Not Preterist
Interpretations of the apocalyptic books of the Bible have been divided into two approaches. The preterist approach says that all the prophetic passages were fulfilled in the first century through the rise of the church and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. The futurist approach suggests that all the prophetic scriptures will be fulfilled in the future.
All labels are destructive, but these two are particularly stupid, because they whack the scriptures up with an axe to get them into a single box.
My analysis of the Last Days in my book Times and Seasons is neither preterist nor futurist.
The Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was a spiritually significant event, so it had to be prophesied. However, it was not the last significant spiritual event in history, so it is logical that many subsequent events would also be prophesied. Pushing all the prophetic scriptures back to the first century is foolish.
On the other hand, pushing them all into the future is equally unwise. If Peter described an event as happening before his eyes (Acts 2:16-17) it would be unwise claim it will happen in the future. If Jesus says an event will be experienced by the generation listening to him (Matt 24:34) we should be careful about twisting his words to shift them into the future.
A common sense approach allows the scriptures to speak as they were written. Some will be fulfilled already and others await fulfilment in the future. Context and comparison will explain when they apply.
1 comment:
(Blessed..Saw this web bit. Jim)
Futurism Was, Is, and Is To Come
Preterists claim that the "Antichrist" and the "great tribulation" were fulfilled during the 70 AD period.
If so, why do we find that the arrival of the Antichrist was regarded as a future event by writers who lived during and after 70 AD?
Polycarp (70-167) wrote that "He comes as the Judge of the living and the dead."
Justin Martyr (100-168) said that "[Antichrist] shall venture to do unlawful deeds on the earth against us the Christians...."
Irenaeus (140-202) wrote that the ten kings (Rev. 17)"shall give their kingdom to the beast, and put the church to flight."
It's not true that Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) "revived" futurism because it was never lost during the Middle Ages or prior to that period of time.
Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153) stated: "There remains only one thing - that the demon of noonday [Antichrist] should appear."
Roger Bacon (1214-1274) spoke of "future perils [for the Church] in the times of Antichrist...."
John Wycliffe (1320-1384) referred to "the hour of temptation, which is coming upon all the world, Rev. iii."
Martin Luther (1483-1546): "[The book of Revelation] is intended as a revelation of things that are to happen in the future...."
(Google or Yahoo "Famous Rapture Watchers" to see quotes from many Christian leaders throughout the Church Age which prove that they expected a future Antichrist and a future great tribulation.)
Preterists use Matt. 24:34 ("This generation will not pass....") to try to prove a 70 AD fulfillment of "Antichrist." Since many of them see "these" (Matt. 25:46) fulfilled in the future in Rev. 20, why can't they apply futurism as easily to Matt. 24:34? After all, the word "this" is the singular form of "these"!
To see something that preterists, historicists, and futurists can all agree on, Google "Pretrib Rapture Secrets."
Post a Comment