Why I’m A Pre-Millennialist

   [Note: The following article was published a few months ago at Larry Siegle's blog, "Kingdom Victory." Since it correctly expresses my position on the futuricity of Daniel's 70th week, and has never been refuted by Preterists, I am here re-publishing it, with some minor revisions. Essentially, my position is the same as when I wrote this article. Until I see something from The Bible proving that the events of Daniel's 70th week happened in the first century, I will continue to hold to a Dispensational scheme of eschatology. The real issue, I think, involves who we believe more: Christ or Josephus.]

   As a former Hyper-preterist, I can certainly appreciate the arguments put forth by members of the movement, as to the second coming being a past event. After all, if “all these things” mentioned in Matthew 24: 1-34 really took place in A.D. 70 (which would include the one parousia mentioned in v. 3), then one must accept the logical consequences of his/her view and afirm that the Hyper-Preterist view is correct.

   Nevertheless, despite the evidence that I always see put forward by Preterists, there is no way I would ever return to preterism. And the reason is based on solid exegetical evidence. The evidence may not be apparent at first sight. But when one really gets down to studying the Old Testament prophets, a great number of truths crop up that make any kind of preterism an impossibility. Of course there is the claim made by Dispensationalists (to which I agree) that prophecies relating to the restoration of Israel remain, for the most part, unfulfilled. But these prophecies and predictions are too many to get into. To discuss them all would require the length, not of an article, but of a book. Therefore, in giving my reasons why I am a pre-millennialist, I will only focus on a few texts which tend to support the Pre-Millennial system of eschatology.

   As this article is mainly addressed to Preterists, I’ll start with a text on which we share some common ground. That text is Daniel 12: 1-2: “And at that time shall Michael the stand up, the great prince whih standeth for the children of thy people; and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

   This obviously describes the Great Tribulation predicted by Christ Himself. Moreover, the passage unmistakably places resurrection in connection with this tribulation. Now Christ said that the tribulation would be set off by the abomination of desolation (Matt. 24: 14). What is meant by the term “abomination of desolation?” A comparison of Scripture with Scripture would inform us that it is none other than the image of the beast which will be erected in the rebuilt temple of Jerusalem. Its placement will take occur in the midst of Daniel’s 70th week, triggering that time of “Jacob’s Trouble” (Great Tribulation) out of which Israel will be saved (see Jeremiah 30: 6-7).

   Notice that when Christ referenced the abomination of desolation, He said that it was the same one mentioned by Daniel the prophet. Appended to His words is the solemn injunction: “whoso readeth, let Him understand.” Whether Christ Himself said this, or it is an interpolation of Matthew, is not very important. However, I incline to the first view. Christ wanted us to understand that the Abomination of Desolation which He foresaw was the very subject of Daniel’s inspired predictions. This is the key element to understanding what the “abomination of desolation” really is. Keep it steadily in mind as we continue.

   Going back to the book of Daniel, we find this “abomination of desolation” mentioned four times. As we’ll see, these passages are all intimately related, and point to the times of which Christ spoke in His Olivet Discourse . Therefore, any alleged “past fulfillment” must be viewed as anticipatory, and not final.

   (Daniel 8: 11-14) “Yea, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of His sanctuary was cast down. And a host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground, and it practiced and prospered. Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saints which spake, How long shall the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot? And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.”

   (Daniel 9: 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, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined, shall be poured upon the desolate.”

   (Daniel 11: 31) “And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.”

   (Daniel 12: 11) “And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.”

   To understand these passages better, it is suggested that the reader study E.W. Bullinger’s two papers, “The Times and Numbered Days of Daniel” and “The Visions of Daniel Synchronous.” There is no doubt but that the four passages cited above speak of the same period of intense tribulation of which Christ prophesied. Therefore, when the Lord said that the tribulation would be set off by the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Daniel; and when going back to Daniel we find that this would take place in the “midst of the week,” leaving a remaining period of three-and-a-half years, or a half-week, until the “time of the end,” we conclude that the preterist view of Daniel’s 70 weeks is mistaken, and that the Dispensational/Pre-Millennial view is correct.

   We should keep in mind, of course, that the “2,300 days” of Daniel 8: 14 begin 220 days into the beginning of the 70th week; whereas the extra 75 days alluded to in Daniel 12: 11-12 extend beyond the close of the 70th week (see Bullinger’s papers). This leaves us a time-period of 42 months, or three-and-a-half years during which Antichrist (the little horn) will persecute the saints. This same period comes into play in John’s Apocalypse. In Revelation 11: 3, we read of the “two witnesses” bearing testimony during the 42 months. When their testimony is finished, “the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome and kill them.” Then after three-and-a-half days, they are resurrected (as per Daniel 12: 2) and ascend to heaven in a cloud (Rev. 11: 11-12). It is at this point that the seventh angel (last trump) sounds and the “kingdoms of this world become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ.” Compare with Daniel 7: 25-27, which refers to the same “42 months” as a “time and times and the dividing of time.”

   The inter-relation of these several texts is further confirmed when we see that the beast from the bottomless pit is described as functioning for exactly “42 months.” Nobody who compares Revelation 13 with the above Scriptures in Daniel will doubt that it is the same events of which both prophets are writing. “And there was given unto Him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and power was given unto him to continue for forty and two months. And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, and His tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them; and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations” (Rev. 13: 5-7).

   When, we ask, does this persecution commence? It begins in the “midst of the week” when the daily sacrifice is taken away and the abomination that maketh desolate is erected in the holy place of the temple. Christ Himself said that this would mark the beginning of the Great Tribulation (Matt. 24: 14-21). And Daniel, in ch. 12, references the same exact period of time. This period, moreover, ends in a resurrection of many from the dust of the earth. Let us not wrest words, but believe what the Holy Spirit has recorded for our edification. Did any such events as mentioned in the inspired prophecies of Daniel occur during the Jewish war?

   The answer is a firm no. Although it is sometimes alleged that the “abomination of desolation” was fulfilled during the Roman campaign against Judea, a closer comparison of Scripture with Scripture makes such a scenario impossible. For we look in vain for any “prince” who made the daily sacrifice cease in A.D. 67, or for any persecution of the saints by this aforesaid “prince” (identified with the “beast” and “little horn“) which began at that time and ended in A.D. 70. These main ingredients are needed, however, to support a Preterist view.

   But matters become more complicated. For Preterists believe that Christ was the “he” of Daniel 9: 27, and that after “confirming a covenant with many” for “one week,” He was “cut off” in the midst of the week, thus causing the temple sacrifices to cease as a divine appointment. This view, while cleverly framed, breaks apart under closer examination. For, in the first place, it is expressly declared that Messiah would be cut off “after the threescore and two weeks“–that is, upon the termination of 69 weeks–and not in the middle of the 70th.

   Secondly, if Christ made a covenant with many for “one week,” the Scripture gives us no clue of what this covenant consisted or when it was made. Such an important fact would not have been left out of the record of our Lord’s earthly ministry. Christ came to confirm the promises made to the fathers (Romans 15: 8), and to offer Himself a sacrifice for the sins of the world–not to make a one-week covenant.

   On the other hand, Antichrist is described in Daniel as entering into a league with the Jewish people. “And after the league made with him, he shall work deceitfully: for he shall come up, and shall become strong with a small people” (Dan. 11: 22). This same “vile person” is depicted as having his heart set against the “holy covenant.” After a flurry of indignation, “arms will stand on his part,” and “they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength,” and “take away the daily sacrifice,” placing the “abomination that maketh desolate” (Daniel 11: 28-31). It is this very breaking of the covenant by Antichrist which Gabriel describes in Daniel 9: 27–and not the crucifixion of Christ.

   Thirdly, as the taking away of the daily sacrifice is accompanied by the placement of the abomination of desolation, the Preterist view forces the student to do two things:– 1): argue for a fulfillment of the abomination of desolation in A.D. 30, when Christ was crucifed. And– 2): place a 36-year gap between the first and last halves of the week. But Christ declares the abomination as the event which begins the tribulation. Hence, His own interpretation links the first and last halves of the week together. Lest we be lost in confusion, we have only two choices. The first is to argue for a fulfillment of the 70th week in A.D. 33, which theory the Olivet Discourse, the prophecies of Daniel, and the Book of Revelation all make impossible. The second is to see the 70th week as still future. I’ll leave the reader to judge which view is in better alignment with common-sense, logical consistency, and the Word of God.

   All Christians have for determining whether or not the 70th week was fulfilled in the first century is the inspired New Testament record. But where the Bible is silent, secular history affords no help. The main problem with the Preterist view is that it ignores the fact that the return of Christ was conditional on Jewish national repentance (Hosea 5: 15; Matthew 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21). Since the nation rejected the kingdom in A.D. 63 (see Acts 28: 25-26), they rejected the coming of the King, and therefore all has been postponed. Incidentally, this is the only view which honors a consistent literal interpretation of the Scriptures, and one that relies on direct Scriptural support, and not clever theorizing. Therefore, it is to be accepted by all reverent students of God’s Word.

   Before I close this article, allow me to say that it was Philip Mauro’s book on the Seventy Weeks that led me into Preterism. At that time I knew very little of prophecy, and was impressionable to his arguments. Now, however, I see that book as a very poor and disjointed study. Ironically, it was Dispensationalists like E.W. Bullinger and Clarence Larkin, as well as early church fathers like Irenaeus and Hippolytus, that led me ultimately away from the Preterist view, and toward a futuristic interpretation of the 70 weeks of Daniel. Because of the inconsistencies of the Preterist view, which cannot be reconciled except by ignoring the clear testimony of sacred Scripture and enforcing hypothetical views of fulfillment, I remain, and shall always remain, a died-in-the-wool Pre-Millennialist.

Apotelesmatic Truth (Part 3)

  As we continue our studies of Apotelesmatic Truth, many will probably be asking whether Christ was indeed willing to return in the first century. The answer is obvious to anyone who studies the inspired New Testament record. Of course, we must realize that Christ’s return was conditional upon the repentance of the Jewish nation. Wherefore Christ, upholding the text of Hosea 5: 15, solemnly declared: “Ye will not see me henceforth, till ye may say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23: 39).

   On the Day of Pentecost, Peter re-affirmed this condition, telling Israel that Christ was now exalted, and ready to return upon the repentance of His people (Acts 3: 19-26). One can hardly understand the events of the Book of Acts properly until this one underlying fact is realized. In this study we shall give more proof that during the first century the “time was at hand” for Christ to return; and that because Israel formally rejected the kingdom, their city was destroyed and His second coming postponed to a future time.

   In order to know what the term “restitution of all things” means, it is necessary to understand what the “Kingdom” is all about. This can best be done by tracing the doctrine back to its very source. The kingdom began in the Garden of Eden, and involved Adam’s sovereignty over all creation (Gen. 1: 26-28), which God freely gave Him on the condition of obedience. When Adam fell, however, he and Eve forfeited the kingdom, and were cast out of God’s presence. God promised Adam that the kingdom would be restored by the Seed of the Woman (Gen. 3: 15); but he didn’t tell our first parents when.

   Until the Seed of the Woman fully accomplishes His work (and this involves two advents), God has chosen to mediate His kingdom through men. After the eviction of Adam and Eve from Eden, God brought a flood upon the old world, but saved Noah and his house. After the flood God transferred the kingdom to Noah (Gen. 9: 1-2); but as the sequel shows, Noah’s posterity forfeited the kingdom also, and the confusion of tongues ensued (Gen. 11). This ended the Dispensation of Human Government.

   As we know, God’s next choice was Israel. However, the intervening Patriarchal Dispensation was necessary to prepare the way for the special nation through which God was to bless mankind. The Legal Dispensation began after God saved Israel from Egyptian bondage. In the wilderness of Sinai he made a covenant with them, promising that they would inherit the kingdom upon the one condition of national obedience.

  (Exodus 19: 5-6) “Now therefore if ye will obey my voice, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine. And ye shall be unto Me a nation of kings and priests, and an holy nation.“

  In all of Israel’s history, however, they never acquired permanent possession of the kingdom, because they broke Jehovah’s covenant again and again, defiling His name. Remember, the law can convict of sin, but it gives the sinner no strength to meet its conditions. Therefore, when the promised Seed (Jesus Christ) arrived to fulfill the promises made at the beginning, and supplemented by later promises, the nation rejected Him, and Christ was crucified. Since Messiah’s own people rejected Him, He removed His throne to heaven, and on the basis of His vicarious sacrifice, which was “well pleasing” to the Father, a throne of judgment was exchanged for a throne of grace.

   This brings us to Pentecost. Now with the blessings of the Holy Spirit available to regenerate the nation, the time was ready to make Israel that holy nation, if they only would repent and accept Jesus as Messiah. If they did this, He would return and dwell among them, thus fulfilling all the Old Testament prophecies of Israelite restoration. For Christ came to confirm, and not to abrogate, the promises made to the Fathers (Romans 15: 8).

   To Peter had been given the keys of the kingdom (not the church), which he first used on Pentecost, preaching that Christ’s return was at hand, and that they must repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus for remission of sins (Acts 2: 38-39). But because the leaders of the nation (and later the people) continued to reject Christ, the second coming never materialized.

   The Book of Acts is the record of Israel’s final offer of the Kingdom, and the struggle that went on between Christ’s apostles and the Jewish nation, as the former labored to bring about the promised coming of Messiah. Hence, the book begins with the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and Peter’s subsequent admonition to repent and be saved. It ends with Israel’s formal rejection of the kingdom in A.D. 63. After that date the Kingdom was no longer imminent. This fact may be verified by carefully studying the New Testament writings dated after Acts 28. These include Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians, Philemon, Titus, and 1 & 2 Timothy. All other New Testament writings (including the Book of Revelation) can be proved to have been written prior to A.D. 63.

   But that must form the topic of a separate article. What we are dealing with now is the imminent coming of Christ as it was taught and believed during the Acts period. Paul’s epistle to the Romans, written in A.D. 58, affords awesome proof that Christ’s coming was indeed at hand, and would have been brought about if only the Jewish nation had fulfilled the condition of national obedience. Of all texts, one of the most revealing is Romans 8: 22, in which Paul wrote that the creation was then undergoing birth-pains. The deliverance was about to happen!

   Because the kingdom had been formally passed on to Israel by way of the Mosaic charter, the hope of all creation was (as it still is) bound up with the hope of Israel. Therefore, when we come to study the Book of Romans, it is essential that we read it in its historical and chronological context, as this alone will reveal to us the basis of Paul’s expectation that the kingdom might at any time be manifested. Anyhow, Paul’s statement that the creation was then in “earnest expectation” ought at least to motivate our curiosity. What was he talking about?

   Let us examine the historical details. Paul’s epistle to the Romans was written in the Spring of A.D. 58, during his three-month stay in Greece (Acts 20: 3). He had left Ephesus after making quite a stir; and a reading of Acts 18 & 19 will reveal that the Gospel was making serious headway. When Sceva and his seven sons were confounded (Acts 19: 13-16), the name of Jesus was magified insomuch that many who believed “came, and confessed, and showed their deeds” (Acts 19: 18). Books were burned, and witchcrafts repudiated. Conversions were made in unprecedented numbers. “So mightily grew the Word of God, and prevailed” (Acts 19: 20).

   Now this was just the sort of crisis that could have tipped the balance, and brought about the repentance of the Jewish nation. But there were powerful forces working to prevent Paul’s labors from reaching fruition. After Demetrius the silversmith and his guild violently opposed the Gospel (Acts 19: 23-41), Paul decided that it was time to go into Macedonia (Acts 20: 20); something he had already purposed while in Ephesus (Acts 19: 21). This resulted in a three-month stay in Greece, where at Corinth, Paul penned his epistle to the Romans.

   During this time, the controversy between Paul and the Grecian Jews reached a head, though we don’t know all the details of what happened at Corinth. It must have been along the lines of his previous endeavors, for the Jews “laid wait for him” as he was about to sail into Syria. However, Paul changed his mind, and passed back through Macedonia (Acts 20: 3). This sudden change of itinerary, brought about by Providential design, must have saved his life.

   These facts give us something of a historical setting for the “time statements” found in Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Although verses such as 13: 11 and 16: 20 are often taken by Preterists as pointing to the destruction of Jerusalem, the theory is hardly worth our attention. An event twelve years in the distance, and still contingent on whether Israel would accept or reject the Gospel, could hardly have occupied Paul’s thoughts when he wrote his epistle.

   No. When Paul said that the creation was groaning in birthpains, the destruction of Jerusalem was the very farthest thing from his mind. Rather, he was thinking of something that concerned his readers at that very time. And this was none other than the impending crisis between Paul and the nation of Israel. Would they obey the apostolic admonition to repent? or wouldn’t they? The matter was still unsettled in A.D. 58.

    At that time, the deliverance of the whole creation was about to be wrought! But it could only be accomplished through the nation to which God had transferred His kingdom by way of promise. Already Peter had written to the Jews of the Dispersion to tell them that “salvation was ready to be revealed” (1 Peter 1: 5), and that they had the promise of being that “holy nation” and “royal priesthood” that God had called them to be (1 Peter 2: 9). But this was dependent on an upcoming “fiery trial” (1 Peter 4: 12) by which Israel’s dross would be purged away, that the nation might shine forth as pure gold (Zeph. 3: 13; Mal. 3: 3: 3-4). This trial belongs to the last seven years of Israel’s history, which they forfeited in A.D. 63. Hence, it is now in abeyance.

   When Paul wrote Romans the glory was about to be manifested. But fulfillment hinged on the outcome of his labors; and we see the outcome four years later, when Israel formally rejected the kingdom (Acts 28: 23-25). It was then that Paul’s ministry to the Jews ended, and the offer of an imminent coming of Christ was withdrawn. Jeshurun surely “found” his life. But he subsequently “lost” it in the destruction of Jerusalem.

   Hence, the then-present [A.D. 58] reality of a creation groaning to be delivered, and entirely dependent upon Israel’s repentance, cannot be understood in the same sense after A.D. 63. There was a deliverance about to take place, but it proved a stillborn birth. If Israel had accepted the apostolic testimony, we are fully persuaded that the 70th week of Daniel would have commenced in accordance with the Apocalyptic prophecies, and Christ would have returned in in A.D. 70.

   But since Israel rejected the Gospel, their city was destroyed, and the second coming of Christ postponed to a future time (see Matt. 22: 1-10). The present Dispensation of the Mystery is a parenthetical period that comes in between Israel’s “rejection” and “renewal.” We know not when it will end. But after the church is raptured, the 70th week will begin, and the first-fruits offering of national repentance will be waved before God. And then, after Israel passes through the final affliction of the Great Tribulation, the new birth of the nation will come, Christ will return to save His people, and all the promises made to the Fathers will be fulfilled to the very letter. Maranatha!

“The Time Is Short”

   One of the many “timing texts” which Preterists employ is Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 7: 29 that “the time is short.” Preterists apparently believe that this points to the destruction of Jerusalem. But as with other timing texts, this is one is wrenched completely from its chronological and historical bearings, and placed in a false context. As we’ll see, this text has nothing to do with A.D. 70, but supports the Apotelesmatic Interpretation of Christ’s second coming.

   I am pushing this issue for all it’s worth, because for the very first time in the history of the Preterist movement, orthodox Christians have a real answer regarding all of the timing-texts. In my studies of Preterist material, I have seen several lists of such texts put forth, but never once have I seen them chronologically and systematically arranged according to the historical events of the Acts period. Had this been done, the discrepancies and inconsistencies of the Preterist view would immediately become apparent.

   To understand what Paul meant, let us give a brief overview of the conditions then current. The first epistle to the Corinthians was written in Spring of A.D. 57, during Paul’s two-year stay in Ephesus (see Acts 19: 10). This was his second visit to the city, his first taking place after his departure from Achaia, where he established the Corinthian church and taught there for eighteen months (Acts 18: 11). Between Paul’s first and second visit to Ephesus, while he was away in Galatia and Phrygia, strengthening the disciples (Acts 18: 23), Apollos came to Ephesus. After first being instructed by Aquila and Priscilla, he passed into Corinth where he ministered to the church, and “mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, showing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ” (Acts 18: 28).

    When Paul came to Ephesus the second time, he stayed there for two years, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. It was during his stay here that he received a letter from the Corinthian church asking advice on some pressing issues, one of them being marriage. But the church did not make known to him the divisions and disruptions that were already occurring among them. The spiritual state of affairs of the Corinthian church was made to known to Paul by visitors from Achaia (1 Cor. 1: 11; 5: 1; 11: 18). Hence, when Paul penned his first epistle to the Corinthians, he not only reproved them concerning their various departures from sound orthodoxy, but also addressed their concerns regarding marriage. Should they marry, or shouldn’t they?

    Paul responded by saying it was better to abide even as himself, and remain unmarried. For there was tribulation in the offing, and the “time was short” (1 Cor. 7: 28-29). But what kind of tribulation was Paul talking about? We agree with Preterists that it must have been the Great Tribulation. However, a bit of reflection will tell us that it could have nothing to with events that were (according to Preterists) ten years away. It was an IMMINENT CRISIS Paul was speaking of. It was something that could occur any month, any week, any day. And we know exactly how that crisis would have been brought about. For the Gospel was still being offered to the “Jew first,” and receiving much opposition (See Acts 18: 6-7; 19: 8). It was yet uncertain whether the nation would receive it.

    In order for the Lord of the Harvest to send His Son, 144,000 saved Israelites were needed as a first-fruits offering to God (see Rev. 14: 1-4). Had this number been met, the events denoted by Christ as the “beginnings of sorrows” (Matt. 24: 7-8; Revelation 6: 1-8) would have taken place, and all things have rushed to a glorious consummation. Michael would have stood up for the children of Israel, and Satan been ejected from the heavenlies (Dan. 12: 1; Rev. 12: 7-9). This would have triggered the period known as the “Great Tribulation,” after which Israel would have been saved, at Jesus Christ’s return from heaven. Of course, we now know that the required first-fruits number was never filled up. However, until Israel formally rejected the kingdom in A.D. 63, the coming of Christ was still imminent. In other words, it was still possible.

    The above facts provide the perfect backdrop for Paul’s statement that “the time was short.” The Corinthian Christians, like their brethren in Thessalonica, were waiting for the Apocalypse of Jesus Christ (see 1 Cor. 1: 7; 1 Thess. 1: 10). This was not something that would take place thirteen years later, but which might happen very soon! However, it was all dependent upon Israel’s acceptance of the Gospel. There was Christ’s emphatic statement that the nation would not see Him again until they repented (Matt. 23: 39). The original purpose of the preaching of the Gospel was to bring this national repentance about.

    As proof that our position is correct, we remind the reader that during this period the baptism of John was still being administered (Acts 18: 25; 19: 3). Why? Because in order for the Day of the Lord to come, Elijah had to first appear as a herald to “turn heart of the fathers to the children, and and the heart of the children to their fathers” (Malachi 4: 5).

   But, you say, Elijah already did come in the person of John the Baptist. Therefore, the Day of the Lord had to happen in the first century. No it didn’t! Because the one condition necessary for John’s the Baptist’s fulfillment of that role was never met. The condition was that Israel receive him. “And IF YE WILL RECEIVE it, this is Elias, who was for to come” (Matt. 11: 14). Because Israel had not yet received John the Baptist as Elijah (cf. Matt. 17: 12), his baptism was still being administered! This lends strong support to our view that the required first-fruits number was still lacking when Paul wrote to the Corinthians. These saved Israelites were being added every day (cf. James 1: 18). But they were just as quickly falling away!

   Nevertheless, in A.D. 57 things were not entirely hopeless. The contention between Paul and the Jews had not yet reached a crisis; though during this period Paul must have felt some anxiety concerning his impending visit to Jerusalem (Acts 18: 21; 19: 21). For this was to be the decisive factor that would settle whether or not Israel was ready to accept or reject Peter’s admonition to repent (Acts 3: 19-21).

   If they had repented, the events of the Apocalypse would have begun, and Jesus Christ have returned at the close of the 70 weeks. But since they rejected the Gospel, Paul pronounced upon them the sentence of judicial blindness (Acts 28: 26-27), and further progression toward the sunteleia was halted. It was then that the present Dispensation began, and God’s eternal purpose revealed for the very first time in the prison epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians). These things could not be made known until the Gospel had been rejected by Israel.

    After A.D. 63 there is a conspicuous absence of so-called “timing texts” in the epistles of Paul. Since Israel rejected the Gospel in Acts 28, the offer an an imminent parousia was necessarily withdrawn. It was then that Paul unfolded the doctrines of grace, later giving instructions for orderly church government. No longer were Christians waiting for an “any-moment” tribulation and Apocalypse, but they had a new and better hope held out to them, consisting of an “ex-anastasis” and “calling on high” (Phil. 3: 11, 14). This is our hope today.

   Interestingly, in the later prison epistles, written in A.D. 67-68, there is a total absence of any indication that the “Great Tribulation” was impending over the church. And yet when Paul wrote to Timothy, Jerusalem was under siege! If Paul had thought that Christ’s coming and the investment of Jerusalem were inseparably connected, then why would he pass this over? Rather, he wishes Christians to live a “peaceable and quiet life” (1 Tim. 2: 2), and advises that the younger women “marry and bear children” (1 Tim. 5: 14). Surely these are not the statements of one who thought that an eschatological crisis was at hand!

   As the reader will see, we are soundly thrashing the doctrines of Preterism. Even the most hardened proponents of the system will have to grudgingly admit that we are bringing some powerful arguments to bear against the concept of an A.D. 70 parousia. Only date the various time-texts and place them in their true historical and chronological settings, and Preterism will quickly crumble. As a theology that depends upon sweeping generalities, any attention to details must prove fatal. Paul’s admonition that “the time is short” is but one example of a hundred which can be adduced to show that Hyper-Preterism is a fraudulent system, and one that will not bear a critical examination of the evidence.

Apotelesmatic Truth (Part 2)

   One of the foremost weapons against Preterist theology is the principle of “Apotelesmatic Fulfillment.” This holds that the imminent first-century coming of Christ was postponed due to Israel’s failure to meet the required condition of national repentance. Far from being any newfangled theology, the concept was systematically laid out by E.W. Bullinger in his 1911 work, The Foundations of Dispensational Truth. In this book Dr. Bullinger examines the various “time texts” used by Preterists to posit a first-century coming of Christ. Bullinger shows that all of these texts denoting “imminency” had sole reference to the 40 years of Israel’s probation, during which the kingdom “drew nigh” to them. But because of their refusal to repent, their city was destroyed, and the second coming postponed to a future time.

  Because this principle clears up all the difficulties connected with Preterist theology, and allows for a consistent “grammatical, historical, contextual” exegesis of the Scriptures, I have decided to write a series of papers on “Apotelesmatic Truth.” My purpose in these articles is to show that Dispensationalism (as Bullinger taught it) is superior to Preterism, and in perfect accord with the truths revealed in the Scriptures.

   When we go back to the Old Testament, we find that the promise of God coming to dwell with His people was intimately connected with Israel’s calling as a nation (Leviticus 26: 1-12). However, the condition was national obedience. Christ did not come to destroy the law and the prophets (Matt. 5: 17), but to fulfill them, and confirm the promises made to the Fathers (Rom. 15: 8). In order to “fulfill” the law, it was necessary for Christ to uphold the conditions of the Mosaic charter. This He did when taught that repentance was necessary to inheriting the Kingdom (see Matt. 4: 17).

   But we must understand what the “kingdom” is all about. It has to do with the sphere of earthly dominion forfeited by Adam when he fell. This sovereignty was (and is) to be reclaimed by the Second Adam, the Son of Man (see Psalm 8). But when the fullness of time arrived, He came unto His own, and His own received Him not (John 1: 11). Yes, the kingdom drew near to Israel. It was already “among them” in the person of the King (Luke 17: 21). But because of Israel’s unrepentance and rejection of their Messiah, He removed His throne into heaven, to reign over the Gentiles.

   These truths were played out in the history of Joseph. Because Joseph’s brethren would not have “this man” to reign over them (Gen. 37: 8; Luke 19: 14), He was cast out, and later exalted among the Gentiles. The type shows us that Israel’s rejection was essential to accomplishing God’s purposes concerning the church. But the national rejection was progressive, taking place over a forty year period. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was the fruit of which Christ’s crucifixion in A.D. 30 was the seed. During the forty year interval, Christ’s return was constantly proclaimed as “about to come.” But the condition was national repentance.

   Instead of preaching a new message at Pentecost, Peter merely re-affirmed Christ’s statement that “Ye shall not see Me henceforth till ye say, Blessed is He that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt. 23: 39). Now that Christ’s sacrifice for sin had been accomplished, and the Lord exalted to His Father’s throne, the time of His return was at hand. But Peter preached the necessity of individual and national repentance. As repentant individuals, they would receive the Holy Ghost (Acts 2: 38). But by repenting nationally, Jesus Christ would be “sent,” and the restitution of all things would take place (Acts 3: 19-21). If only they had hearkened to Peter’s admonitions!

   When Peter’s ministry in the land was rejected with the murder of James the brother of John, and Peter’s own imprisonment (Acts 12), Paul was then sent to the Dispersion. During the entire Dispensation of Acts, the Gospel was preached to the Jews first, then the Gentiles. Paul did not change this order, until Israel formally rejected the offer of the kingdom, and their judicial hardening began. The book of Acts closes abruptly with Israel’s rejection of the Gospel (Acts 28: 25-28). This occurred in A.D. 63, leaving just enough room for Daniel’s 70th week to be incorporated into the 40-year period of probation, and thus fulfill the type played out by Israel’s entrance into “the land.” But since the Jews did not repent, the offer of the imminent coming was withdrawn. Because the nation chose to follow Moses and not Christ, their city was destroyed, and since then, the kingdom has been in abeyance.

   These principles will explain why the second coming was always spoken of as being “imminent” in the first century. They will also explain why there was no eschatological coming of Christ in A.D. 70. All hinged upon Israel’s repentance, and in A.D. 63 the matter was settled. They chose their own way, and like Moses, they died in “the wilderness.” But after the type of “Joseph and his brethren,” Christ will be made known to them “the second time” (Acts 7: 13), that is, when He returns (Zech. 12: 10; Matthew 24: 30; Rev. 1: 7).

    Meanwhile, the last seven years of Israel’s history are held in reserve, and will be fulfilled when the present Dispensation of the Mystery (Eph. 3: 9) is finished. Then the age-times, which were broken off in A.D. 63, will take up their course again. It is with this final seven years that the Apocalypse deals. While I believe that book was written around A.D. 62, the date really isn’t important. The point to keep in mind is that the book is entirely prophetic, from 1: 3 onward, and that it contains the last seven years of Israel’s history.

   In studying the principles of Apotelesmatic Fulfillment, we begin to see the Scriptures harmonize in a wonderful manner. Things begin to clear up and make sense, whereas they didn’t before. Now we know why Jesus Christ told John that, “The time is at hand” (Rev. 1: 3). The time WAS at hand! But we mustn’t forget that the Mosaic charter was still in force, as well as the conditions connected therewith. The events described in the Apocalypse never materialized because the one condition needed to set them in motion was never met.

   Because the nation refused to repent, the age stopped running in A.D. 63, and that which had been hidden in God from the foundation of the world (Eph. 3: 4-5) revealed for the very first time in Paul’s prison epistles (Ephesians, Colossians, Philippians). If Israel had not rejected the offer of the kingdom, the riches of this valley of the Mystery (the church) would never have been revealed. But we rejoice that they have! We are now traversing this valley, and know not when our sojourn will be over. Yet we press forward for the prize of our “calling on high” (Phil. 3: 14) waiting for our bodies to be changed by a glorious transformation and resurrection (Phil. 3: 21). Then when these things have happened, the age-times will re-commence, and the last seven years of Israel’s history be fulfilled according to the Apocalyptic narrative. And Christ’s coming will happen “on time” and according to schedule. Maranatha!