The Last Days (6) - Not Preterist

This analysis of the Last Days is not preterist. Anyway I do not like the term, as it does not make sense.

Interpretations of the apocalyptic books of the Bible have been divided into two approaches.

1. 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.
2. The futurist approach suggest that all the prophetic scriptures will be fulfilled in the future.

I dislike all labels, but these two are particularly stupid, because they whack the scriptures with an axe to pack them into a single box.

The Destruction of Jerusalem was a spiritual significant event, so it is natural that it would be prophesied. However, this was not the last significant spiritual event I history, so it is logical that many subsequent events would also be prophesied. Pushing all the prophetic scriptures into 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.

I prefer a common sense approach that 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.