” in A.D. 70, is Luke 21: 22. Speaking of the siege of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, Jesus says, “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.” This verse is often seen as a convenient “clincher” for proving the Hyper-Preterist case. However, their interpretation is based on a very superficial reading of the text, which ignores the context and the laws of common sense.

   That Christ could not possibly have meant “all Bible prophecy,” as the Hyper-Prets would like us to believe, is clear from the following. Firstly, Christ told the disciples that His coming would occur after the fall of Jerusalem and the filling up of the times of the Gentiles (see Luke 21: 25-27). Since the day of the Lord was a predicted Old Testament event, the fulfillment of all things during the destruction of Jerusalem is not a bona fide interpretation.

   Contrary to Preterist assertions, Christ does not equate the day of the Lord with the destruction of Jerusalem. A simple harmony of the Olivet and Temple discourses reveals that Luke 21: 12-24 is a parenthetical passage which takes place before the tribulation.

   While Luke 21: 8-11 is in all respects parallel with Matt. 24: 4-8 and Mark 13: 5-8, the Temple Discourse diverges, introducing a parenthesis which starts in verse 12. Instead of saying, “These are the beginnings of sorrows,” Christ stops short and introduces subject matter that must take place “before all these” beginnings of sorrows (Luke 21: 12). The parenthesis carries us through the destruction of Jerusalem down to the very end of the age, and closes in verse 24, where it again converges with the Olivet Discourse.

   Notice that in this parenthetical passage, Christ nowhere mentions the “Abomination of Desolation“or “Great Tribulation,” as in the Olivet Discourse. Instead, He speaks of the surrounding of Jerusalem with armies, and the “days of vengeance.” This latter phrase is quite distinct from what is commonly called the Great Tribulation.

   The “Days of Vengeance” consist of Divine punishment for Israel’s sins, as in Jeremiah 5: 9: “Shall I not visit for these things? saith the Lord: and shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?” There the prophet was predicting the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, in the eleventh year of king Zedekiah. See Jeremiah 39: 1-8. This came to pass some twenty-five years after it was foretold by Jeremiah. The taking of the city by Titus in A.D. 70 was a repeat of that event. Both sieges issued in the destruction of the temple and the scattering of the nation.

   On the other hand, the “Great Tribulation” is a special period of Divine chastisement which will result in Israel’s restoration. It will not be fulfilled more than once (Matt. 24: 21; Mark 13: 19). It is known as a time of “travail,” for its effect will be the new birth of the nation. As Isaiah writes: “Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? For as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children.” (Isaiah 66: 8). The tribulation has nothing to do with Israel’s scattering, but involves the nation’s final testing and ultimate salvation. See Jeremiah 30: 7-24; Ezekiel 20: 37-38; Daniel 12: 1.

   This distinction between the “Days of Vengeance” and the “Great Tribulation” is ignored by Preterists. Indeed, it is a fact not known. True, the tribulation is sometimes referred to as a time of “visitation.” However, it will be a visitation for deliverance, and not destruction! See Zephaniah 2: 7: “For the Lord their God shall visit them, and turn away their captivity.”

   This deliverance will occur at the personal return of Jesus Christ immediately after the tribulation (Matthew 24: 29); and is an event expressly declared by Christ to follow the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jewish captivity, and the filling up of the times of the Gentiles (Luke 21: 24-27). Hence, when Christ says that “these be the days of vengeance, when all things written shall be fulfilled,” the required exclusion of passages pertaining to the Great Tribulation invalidates any Hyper-Preterist interpretation of Luke 21: 22.

   Incidentally, here is where common sense is needed. For if it is impossible that all prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem, then we must interpret Christ’s words in a restricted sense, and supply the ellipsis, as follows: “For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written [concerning them] may be fulfilled.” The “all things that are written” pertain to the days of vengeance of which Christ was speaking, and not to all Biblical prophecy.

   But to show that we are not being arbitary in our methods, please note that there are numerous examples in the New Testament in which the phrase “all things” is used in a qualified sense.

   (Matt. 17: 11) “And Jesus answered, and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.” Obviously, Christ was not referring to “all things” in an absolute sense. It was the Jewish national spirit that Elias was to restore. See Malachi 4: 4-5. It is our Lord’s own prerogative to restore all things absolutely.

   (Mark 9: 23) “Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible unto him that believeth.” That is, all things in agreement with the will of God. See 1 John 5: 14-15.

   (Luke 18: 31) “Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning the Son of Man shall be accomplished.” Here Christ is speaking of all things relative to His first advent; His betrayal, sufferings, crucifixion, and resurrection. This verse alone effectively dispatches of the Hyper-Preterist interpretation of Luke 21: 22, giving us an example of where Christ Himself used the phrase “all things that are written” in a qualified sense.

   Many other examples could be cited. For instance, what does Paul mean when he says, “All things are lawful unto me, but not all things are expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any” (1 Cor. 6: 12). “All things” cannot include sinful acts, for Paul places a caveat on fornication in the very next verse! Therefore, “all things” is to be understood in a qualified sense, as the context of the passage requires.

   But there is a another reason why Christ could not have meant that “all Biblical prophecy” would be fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem. When He said, “all things that are written,” the New Testament is excluded, for none of the Gospels or epistles were written when He spoke!

   But really, with all these points taken into consideration, little more is needed to prove that the Hyper-Preterist interpretation of Luke 21: 22 is purely subjective in nature. It is not to be accepted by any student of Scripture. Of course, we know that this article won’t convince Hyper-Preterists. However, we trust that it will convince any sober-minded student of God’s word that our position is correct. And that is all we can ask for.

A Serious Study of Matthew 10: 23

   One of the chief proof-texts used by Hyper-Preterists to promote their view that Christ returned in A.D. 70, is Jesus Christ’s statement to His twelve apostles: “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come” (Matt. 10: 23). While a superficial gloss of the text might lead one to support the view that Christ “returned” in the first century, a closer look at the context of the passage renders such a view impossible.

   A study of Matthew 10: 23 in its full context will leave us with but two conclusions. The first is that Christ was referring exclusively to the particular local ministry on which He sent the twelve. This view is generally rejected, for reasons which the text makes obvious. The second is that a later preaching ministry was referred to. This is the interpretation that all students, both Preterist and Futurists, place on Matt. 10: 23. The real question is, at what time this ministry would have its fulfillment. Preterists generally tack it onto the close of the Jewish Dispensation, whereas the Futurists place it at the end of the present age.

   What accounts for the difference? The answer has to do with how one interprets the phrase “till the Son of Man be come.” The Lord is telling His disciples that their preaching will be unfinished, or cut short, by His arrival. But what kind of “coming” is He talking about? Is it a hypothetical, non-personal coming to destroy Jerusalem, as the Preterists claim? Or is it something of greater significance?

   If we look closely at Matthew 10, there appears to be something of a division in the text, regarding the application of Christ’s message. Verses 5 through 15 are generally understood as pertaining mainly, if not exclusively, to the one month ministry on which Christ sent the twelve. The twelve were sent out during our Lord’s third circuit of Galilee, in the month February, A.D. 29. They returned from this ministry the following month, around the same time that John the Baptist was beheaded.

   But in verses 16 to 42, Christ’s words are usually given an extended application, and viewed as pertaining to the Gospel ministry at all times and places. From verse 16 to the close of the chapter, Christ gives general instructions which apply whenever the Gospel is preached. These instructions are not restricted to the one-month ministry of the twelve. In fact they have little if anything to do with it. For the twelve never endured persecution during their journey.

   Nevertheless, before sending them forth Christ gave them supplementary instructions which they were expected to keep in mind against a future period. And this is where verses 16- 42 particularly come in. In verse 23 Christ told the disciples that their ministry would end with His coming.

   But what is mean by His coming? If the “coming” referenced in verse 23 means the second advent, then verses 16-42 remain in force today. But if it means a providential coming in A.D. 70, then the entire passage must be viewed as “past fulfillment.” In the latter case, the “audience” must be limited to the first century.

   From verse 23 to the close of the chapter, the Lord strengthened His disciples with precepts needed in order for them to accomplish the future ministry which would end with His “coming.” Since there is no break in the continuity of His discourse, Matt. 10: 23 must not be wrenched from its bearings, but interpreted in light of the context of verses 16 through 39. This is the second division of the discourse, which has a general application.

   In these verses, however, Christ gives clear indications that He is referring to His second advent, and not to a hypothetical coming in A.D. 70. For He speaks of the resurrection and judgment (Matt. 10: 28) as a prime incentive for “enduring unto the end.” After detailing what persecutions His disciples must face from a hostile world, He gives the disciples a word of encouragement and warning: “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt. 10: 28).

   This unmistakable reference to the resurrection (i.e. the reunion of soul and body) forever demolishes the fancy that Matthew 10: 23 has anything to do with A.D. 70. It doesn’t matter whether you are a Hyper-Preterist or an Orthodox Preterist. There were no souls and bodies joined together and cast into hell at the destruction of Jerusalem. Therefore, the conclusion is that the “coming” Christ mentions in Matthew 10: 23 must be His personal, visible, glorious return.

   Now it is no coincidence that we find parallels between the discourse of Matthew 10 and Christ’s later eschatological teachings. For instance, compare Matt. 10: 17 with Mark 13: 9 and Luke 21: 12; Matt. 10: 19 with Mark 13: 11-13 and Luke 21: 14-15; Matthew 10: 21 with Luke 21: 16. Again, compare Matthew 10: 22 with Luke 21: 17. These verses can only relate to the same time-period. They point directly to the preaching ministry which will precede the second advent.

   Remember what Christ said in His Olivet Discourse: “And this Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world, for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come” (Matthew 24: 14). The term “The Gospel of the Kingdom” is quite significant, telling us what message the disciples will preach shortly before our Lord’s “coming in clouds with power and great glory” (Matt. 24: 30). This was the Gospel proclaimed by the twelve during their one-month tour of Galilee. It was the Gospel Jesus Christ preached during His earthly ministry. Hence He refers to it as “this Gospel.”

   The Gospel of the Kingdom was always preached to the Jews, and was based on exposition of the moral law. Its precepts may be found in our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount. It’s burden is: “The kingdom of heaven is at hand” (see Matt. 10: 7). It is quite distinct from the “Gospel of the Grace of God” (Acts 20: 24) which Paul preached. The Gospel of the Kingdom was committed by Christ to the twelve apostles. But Paul received his Gospel directly from God: “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1: 12).

   Furthermore, it appears that the church of Jerusalem was entirely unaware of what Paul was preaching, until he went up with Barnabas and Titus to certify them of his evangelistic efforts. “And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain” (Galatians 2: 2).

   Think for a moment. If Paul was preaching the “Gospel of The Kingdom,” what need was there for him to apprise the Church of Jerusalem of what he was teaching? The fact is, Paul was preaching a Gospel quite different from that of the Kingdom. He was preaching the “Gospel of the Grace of God,” which had been committed to him for “obedience to the faith among all nations” (Romans 1: 5). This Gospel applies to the church, and is current through the remainder of this present Dispensation.

   On the other hand, the “Gospel of the Kingdom” was preached to Israel prior to the formation of the church, and will be preached again after the church is raptured. Then the message will be once more, “Repent! for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!” It is the preaching of this Gospel to which Matthew 10: 23 and 24: 14 refer. When Christ said, “This Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached in all the world,” He was talking about the same Gospel He had been preaching for three-and-a-half years; and not Paul’s Gospel, which was a much later revelation.

   So, with this knowledge in hand, let us go back to Matthew 10: 23, and get the correct perspective of the text. Carefully note the subject-matter of the preceding two verses. “And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved (Matt. 10: 21-22). Then He says: “But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come” (Matt. 10: 23).

   The Lord is obviously speaking of tribulation times. In verse 21, and again in verse 35, He alludes to Micah 7: 6: “For the son dishonoreth the father, the daughter riseth up against the mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies are the men of his own house.”

   And what is the context of Micah’s prophecy? Hearken closely: “Therefore, I will look unto the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God will hear me… I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against Him, until He plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: He will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold His righteousness” (Micah 7: 7, 9).

   The whole passage is speaking of God’s purification of Israel, which will be accomplished in the tribulation (see Isaiah 48: 10; Ezek. 20: 37-38; 22: 19-22; Malachi 3: 3). And this is what Christ meant when He spoke of the persecutions and afflictions that His disciples would have to bear. He is referring to an intense period of Jewish evangelism which will precede His second advent.

   This period will be characterized by the re-proclamation of the Gospel of the Kingdom, whose messengers will be endowed with miraculous of the Holy Spirit. The heralds of the coming King will suffer great hardship and privation, and endure much persecution. But salvation will come when the Lord Himself returns, to cut short the work in righteousness (Romans 9: 28). Maranatha!

The Unbelief of Preterism

    As a follow-up to my article, The Infidelity of Preterism, I thought it well to further explore the kind of rationalism and unbelief on which Preterist theology bases its claims. While systematic Preterism has little historical support, there are a number of writings documented throughout church history that contain key concepts espoused by Preterism. One of these concepts is that our Lord’s own description of His “coming in clouds with power and great glory” is purely symbolic in nature. Preterists hold that such language doesn’t describe a physical reality, but points to a hypothetical and providential coming, which was fulfilled in A.D. 70.

   As I wrote in my last article, much of Preterist theorizing arises from the a priori notion that there must be a “perfectly logical explanation” for what is commonly viewed as supernatural. That’s just the problem, though. Preterism stands in the the wisdom of men, and not the power of God. In their effort to be “logical,” they overthrow anything that seems out of line with the established laws of the natural world. As a result, Scripture-teachings are made to accord with their views.

   Of course, no reverent student of Scripture would agree to such a cold analysis as Preterists would bring to its pages. And so, the business of the Preterists is to attack Biblical inspiration, or at least discredit its authority. And herein is manifested the unbelief of Preterism.

   Eusebius of Caesarea (otherwise known as Pamphili), was one of the earliest teachers to espouse a Preterist view. In his writings, he professes to have seen the coming of the kingdom in his own day, in the conversion of Constantine to Christianity. To Eusebius, the restoration of the Christian churches under the new emperor was the fulfillment of Ezekiel’s prophecy of the “dry bones” coming to life. He writes: Then was fulfilled the prophetic utterance which mystically foretold what was to take place: ‘Bone to bone, and joint to joint,’ and whatever was truly announced in enigmatic expressions in the inspired passage.” (Ecclesiastical History, X. iii. 1-2).

   Because Eusebius did not believe in the inspired literality of the Scriptures, it was easy for him to take such a prophecy as Ezekiel’s and force it into a fourth century context. Similar chicanery is seen all throughout his writings. Moreover, due to the Chiliastic teachings of the Apocalypse, Eusebius is said to have denied its apostolic authorship, inventing an imaginary “John the Elder,” whom he professed to have written the book.

   That is just one early sample of the rationalism and unbelief by which Preterism operates. Now fast-forward to the 17th century. Another example of Preterist unbelief is witnessed in the writings of John Lightfoot (1602-1675), a Protestant divine. Although some would paint him a reverent student of Scripture, a careful study of his works reveals a thinly-disguised unbelief in the supernatural.

   Among his many questionable views, Lightfoot believed that the “speaking in unknown tongues” alluded to by Paul in his letter to the Corinthians, was nothing miraculous or extraordinary, but mere utterance in the Hebrew language. He writes: “We inquire not in how many languages they could speak, but how many they spake in the church; and we believe that they spake Hebrew only.” (Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations, Vol. 4, pg. 258).

   While Lightfoot did not outright deny the inspiration of the Bible, he is noted for stripping revelation of its supernatural elements, and bringing the doctrines of Scripture into accord with the laws of human reason. According to Lightfoot’s approach, the Scriptures were treated as divinely-endorsed human documents, and not as transcendent communications steeped in the miraculous and extraordinary.

   Fast-forward again to the 19th century. During this period, it became obvious that Preterism was growing alongside the skepticism of the Higher Critical schools, as something of a collateral movement. The relation between Preterism and Higher Criticism is evidenced in the works of liberal academics like Moses Stuart, Samuel Lee, and P.S. Desprez.

   But while their writings show how quickly the Preterist leaven was proliferating among academics, the damage it did within the church is not to be underestimated. Canon F.W. Farrar (1831-1903), an Anglican clergyman, had imbibed the poison of the critical schools. Thus his writings teem with a cold unbelief in the supernatural. Farrar went so far as to deny the authorship of the Book of Daniel, alleging that it was written by a “pious Jew” of the post-exilic period. Farrar disagreed that the “cutting off of the Messiah” (Dan. 9: 26) had anything to do with our Lord. He rather insisted that it pointed to the deposition and murder of the high priest Onias III. Farrar was also a universalist, who denied the doctrine of eternal punishment.

   The prime example of Preterist unbelief of that period, however, is seen in Scotch clergyman J. Stuart Russell’s 1878 book, The Parousia. In this tome Russell covertly attacked the inspiration of the Bible. Like Eusebius, Russell found the Apocalypse a perfect target for his critical marksmanship.

   Speaking of the “Revelation of Jesus Christ,” Russell writes: “It must be remembered that it is a poem rather than a history that we are now reading; a drama, rather than a journal of transactions, and that there is no book in which poetical and dramatic effect is more studied than in the Apocalypse.” (pg. 510).

   Hence, Russell basically denied that Revelation was the word of God. In fact, when he saw inconsistencies between his own interpretation and the actual facts, rather than question his Preterist theory he treated the Scriptures as human documents.

   Here’s a case in point. After doing his utmost to prove that the first beast of Revelation 13 was actually emperor Nero, Russell realized that Nero’s death in A.D. 68 did not fit in with his being “taken alive” at Jesus Christ’s alleged A.D. 70 parousia, as detailed in Revelation 19: 20. Russell’s explanation is as follows: “No doubt there is something here of an anachronism. The death of Nero is placed in the vision subsequent to the judgment of Jerusalem, whereas it actually preceded that event by two years or more. As we before remarked, something must be conceded to poetic license. In an epic, a drama, or a vision, it is unreasonable to require strict chrononolgical sequence.” (pg. 512).

   This type of interpretation was perfectly compatible with Russell’s disbelief in the Divine authorship of the Apocalypse. Russell seems to have viewed the prophets as nothing more than eastern poets gifted with a dose of prescience. He writes: “First of all, the utterances of the prophets are poetry; and secondly, they are Oriental poetry.” (pg. 350).

   Let the reader note that Russell’s work The Parousia is viewed among Preterist circles as the official “hornbook” of their teachings. It has had more impact upon the “Modern Preterist” movement than any other work. Partial Preterist Ken Gentry writes: “Although I do not agree with all the conclusions of The Parousia, I highly recommend this well-organized, carefully argued, and compelling written volume. It is one of the most persuasive and challenging books I have read on the subject, and has had great impact on my thinking.”

   Incidentally, Gentry is one of the main proponents of the view that Nero was the Antichrist. He, along with colleagues Gary DeMar and James Jordan, has helped produce books and videos espousing this view. As typical of his teaching, Gentry argues that the “huge hailstones, of one hundred pounds each” mentioned in Revelation 16: 21, were actually boulders thrown by Roman catapaults during the siege of Jerusalem! For more information on Gentry’s rationalism, see Dr. Thomas Ice’s article, 100 Pound Hailstones.

   After all this unbelief in the inspiration of Scripture, how refreshing it is when we come to the 20th century, and are met by a salutary wave of old-fashioned pre-millennialism. Speaking of the Apocalypse, Clarence Larkin, one of the chief proponents of the Dispensational view, wrote: “While the Book of Revelation contains many symbols, they are explained in the book, and we must not forget that it is not a mysterious book, for it is the Revelation of Jesus Christ, and is the only book in the Bible that promises a blessing to te reader. Rev. 1: 1-3. The Book is to be taken literally.” (Dispensational Truth, pg. 104).

   Any impartial student of church history will clearly see why Dispensationalism has grown so rapidly during the past decades, to the point where it is now the chief faith of Christendom. Because it is based on childlike belief in the Word of God, it must have a greater attraction for all kinds of men. The esoteric and elitist tendencies of Preterism, however, make the latter view a bad bet for the church. And this is probably why most of its adherents are numbered among liberal intellectuals.

   But although Preterism is not as widely accepted as it was during the 19th century, its modern proponents still carry on the old tradition of denial. And such behavior can only result in a dead faith, which is totally unable to save souls. I even go so far as to say that in many cases, Preterism may result in the loss of individual salvation. In the coming weeks I hope to bring out further the dangers of such theology. Until then, carefully study the above information, and you’ll see that Preterism is really a theology that is steeped in unbelief. And regardless of our professions, let it be known that no unbeliever shall inherit the kingdom of God.