Preterism - It Is About Time

Preterism . . . it's About Time by Brian Martin (After reading the article below, click on the links in it for more detailed articles on those particular topics. Although at this time these articles are all from the book Behind the Veil of Moses, we are not trying to "push" this particular book over others. Because we own the copyright it is the easiest and quickest text to post. We hope to add articles from others soon.) Have you become confused, perhaps even disillusioned, over the continuous exclamations that Jesus is about to return; confused over significant dates passing by, and we still haven’t been “raptured” away; how every headline is touted to be a fulfillment of Bible prophecy, making the Second Coming so close we can almost see it? If so, then it’s about time—about time you checked out Preterism. What is Preterism? It’s about time—the time that Jesus and the inspired authors of the New Testament said He would return. Have you ever noticed the multiple time statements in the New Testament that speak of Christ’s soon return? Near, soon, at hand, shortly, this generation, some of you standing here, etc. Nearly every New Testament book has at least one. Did He return during that generation, or didn’t He? Obviously He didn’t return in the manner in which we have been taught to expect that return. So what do we do with all of those time statements? Generally, we’ve been taught to give them alternate meanings—meanings that can encompass at least 2,000 years. But what if it’s not the time statements which need an alternate definition? What if our perception of the manner in which Jesus was to return is incorrect? Don’t think that is so far-fetched—the Jews missed their Messiah, not because He didn’t come at the time they expected Him, but because He didn’t come in the manner they expected Him. Dare we even entertain the thought that we may have done the same thing with His Second Coming? As an oversimplification, consider these opening verses from Revelation: The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants — things which must shortly take place. . . . Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. Rev 1:1 NKJV Did every eye see Jesus return on the clouds shortly after Revelation was written? Not according to the way we understand the terms “every eye shall see Him” and “shortly.” Therefore we must redefine at least one of these terms —but which one? Futurism tells us that it is fighting for the literal interpretation of the Bible when it states that “every eye” means that a physical, visible return of Christ will be seen by all. Therefore “shortly” must have some type of elastic meaning. For some reason Futurism is not so compelled to fight for the literal interpretation of time statements. Not just this time statement—all of the time statements in the New Testament regarding the Second Coming. But if we do take the time statement shortly literally, what is to be done with “every eye shall see Him”? Consider the following verse: I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened . . . . Eph 1:18 NASU Are we to believe that there are actually eyes on our hearts? If not, have we abandoned the literal interpretation of Scripture? Surely this verse speaks of spiritual discernment, which the NKJV confirms by translating it eyes of your understanding. So we see that some things can be “seen” even though they are not visible! Could this possibly be applied somehow to “every eye shall see Him”? What about the following verse: And he [John the Baptist] went into all the region around the Jordan , preaching a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, saying: “. . . And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.” Luke 3:3-4, 6 NKJV Here the inspired author tells us that this prophecy of Isaiah was fulfilled in the ministry of John the Baptist. Did all literal flesh literally see the salvation of God? Of course not. Could it be that, in fighting for the literal interpretation of Scripture, we have been "literalizing" the wrong portions? Make no mistake about it, some portion of our text (and the Second Coming as a whole) must have a spiritual meaning. We can’t say that every physical eye literally saw Jesus on literal clouds shortly (in the literal sense) after Revelation was written. But which do we “spiritualize”—the substance (or manner) of His return, or the timing? Traditionally we have been taught to spiritualize the timing. All of those inspired New Testament time statements don’t mean what we would normally, literally, take them to mean. However, consider the fact that God is often portrayed in Scriptures as “coming on the clouds” in judgment against His enemies and deliverance of His people (Ps 104:3; Isa 19:1; Joel 2:12; Nah 1:2-3; Zeph 1:14-15). Were those literal comings? Yes, there was a literal judgment and/or deliverance, but did anyone visibly see God? Consider also that there is not one verse in the New Testament which even hints that Christ’s return would be beyond the New Testament generation.

Space prohibits us from exploring the fact that the Bible never speaks of the “end of time,” but of the “time of the end”—a huge difference. Also, the Bible never speaks of the end of the world, but of the end of the age—not our present Christian age, which is everlasting (Heb 13:20 ), but the end of the Mosaic age of the Old Covenant. And consider that the New Testament generation was living in the last days (Acts 2:14 -17; Heb 1:1-2; 1 Pet 1:20 ), the mystery of lawlessness was already at work and being restrained (2 Thess 2:7) and many antichrists had come (1 Jn 2:18 ). These things do not belong to our generation, but to theirs. Add to this the fact that Jesus said that some of His audience would not taste death before they saw Him come in His kingdom (Matt 16:28 ). The term Preterism comes from the Latin word praeter, which means past. Unlike Futurism, which spiritualizes the time statements in order to put the fulfillment of prophecy in our future, Preterism interprets them literally, and thus believes that Bible prophecy about the Last Days was fulfilled in the New Testament generation—hence the word “past.” Futurism claims the substance of prophecy must be literal; therefore the time statements are not. Preterism, on the other hand, claims just the opposite—the time statements are literal, therefore at least some prophecies must have “spiritual” fulfillments. Which is correct? When we consider the facts that the New Testament gives spiritual fulfillments for Old Testament prophecies (e.g., My kingdom is not of this world; John the Baptist was “Elijah”), and never “spiritualizes” a time statement, we feel that Preterism is truer to Biblical precedent. If we maintain that the Second Coming entails the literal destruction of the earth and worldwide catastrophes, how is it that some of the Thessalonians thought that it had already taken place (2 Thess 2:1-2)? On the other hand, if the Second Coming follows the Old Testament precedents of God coming in judgment and deliverance, often via the agent of foreign armies, then we can see in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 the Second Coming of Christ within the New Testament generation. So, as you can see, Preterism is about time. And it’s about time for a Scriptural response to those who claim that Bible prophecy wasn’t fulfilled when it was supposed to be, and to those who are constantly claiming that it is being fulfilled in today’s headlines. Is it about time for you to explore Preterism further? For further study of Preterism, we recommend the following: What Happened in 70 A.D?, by Edward E. Stevens The Parousia of Christ, by J. Stuart Russell Behind the Veil of Moses, by Brian L. Martin