WHEN CONTEXT BECOMES PRETEXT IN ESCHATOLOGY
by
Walt Hibbard
________________________________________________________
This article is about how Christians seek to determine
the proper interpretation of certain key passages in the prophetic Scriptures. Often
this debate, which takes on many shapes, sizes, colors and flavors, extends into every known camp of eschatological learning. No one group can say that they have come to a consensus of understanding, even on
some of the basic issues. As a result many scholars in each of the various camps,
whether pre- or post-trib, pre-mil, a-mil, or post-mil, find themselves holding views that are diverse from other scholars
in their group.
From the viewpoint of the man-in-the-pew, or even the
lay scholar, all forms of futurist prophetic interpretation are in a hopeless maze of disarray. Many of these seekers after truth have become so disillusioned and confused about Bible prophecy that they
adopt the “pan-mil” view. They hasten to explain that this means
that everything will pan out in the end.
While such a conclusion as adopting the “pan-mil”
view is usually limited to lay people, this writer has heard even pastors and seminary professors speak in a similar manner. They say that perhaps the answer is a synthesis of the futurist, historicist, idealist,
and preterist views. Yet such a “solution” results in contradictions
and confusion between interpretation and application. Clearly this can not be
correct.
Sensing the differing opinions among equally dedicated
scholars, some Reformed pastors try to minimize the issue by suggesting that eschatology is really not that important and
any view within the bounds of creedal orthodoxy is acceptable. But if R. C. Sproul,
Sr. is correct, fully two thirds of the New Testament relates directly or indirectly to eschatology, making this subject hardly
minor or unimportant. Other scholars would go even further, saying that nearly
100% of the New Testament can be assigned to eschatological significance when understood properly.
For the past couple decades or longer, a growing number
of Christians, including scholars, pastors and Bible students of many denominations, have begun to discover the preterist
view. Instead of approaching eschatology from any of several futurist views,
they have come to see that many previously overlooked New Testament passages point to a past fulfillment before the end of
the first century. On the surface this rediscovered older view would seem to
provide help in solving the ongoing dilemma of how to interpret Bible prophecy.
Yet even here, by no means has a consensus of opinions
been formulated. Following the example of other interpreters of prophecy, a group
of scholars who like to call themselves “preterists,” splinter themselves into several groups. There are those who would have us believe that by definition a preterist is someone who believes that most of the Book of Revelation has already been fulfilled.
Others see the Book of Revelation itself demanding that
all the material within its covers must find fulfillment “very soon,”
“quickly,” or “at hand” from the viewpoint of its author. These
scholars accept the common dictionary definition of the word as those who teach that all
of the Book of Revelation has already been fulfilled. So we have both partial
preterists and Preterists, each group attempting to grab onto the term “Preterist” for themselves, and assigning
other terms, often pejorative in nature, to those who differ with them.
An ever-growing number of scholars have come to recognize
the significance of preterist studies as a key to unlocking the long concealed mysteries of Bible prophecy fulfillment. One could hope that this rediscovery of crucial interpretative elements would one
day bring together the many fragments of understanding into a truly Christian position.
At this writing, however, no such meeting of the minds is likely to happen very soon.
The purpose of this paper is to try to determine why these interpretative hang-ups remain within broadly preterist circles, preventing unity, harmony and even
fellowship from reigning supreme. Could it be that the one word that scholars on both sides of the fence love to throw at each other needs to be looked at more carefully? It is the word context!
The partial preterists accuse the Preterists of forcing
all the prophetic texts into the A.D. 70 time period regardless of the context. They
state their own position as follows:
Dr. Kenneth Gentry writes: “I hold that passages
specifically delimiting the time-frame by temporal indicators (such as ‘this generation,’ ‘shortly,’
‘at hand,’ ‘near,’ and similar wording) are to be applied to A.D. 70, but similar sounding passages may or may not be so applied.” (A
Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism, sub-heading entitled Hermeneutic Failure)
C. Jonathin Seraiah writes: “Each passage must be
interpreted in its own context. The comparison of other Scripture passages for
help in interpreting ‘nearness’ only extends to passages of similar content;
we cannot assume a passage that does not mention ‘nearness’ is implying it, unless we have biblical justification.” (The End of All Things: A Defense of the Future, pg. 98)
Mr. Seraiah adds: “if a text says something is ‘near,’
then we must accept it as true. If, however, the text does not make any reference
to ‘nearness,’ we must not assume it is controlled by the ‘near’ statements found elsewhere and thus seek to interpret it as having happened in the past.” (Ibid, pg. 102)
So we are to understand that Dr. Gentry demands that an
imminency word or phrase must be stated in the immediate context of the passage
in order to be assigned to the first century period. Or, as Mr. Seraiah implies,
we are to automatically assign an end of the material world time-frame to all prophetic passages in the absence of a specific mention of a “nearness” limitation. Both writes,
therefore, are driven by questionable methods in determining which context to apply to a given New Testament text.
Yet the careful Bible student will search the New Testament
in vain to find even one clear statement that unmistakably teaches that the Second
Advent, the Resurrection of the Dead, or the Judgment will be fulfilled at the end of history!
Numerous scholars, all of whom would be anxious to find Scripture that would settle this argument once and for all,
have admitted this observation. (However, if a reader of this paper is able to
find such a text or passage, by all means contact this writer without delay with full details.)
Rather the opposite is true. Carefully note the following Bible verses that teach that the world as we know it, the planet on which
we live, will never end or be destroyed. Refer to: Ps. 78:69; 89:36-37; 93:1; 96:10; 104:5; 119:90; 148:4,6; Eccl. 1:4; Eph. 3:21 and others.
Isn’t it ironic that in some churches each Sunday,
the words from the Ephesians passage are repeated by the congregation as “Unto him be glory in the church by Christ
Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.”? Yet no one notices any inconsistency when the pastor chooses his text from II Peter
3 and proclaims that this earth is one day going to be burned up, or that history some day will come to an end.
So, if there is no
Scriptural support for teaching that Christ and His apostles focused on an “end of the world” fulfillment,
or that such a concept as “the end of this material world” even exists, why do the vast majority of scholars rely
so heavily on it? Is it possible that the age-old phrase, “the end of the
world,” has its roots in Greek philosophy and from that crossed over into the minds of the early church fathers and
to scholars up to this present day? The scholars who worked on the King James
Version of the Bible have perpetuated this error by translating the term in this way instead of as “the end of the age”
as all the more recent translators. The teaching that life on this earth will
one day end is derived more from philosophical considerations than from direct Biblical support.
The Jew of old spoke of two ages, “this present
age and the age to come.” The former referred to the Mosaic Covenant era
of their day and the latter to the era of the forthcoming reigning Messiah. By
not recognizing how the Jews used these terms, modern day scholars fall into the trap of defining the term “last days”
as relating to the supposed end of our New Covenant age. The writer to the Hebrews is careful to inform us that the days that Christ ministered to His Old Covenant
people on this earth, prior to A.D. 70, were the “last days” in the minds of the New Testament writers (Heb. 1:2). The definition of the term itself points to an end to whatever era is the subject
under discussion. The Old Covenant era ended in A. D. 70. Peter lends further support to a proper understanding of the term in I Peter 1:20 when he writes, “He
indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these
last times for you.” Clearly the New Testament writers had the Old Covenant age in mind when employing this term.
So if determining the context of various New Testament passages is the key to arriving at the correct interpretation of the prophetic
Scriptures, just how do we find out which passages apply to the first century period, and which do not? This is really not difficult to determine if we begin with the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus.
We will, therefore, refer to some of Jesus’ words
as recorded for us in the Gospels. I will place a limit of only four verses for
the sake of brevity.
Matt. 10:23
“For assuredly, I say unto you, you will not have gone through the
cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”
Matt. 16:28
“Assuredly, I say to you, there
are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”
Matt. 24:34
“Assuredly, I say to you, this
generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place.”
Matt. 26:64
“Jesus said to him (the high priest Caiaphas), ‘It is as you said, Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter
you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming
on the clouds of heaven.”
The partial preterist, of course, readily admits that
the above verses do indeed speak of a parousia of some kind. But as Dr. R. C.
Sproul, Sr. writes in his book, The Last Days According to Jesus (pg. 158), “partial preterists acknowledge that
in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 there was a parousia… Partial
preterists understand that there are nuances to biblical terminology regarding the coming of Christ and the day of the Lord,
nuances that make it possible and necessary
to speak of more than one event that encompasses all these things at once.
So now, according to Dr. Sproul, Sr., there are two parousias
to deal with. But should we not inquire as to what exactly are these “nuances
that make it possible and necessary” to have both a Second and a Third Coming of Christ?
Partial preterists and other futurists are fond of accusing
Preterists of denying a “yet future-to-us” fulfillment to Bible prophecy, but where in the early creeds or confessions
of the Church do we find a dual fulfillment of any prophetic event? Is this a new invention of the partial preterists? What makes
such an odd idea both “possible and necessary” in Dr. Sproul’s hermeneutic?
Is there a clear statement in Scripture that demands a fulfillment at the “end of the material world”? Do we have a record of Jesus ever clearly
referring to such a time at the end of history? We could go further: Is there ever to be an end of history on this earth in spite of the numerous verses
to the contrary cited earlier in this paper? And if so, how can we prove this
from Scripture alone without referring to philosophical nuances, presuppositions, and arguments?
Anyone who is familiar with the New Testament can not
deny that the imminency idea and the air of expectancy were not limited to the words of Jesus in the Gospels. In fact, a progressive reading through Acts, the Epistles, and the Book of Revelation shows a growing awareness
that a time of supreme importance was drawing ever nearer. It brought great joy to these early Christians to be assured that
the final events of their salvation were fast approaching. The following verses
are a sample from the many that speak of imminency to those people:
Rom. 13:11-12 “And do this,
knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand…”
Rom. 16:20 “And the God of peace
will crush Satan under your feet shortly.”
Phil. 4:5 “The Lord is at hand.”
I Thess. 4:16-17 “For the Lord Himself will descent from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and
with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive
and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the
Lord in the air…”
I Cor. 15:51-52 “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep,
but we shall all be changed---in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible,
and we shall be changed.”
I Cor. 1:7-8 “So that you come short in no gift, eagerly waiting for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will also confirm you to the end, that you may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus
Christ.”
I Thess. 2:19 “For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Is it not even you in the presence of
our Lord Jesus Christ at His coming?”
James 5:8-9 “You also be patient.
Establish your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand. Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned. Behold, the
Judge is standing at the door.”
I Peter 4:7 “But the end of all things is at hand; therefore be serious
and watchful in your prayers.”
Where did the authors of the New Testament inspired writings
get the idea that the Second Coming and related events would actually happen within the lifetime of some of those first century
folks? Was it not from the lips of their Master?
During the period that His disciples sat under His ministry,
much of the content of His teaching was directly or indirectly relating to the soon-approaching Kingdom age. Does Jesus ever give His disciples the impression that these events would not find fulfillment in their
day? Indeed His ministry was relevant to them and to their contemporaries! No one to date has been able to prove beyond all doubt that Jesus allowed for thousands
of years to pass before the events prophesied by Moses and the Prophets would happen. Jesus said it as plainly as words can
convey, when He said in Luke 21:22:
“For
these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.”
Partial preterists, therefore, resort to going back to
the creeds and confessions to buttress their case, lacking the Scriptural material needed to refute their theological opponents.
Therefore, is it not perfectly natural that everything
pertaining to the Kingdom that the inspired New Testament authors set forth would be an expansion and a further amplification
of what the Lord Jesus Himself taught in His earthly ministry? And so this is
exactly what we find from the Acts of the Apostles through the Book of Revelation.
Many Christians, who have sat for years under the teaching
of their pastors, have been told that the context of a verse from the Epistles
demands a future-to-us fulfillment. Perhaps it is a verse dealing with the Second
Coming or the Resurrection of the Dead or the Final Judgment. Usually no proof
is given as to why it is so demanding that the event be postponed to the future. Is
it not just good common sense to believe that? The less scholarly pastors may
suggest that it is a future event because it speaks of the Resurrection and we know that this is talking about the future. Pure circular reasoning, is it not? No proof or exegetical substantiation given! And Christians sitting in the pews seldom hold their pastor’s feet to the fire. After all, this is what they too have always been taught. Could the church fathers have been mistaken? Everyone assumes
they were correct.
The word “context” is derived from the Latin
“<condtextus, pp. of contexere
<com- together + texere weave.”
The word denotes a weaving together of related things. When time factors
are involved, it would relate to events taking place at the same time as other events.
A first century event can never be envisioned in the same context as a 21st century event. Two different time periods are involved.
So, in seeking to determine what the context of a particular
Bible passage is, it is axiomatic to find a certain and well-established starting
point as the time-frame into which grammatically-related passages will fit. Only
if this principle is carefully adhered to and faithfully observed can we be sure that we are not violating the context of
a Biblical passage.
Is it not reasonable to require that the context of any
and every prophetic passage be established clearly by identifying it with a certain time-frame that has been anchored into
the realm of certainty by the Biblical text itself? Assumptions must be cast
aside and solid proof given for such “indexing” of key texts.
The two principal time-frame fulfillment points currently
under consideration are the first century and this 21st century. (This
paper is not dealing with the historicist or the idealist views, but only the preterist and the futurist.) Some futurists would leave the fulfillment point elastic, allowing for even thousands of years into the
future. But this does not change the basic issue in question.
There, to capsulate the argument on the contextual matter
under discussion, let me state the contextual time-frames as follows:
1) The first century period, ending at the A.D. 70 halocaust.
2) Future to 21st century readers, possibly quite indefinite
in time.
Next, we will attempt to list in a corresponding fashion
and in the same order as above, the proof for assigning all the prophecies of
the Bible to the first century period, followed by proof for the second position:
1) Many clear time-frame statements by Jesus Christ and His Apostles.
2) No clear statements by either Jesus or His Apostles.
What are we to make from these very simple postulates? Simply this: There would seem to be no justifiable reason to assign any New Testament
passage to a future-to-us-today fulfillment period. Is there justification to
make this statement? Let’s look at the logic of these things.
Thesis No. 1:
If determining the context of a Bible verse is predicated on assigning it to a clearly established fulfillment focal
point and this focal point is firmly assigned by Jesus Christ and His Apostles to the first century period, we should accept
this conclusion.
Thesis No. 2:
If there is a lack of any clear evidence that either Jesus or His Apostles spoke of a post-century fulfillment of any prediction or prophecy, we are on thin ice to base our eschatological system
on such a shaky foundation.
Conclusion: All
Bible prophecy found fulfillment by A.D. 70 and therefore nothing remains to be fulfilled beyond this date. This does not mean that there are no on-going aspects extending beyond this date. Just as the Cross Event was fulfilled once for all in the first century and the benefits of this once for
all Atonement continue with forthcoming generations for ever, so in the case of the Resurrection of the Dead, the Christians
dying physically throughout history receive their incorruptible, immortal, glorious, spiritual bodies at the time of death. Yet both events were fulfilled in the first century and do not await future fulfillment.
The benefits are eternal in nature and manifest themselves in individual lives
forever.
We don’t need a second Atoning Sacrifice at the
Cross; the first and only one was sufficient and efficacious. Neither do we need
a second (or third) Return of Christ beyond the first century; nor a second Resurrection of the Dead.
It is interesting to note that a number of present day
partial preterists, such as Kenneth Gentry, R. C. Sproul, Sr., and Gary DeMar, especially the last two mentioned, are able
to find only three or four verses in the New Testament that await final fulfillment into our future. The late David Chilton, in the years before he converted to Preterism, stated that he could find only three
such verses to substantiate his futurist views and even later could find none, but remained a partial preterist because of
the teachings of the early church fathers. His acceptance of Preterism six months
before his Homegoing constituted a paradigm shift in his thinking and re-established his focus.
One of the favorite passages that partial preterists apply
to the end of the material world is I Thess. 4:13-17:
“But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those
who have fallen asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God
will bring with Him those who sleep in Jesus. For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive
and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of
God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
Then we who are live and remain
shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
And thus we shall always be with the Lord.”
Notice particularly the bold phrase “this we say to you by the word of the Lord,” would seem to strongly imply that what Paul was reminding
the Thessalonians was nothing more nor less than what the Lord Jesus had Himself taught.
And we have found earlier in these pages that our Lord focused only on a first century fulfillment. Do partial preterists believe that Paul was teaching a fulfillment point in future history beyond and different
from the A.D. 70 fulfillment time that Jesus so clearly spoke of during His earthly ministry?
May we ask our partial preterist friends to re-read Luke 21:22; Matt. 16:28 and other imminency passages so clearly
spoken by our Lord? What they read in these passages, dear reader, is the context that should govern the interpretation of this I Thessalonians passage above.
A final word: This
writer believes that it is crystal clear that the Lord Jesus Christ positively established a first century fulfillment time
for all prophetic events. Nowhere is anything to the contrary either stated or
implied. And we can declare the same for the inspired apostolic writings. So the interpretation that places certain parts of the Olivet Discourse, or the Rapture
passage, or the Resurrection events fall into a different context than the A.D. 70 events, has no exegetical support whatsoever!
Yes, the “context question” raised by the
partial preterists and other futurists to defeat the preterist viewpoint is ill advised and should be abandoned. The Lord Himself settled the question!
My prayer is that the day will come in the near future
when no longer will there be a pretext that poses as a context. May our Lord hasten that day!
THE END
