One of the great debates within protestant evangelicalism is the timing of biblical prophetic events. When it comes to the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, more precisely and in particular, the timing of the Tribulation, there are four possibilities. These possibilities are: past, present, future, and timeless or preterism, historicism, futurism, and idealism.[1] Historicism sees prophecy as already fulfilled or being fulfilled by the church. On the other hand the idealist sees prophecy as allegorical truths that can be applied to one’s life. The final two positions are the futurist view and the preterist view. The debate concerning the timing of the Tribulation hinges on hermeneutics; the futurist approaches the biblical subject with a strict literalness and in contrast the preterist does not. The most detailed teaching on this period in Scripture is given by the Lord Jesus Christ and is recorded in Matthew 24 and 25. This is known as Jesus’ Olivet Discourse. It is central to the position of preterism.[2] This paper will seek to defend the futurist view and show that preterism falters hermeneutically in its non-literal interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.
Preterism Defined
Preterism is derived for the Latin for “past”. In the present context this view says that most if not all prophecy has been fulfilled. Preterist Kenneth Gentry would concur with this: “the word preterist is based on the Latin word praeteritus, which means ‘gone by’…it holds that the tribulation prophecies occur in the first century, thus, in our past.”[3] Preterist R.C. Sproul would agree with Gentry and ads concerning the timing that it is not just any time in the past but a specific event – the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.[4]
Today two forms of preterism, although there are others; contend with each other for primary placement. The first is partial or moderate preterism which is the most popular. Scholar and futurist, Dr. Randall Price explains that “partial or moderate preterism…argue that most prophecy (such as the events of the tribulation) was fulfilled in A.D. 70…some prophetic texts teaching the second coming of Christ and the bodily resurrection still have future fulfillment”.[5] Partial preterism[6] holds that there are two second comings of Christ. One occurred in A.D. 70 as a judgment on Israel and the second will occur universally in “the ultimate coming of the Lord”[7].
The other form of preterism is the extreme version. These adherents say that partial preterists should not hold to that name. The reason being is that they hold to the position that some prophecy has yet to be fulfilled. The extreme preterist holds that all prophecy has already been fulfilled. Randall Price defines further saying that “full preterism sees no future climax or consummation of history by maintains that believers have been spiritually resurrected and the creation spiritually restored so that the church presently exists in the eternal state…”[8] One can see an extreme spiritualizing of Scripture as well as replacement theology in this position. With this position and for the most part the partial position the church is somewhat left hanging. Extreme Preterist Ed Stevens recognizes the difficulty – “how could it be that some of the apostles…lived through the events of A.D. 70 without recognizing the significance of it and saying something about it?”[9] He goes on to admit that “this is the single most significant factor shaping the history of eschatological study.”[10]
With regards to the history of preterism, due to space constraints in this paper, a brief remark shall suffice. Preterist adherents trace their roots back to the first century church but much of this can only be seen in very murky waters. In modern times “it appears that the Reformed and Reconstructionist Greg Bahnsen is the source and inspiration for the rise and partial preterism.”[11] Regardless of the history, rather partial or extreme, preterism is a dangerous perspective that unfortunately is impacting, in this writers view, in a negative way at the blessed hope and expectancy of the Lord’s return. Preterism has been defined and a brief historical overview given, now the focus will narrow to the thesis.
Preterism’s Foundational Argument Concerning the Olivet Discourse
Jesus said in Matthew 24:34 “Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled”. Preterists assert that Christ was warning people who were living then. Sproul quotes J. Stuart Russell who states that “99 persons in every 100 would immediately understand Jesus to mean that the events he was predicting would fall within the limits of the lifetime of the existing generation”.[12] This speaks to why this verse is foundational in the Olivet Discourse. The preterist view needs this verse to mean that Jesus was speaking to the very people who would see all the events He previously mentioned come to pass. Further Sproul says,
The importance of this consideration is its relationship to our understanding of the disputed time-frame reference in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24:34) regarding the passing of a generation. If Jesus had in mind a time-frame of roughly forty years, it could also be said that during this time-frame some of his disciples would not taster death. If the Olivet Discourse refers primarily to events surrounding the destruction of Jerusalem and it the word generation refers to a forty year period, then it is possible, if not probable, that Jesus’ reference to his coming in Matthew 16:28 refers to the same events…[13]
The “this generation” being the present generation Jesus is speaking to is foundational to the preterist argument. Most preterist agree that to interpret generation as anything other than the present generation would be foreign to other places in the New Testament.
Much of the refutation of this foundational argument of the preterist view of the Olivet Discourse will come later. However it should be noted that the term “generation” can have extended meaning. In fact J. Stuart Russell (preterist) as quoted by Sproul “makes a crucial admission; one that makes it all the more difficult to prove his point…he admits that genea is capable of variant shades of meaning…”[14] Lexicographers Arndt and Gingrich note that the word “generation” (genea) can mean either clan, race, or nation, and this is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Luke 16:8).[15] The preterist presupposition must force, what most likely is a faulty conclusion on the term “generation”.
The Context and Purpose of the Discourse According to Preterist
The Preterist will take the three questions[16] that were asked to Christ; (1) what will be the sign of your coming?; (2) when will these things take place?; (3) what will be the sign of your coming?; and answer all the three with one/the same answer. Futurist J. Randall Price says, “preterist interpret Jesus’ answer to the disciples as having a single temporal reference – the end of theis generation…which they understand to have terminated in A.D. 70”.[17] It is helpful to note who asks the questions. It is the disciples and they seem to have a two-fold concern (noted in the footnote 16), what is the future of Jerusalem and what is the end of the age going to look like.
Concerning the purpose of the Olivet Discourse as it is viewed by the preterist, it is a condemnation on Israel and the temple by Christ. This also takes the discussion back to the foundational verse concerning “this generation”. Again Price says the purpose according to the preterist “is exclusively as a judgment text in which Jesus’ denunciations of the temple finds their final fulfillment in the destruction of the temple by the Roman’s in A.D. 70”.[18] Although most would agree with this to a certain extent it is important to note what prompted the discourse. Was Jesus driven by thoughts of God’s vengeance (did He just snap)? The discourse was prompted by the questions asked Him by the disciples. Jesus Christ is simply answering three specific questions. Jesus had already unveiled His death and a new program[19] that will come in the time period between His death and return. This program is still ongoing. It is also important to note that the Olivet Discourse continues with the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 12 and following. It predicts an outcome of victory[20] for Israel along with its restoration and not annihilation or replacement as the preterist would lead to believe.
According to the Preterist the Church is in Matthew 24 and 25
The key to determining whether the church is referenced in the Olivet Discourse is by determining the context in which the discourse was delivered.[21] This will be done below. One of the major questions that needs to be answered in the Olivet Discourse is, who do the disciples represent – Israel or the church? Sproul says that the biblical teaching concerning the end of the age refers to the end of the Jewish age and the present age. He goes on to say, “fundamental to preterism is the contention that the phrase ‘end of the age’ refers specifically to the end of the Jewish age and the beginning of the church (gentile) age”.[22] What is most troubling though concerning about the statement by Sproul above is, “if the preterist were consistent, he would be forced to say that the promise of protection and the command of the Great Commission only stand true until A.D. 70”.[23]
Neither the context of Matthew’s entire Gospel nor the context in chapter 24 and 25 can sustain a view that the church is present. It can be noted at this point that since the church is not in the Olivet Discourse the rapture is not in the teaching. The lamentation of Christ over Jerusalem (Matthew 23:37-39) does not allow for the presence of the church. The disciples attention on the temple as the national place of worship (24:1) allows for a strict Jewish context. They did not have an understanding of the church, to them (Matthew 16) was an introduction of some sort of new program. The understanding of the hearers concerning the gospel of the kingdom was Christ presenting Himself as King. In order for the church to be present at any point of the discourse the context would have to change abruptly[24]. There are many other things that could be said and some will be dealt with below. For now suffice it to say that the church is not in the Olivet Discourse.
Dispensational/Futurist Response
It has been said by many that context must be the interpreter’s guide in the Bible. Within the context of any theological discussion the Bible must be sought for the proper answers. In the present response of preterism and their view of the Olivet Discourse the broad context helps significantly in critique. In the broad context of Matthew there are three phases of the kingdom. The kingdom is offered first. In Matthew 1 the reader is given a genealogical record that shows that Christ has the legitimate right and authority to be the King of the Kingdom. Further in Matthew 2 the reader is confronted, just in case the geneology and virgin birth is missed, with foreign Babylonian dignitaries that march into Jerusalem with their entourage asking “where is He that has been born who is the King of the Jews?” In case that is missed as well “the voice of God crying in the wilderness – repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” shouts from the pages as the reader hears the words echo through the street and country side of Judea. Then the King appears at John’s baptism. He purpose for being there was to fulfill all righteousness. John and Jesus both hear the Trinitarian approval of the King. After the assigning of the miracles of Christ to the devil the kingdom is set aside, this is the second of the three phases of the kingdom in Matthew. The preferred term of the writer is “prophetically postponed”.[25] Mike Stallard says regarding context and hermeneutics,
…one such issue is the relationship of the tribulation period (with its focus on the Jewish remnant) to the present age as revealed in the kingdom parables of Matthew 13. This is especially noteworthy to dispensationalists since the Olivet Discourse deals specifically with that time frame. It is important particularly…so much of the argumentation comes back time and again to the relationship between the kingdom parables in Matthew 13 (especially the tares) and Matthew 24 and 25.[26]
A significant aspect of Matthew is (11:20) after the announcement, the preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, and the miracles Christ the King offered is rejected. “Then began He to upbraid”, He began to withdraw from the people. It is on the heels of this that the kingdom is set aside (Matthew 13). Then the third phase of the kingdom in Matthew is the kingdom prophesied. The Olivet Discourse is the third major discourse recorded in Matthew and in it the reader sees the Messiah’s official prediction of His return and acceptance.
When considering the broad context of Matthew observation of the theological argument of the kingdom must be determined. Briefly it is announced as “at hand”, 3:2, 4:17; the characteristics are given in great detail, 5-7; the King Messiah ministry is authenticated, 8-10; the commission of the disciples, 10:5-17 (preaching the gospel of the kingdom to Israel); blasphemy committed by religious leaders/representatives, 11-12; kingdom prophetically postponed, 13; Jesus begins to draw is inner circle closer, 14-22; Christ prophesies the coming future tribulation and kingdom, 24-25.
After the above brief treatment of the broad context on Matthew, the narrow and immediate context of Matthew 24 and 25 will be dealt with. As footnoted above, the gospel is written by a Jewish believer who was a disciple of Christ during His earthly ministry. The gospel is written to present Christ, the One they killed, as the Messiah they had awaited, that had been prophesied in the Old Testament. The gospel presents the proffer of a legitimate King and a legitimate kingdom that had been rejected. It is a call to repentance – a radical transformation of Israel. In that broader understanding of the gospel account, one must also understand the unconditional covenants made with Israel. The kingdom will come to pass one day. It was offered and rejected; prophetically postponed. However it will be inaugurated one day; it has yet to be inaugurated. Jesus comes to the place of His earthly ministry where He must die. Before this takes place He teaches a wonderful truth[27] known as the Olivet Discourse. In his monumental work on the gospel of Matthew, Thomas Figart says, the Olivet Discourse must be “approached in accordance with the purpose of the entire gospel of Matthew and specifically with regard to the place it occupied in the culmination of the ministry of Christ”[28].
The key to Matthew 24 and 25 is what precedes in 23:37-39. John Walvoord calls this a scathing denunciation on the religious leaders who were representatives of the people. It was the “hypocrisy and false religion which characterized the Scribes and Pharisees, closing with His lament over Jerusalem, where the prophets of God through the centuries had been rejected and martyred.”[29] On the heels of the denunciation Christ gives His explanation of coming Tribulation in response to the questions of the disciples.
A Dispensational/Futurist Survey of Matthew 24 and 25
The first half of the Tribulation
At the end of chapter 23, Jesus made a compassionate lament over the city of Jerusalem, and at the same time pronounced the coming judgment on Israel (not the church). They leave the temple and for some reason the disciples want to show Him the temple. Jesus tells them very clearly that the whole facility will be demolished. This took place in A.D. 70. There are no questions about the church only nationalistic Israel. Even in Acts 1:6 they are still thinking about a kingdom exclusive to Israel not anything about the church – the new program. He spoke to His disciples as Jews who believed in Him as their Messiah King (response to the preaching 3:2, 4:17; John 1:41 some believed on the person). “It is unthinkable to include the church in the answer Christ gave them.”[30]
It is the view of this writer that the future tribulation period is seen in 24:4-26. This can be paralleled with Daniel’s seventieth week (Dan. 9:27). The first half of the tribulation is seen in 24:4-8. There are physical characteristics that can be paralleled with Revelation 6:1-17 – the first six seals. The characteristics are deceit, 24:4-5; war, 24:6; famine, 24:7; earthquakes and pestilences, 24:7; Martyrdom, 24:9; anarchy due to heavenly catastrophe, Rev. 6:12-17. It is the “then” (tote, temporal particle, also v. 10) that indicates a change of time in the view of the writer. Not only a change of time but also seems to indicate an increase and change in intensity. Also, verse 8 clearly says that the first half is “the beginning of sorrows”.
The Second Half of the Tribulation – Great Tribulation
The second half of the tribulation is seen in 24:9-14. There are four characteristics observed by the writer of these three and half years. (1) false messiah’s and prophets, 24:11; (2) a cold love among Jewish people, betray each other, and turn on the saved Jews, 24:10-12; (3) anti-semiticism unlike ever before; they will be hated by every gentile under the sun; (4) unparalleled preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, 24:14; Rev. 7:14. With regards to the last item, it should be noted that John and the disciples preached the same gospel but with no bloodshed; there is bloodshed now.
In Matthew 24:15-28, the apostle covers the second half of the tribulation in greater detail. Jesus quotes Daniel 9:27 and 12:11 about the “abomination of desolation”. This ties the discourse to Daniels seventieth week. The one will be represented in the temple by an image. It is a literal image (shall see, v. 15). Once the image is set up in the temple the saved Jews flee from the image; Matthew 24:16-26. A parallel can be made with Revelation 12 here. They[31] flee from Jerusalem[32]. The reader should note that 24:22 time will run out; “days should be shortened”. At His coming at the close of the tribulation (Daniel’s 70 weeks, the 7 years) Christ is saying the time will be terminated.[33]
Sign’s Of Christ Second Advent
The coming of Christ Himself is seen in 24:27-29 as the brightness of the heavens (24:30). Then Christ ends the argument (v. 29) saying “immediately after the tribulation”. Then finally, Christ assures His disciples that Israel will be re-gathered (they have not yet!) and restored (into covenant relationship). It is clear that he is not speaking of the rapture of the church since he sends angels, but He himself comes to meet the Bride, the church in the air.[34] Possibly Isaiah 45:4 and 66:8 could be in view here. Matthew 24:31 ends the argument after Christ gives the signs of His second coming (vv. 29-30). The context says (v. 31) is Israel going back to verse 15. This is not the rapture. The Old Testament clearly said that Israel will be gathered after the second coming of Christ – Deuteronomy 30:3, Isaiah 11:10-12. This is a gathering of saved Jews from the four corners of the earth. It must also be noted that 24:32-51 must be viewed as parenthetical; as illustrative. The parable of the fig tree with leaves illustrates the coming is near – “so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (v. 39).
The Parable of Matthew 25
Jesus teaches two parables in 25:1-30 which are to teach about the separation of unsaved from saved Jews at the second coming of Christ living at the close of the tribulation period. Then another parable of the sheep and the goats in 25:31-46 which is the judgment of living gentiles at the close of the tribulation. This is not national judgments but rather individuals. This is not the Great White Throne[35] judgment for chronologically it follows the Second Advent and Israel’s judgment.
Conclusion
It is not the position to judge motives of individuals who hold to an eschatological view that differs from that of the writer. However there are implications to an incorrect view of the Olivet Discourse. A view that holds the tribulation has already taken place spiritualizes many passages outside of Matthew 24. The church cannot be seen in the Olivet Discourse for it disagrees with the context and purpose of the gospel of Matthew. Preterism teaches that though the information in the Lord’s lecture on the future of Israel was prophetic when he gave it, the prophecy has already been fulfilled. All agree that the discourse is prophetic, however the writer does not see anywhere in the biblical text that directs the interpreter using literal normative hermeneutic to conclude the prophecy has been fulfilled. Nor is there anything in the tangible world. In fact the happenings of the world point toward a culmination somewhere in the future. Preterist argue their point from Matthew 24:34 and say that “this generation” refers to the present audience at the time of the discourse. However, “once preterists have argued this point, they are in trouble because there are several events in Matthew 24 that clearly have not happened. Thus they are forced to spiritualize those events. All forms of preterism, some more than others, have to rely on figurative interpretation”.[36] Preterism falters hermeneutically in that it fails to hold to a consistent literal interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.
Romans 11:25-27: For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. And so all Israel shall be saved; as it is written there shall come out of Zion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob, for this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.
[1] Thomas Ice and Kenneth Gentry. The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999), 5. Ice notes that idealism is mainly held to in liberalism. Historicism was at one time a dominant view within the protestant community and was until the mid 19th century. From that time period futurism as grown and now dominates. Since 2000 preterism has aggressively asserted its position in the debate. It is growing rapidly in the reformed community.
[2] Benware, Paul W. Understanding End Times Prophecy (Chicago: Moody, 2006), 175.
[3] Ibid., 13.
[4] Sproul, R.C. The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 25. He notes that there are significant differences within the preterist view.
[5] Price, Randall. “Preterism”. Israel My Glory (January-February 2005).
[6] Adherents include R.C. Sproul, Kenneth Gentry Jr., Gary Demar, and the late David Chilton (he changed his position after book was published).
[7] Demar, Gary. Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church (Atlanta: American Vision, 1999), 78.
[8] Price, Preterism.
[9] Stevens, Ed. Silence Demands a Rapture. www.preterist.com, (accessed February 2011).
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ice, Thomas. The End Times Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack (Eugene: Harvest House, 2003), 59. David Chilton, James Jordan, Gary Demar, and Kenneth Gentry all studied at the same seminary under Bahnsen. Concerning the history of preterism, Ice covers in great detail in his chapter titled “The History of Preterism”.
[12] Sproul, R.C. The Last Days According to Jesus, 53.
[13] Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus, 55.
[14] Ibid., 60.
[15] Geisler, Norman. Systematic Theology IV (Grand Rapids: Bethany House, 2005), 637. Dr. Geisler also notes the phrase does nto necessarily imply that Israel will pass away after the Second Coming; more likely it will not. The phrase may also refer to a future generation of Jews alive during the Tribulation. It could also mean that these thinsg began to take place in AD 70 but will not be complete until after the Tribulation and at the Second Coming. Whatever the case it clearly cannot mean they were fulfilled in AD 70.
[16] It would the view of this writer that there are actually only two questions as the “coming” and the “end” are joined by one article. This is not critical to the argument. Dr. Walvoord and Scofield hold to three however.
[17] J. Randall Price. “Historical Problems with a First-Century Fulfillment”. The End Times Controversy, ed. Thomas Ice (Eugene: Harvest House, 2003), 378.
[18] Ibid., 379.
[19] Matthew 16:18 is where the new program is introduced. With the benefit of the “mystery” being revealed, Ephesians 3, one can see today that He was beginning to unveil what would be the church. However in the Matthew 16 the disciples would only understand this as an assembly of sorts; some kind of new program.
[20] This is also important to see. The covenant promises of God made to Israel have not been fulfilled as of yet but most assuredly they will. Israel will be regenerated, given a new heart, given the abundance of the Spirit, and inherit the land promised many millennia ago (Jeremiah 31:31-34).
[21] Penney, Russell L. Why the Church is not Referenced in the Olivet Discourse. CTJ 1:1 (April 1997). This writer agrees with Penney when he says that all contexts need to be observed – larger, narrower, and immediate.
[22] Sproul, Last Days, 71.
[23] Stallard, Mike. A Review of R.C. Sproul’s The Last Days According to Jesus: An Analysis of Moderate Preterism. CTS 6:17 (March 2002).
[24] In fact the context of the whole gospel would need to be ignored. It is a Jewish writer writing to present Christ as Messiah King to a Jewish audience that had rejected Him.
[25] Dr. Hoyle Bowman, as far as the writer knows, coined the term. It is preferred over postponed because in Matthew 24 the plan is detailed.
[26] Stallard, Mike. Hermeneutics and Matthew 13: Exegetical Conclusions. CTS 131-154 (August 2001). Dr. Stallard helps in showing the reliance of the narrow context of Matthew on the broad context and theology of Matthew.
[27] This truth is that there is coming a time of great trouble/tribulation that has not occurred as of yet but when it I sover Israel will be regenerated and restored with God – on the basis of the finished work of the cross and the unconditional promises of God.
[28] Figart Thomas O. The King of the Kingdom of Heaven (Lancaster: Eden Press, 1999), 430.
[29] Walvoord, John F. Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1974), 179.
[30] Glasscock, Ed. Matthew: Moody Gospel Commentary (Chicago: Moody, 1997), 398.
[31] Most Jews will not so it seems – Zechariah 13:8-9.
[32] Some speculate that they flee to Petra, the mountains around the dead sea. It is certainly plausible but Scripture does not speak directly.
[33] John Macarthur incorrectly takes this to say the daylight hours of the day will be shortened; Rosenthal says the period will be shorter than 7 years which contradicts with Daniel 9:27 which must be taken literally.
[34] Figart, The King of the Kingdom of Heaven, 449. The writer notes that there are many differences between the 1 Thessalonian passage and this passage in Matthew.
[35] This could not be the GWT for it takes place after the millennium, Rev. 20:11.
[36] Pettegrew, Larry. Interpretive Flaws in the Olivet Discourse. TMSJ 13:2 (fall 2002).
