Last week there was a letter to the editor of the Northside Sun offering a preterist interpretation of the Bible’s (the New Testament in particular) teaching on eschatology (i.e., the Bible’s teaching on the end of all things). While well-written and thought-provoking, Christian theologians have long noted several fatal problems with the view espoused in the letter.
Before noting the problems with preterism, let me say that there is some exegetical explanatory power behind the view that the “last days” passages in the New Testament are to be mapped not against the “end of all things”, but rather they speak about the end of the first covenant era (e.g., the cursing of the fig tree in Mark 11:12–25). The Church has long understood that some of the New Testament teaching on eschatology certainly speaks to first-century events and Jesus’s inauguration of a new age in history (i.e., the church age; the age of the Spirit) via the establishment of a new covenant. However, not all “last days” passages can be satisfactorily explained by preterism (as we’ll see below).
That said, while the preterist/first covenant interpretive school has its strengths, it widely misses the target on interpreting all New Testament passages concerning the end of all things, the second coming of Christ, bodily resurrection, final judgment, and the annihilation of all evil (i.e., the advent of the New Heavens and the New Earth).
The glaring problem with the preterism is quite simple: many of the things that the New Testament says will happen at the end of all things have simply yet to occur.
For starters, Philippians 2:9–10 says that all people will come to confess (willingly or unwillingly) that Jesus is Lord (cf. Rev. 1:7). The simple reality is that there are billions of people in the world who have not acknowledged Jesus as the divine Son of God. This historical fact is fatal to the preterist view. Furthermore, humanity as we know it did not come to acknowledge Christ as Lord at the destruction of the temple in 70 AD either; another problem for preterism.
Similarly, the Bible teaches that when Christ returns it will be an event that everyone will witness (unlike in his first coming). Revelation 1:7, Matthew 26:64, and Acts 1:9–11 all teach that Jesus will return “riding on a cloud”. The significance of this is that all will see him when he returns. The first time Jesus came, very few people knew who he was. In fact, there was a debate over Jesus’s identity during his ministry on earth as recorded in the NT (see Matt. 16:13–16). It wasn’t until Jesus’ resurrection that his identity was made clear and he was vindicated as the Son of God.
The first time Jesus came, he was born in a lowly manger; a means of arrival that hardly demonstrates power and authority. When he comes the second time, however, it will be “riding on a cloud”, meaning all will be able to see him and will acknowledge Jesus as the divine Son. Once again, preterism fails to account for the fact that not all individuals have acknowledged Jesus as such make preterism untenable.
Second, the Bible says that upon the return of Christ, the dead will be bodily resurrected. First Thessalonians 4:16–17 says,
“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.”
1 Thessalonians 4:16–17
This miraculous phenomenon did not happen in the first century, and has yet to happen. How does preterism explain this passage?
Third, the Bible teaches that when the Kingdom of God arrives in its fullness (an event directly connected to the return of Christ), God will put an end to all evil in the world. Revelation 21:4 says, “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” Preterism is unable to respond satisfactorily to the reality that evil certainly still exists in the world today.
If preterism isn’t tenable, then why does it seem semi-palatable as an interpretive option for certain passages of scripture? I believe the answer is that preterism is attempting to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
One of the supposed dilemmas that preterism seeks to resolve is the notion that when the Bible speaks about the end of all things, it seems as if it assumes that the parousia (that’s technical parlance for “the Second Coming of Christ”) will occur within the lifetime of the original audience of the New Testament. For example, Revelation 1:1 says that it speaks of “things that must soon take place,” and then goes on to describe the end of all things and the second coming of Christ. Many of the events described in Revelation obviously haven’t happened yet, which leaves modern readers with just a couple of interpretive options: (1) the New Testament is wrong (which undermines the doctrines of inspiration, infallibility/inerrancy, and reliability of scripture), or (2) we’re interpreting it wrongly (hence preterism as a possible explanation).
For those who believe in the inspiration of Scripture, the second option is the only option. However, there are alternative viable interpretations other than preterism that carry more explanatory power for all of the New Testament’s teachings on the end of all things while upholding the inspiration of scripture.
Consider the following:
- Death and Judgment. The original audience of scripture did, in fact, experience the end of all things in the sense that all individuals face judgment at the time of death. Yes, while individual human deaths are not synonymous with the Second Coming of Christ, there are elements to final judgment that are rushed into the present at the time death. For all of us, the end is, in fact, near.
- Partial Fulfillment. Some of the “last days” events described in the New Testament did, in fact, happen during the time of the original audience (e.g., the intense persecution of Christians). While the parousia itself has yet to occur as described in the NT, many of the trials and tribulations that the early church faced did happen within the lifetime of the original audience.
- Always be prepared. The New Testament, and Jesus in particular, teaches that all Christians should live as if the parousia is immanent. He says he will come like a thief in the night, meaning “always be prepared” (Matt. 24:43). He says that yes, there will be signs, but that we ultimately won’t know when he will return until it’s upon us. This means that Christians should behave as if the end is now.
- “Soon” is a relative term. “Soon” for a five year old is different than “soon” for an eighty-five year old. As the Scripture are inspired by God, “soon” to an infinite God who is not restricted by time and space can be quite a long time for creatures with a eighty-five year-old life span. Second Peter 3:8–10 is powerful when mapped against this discussion, it says, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.”
To conclude, we do not need to resort to preterism to resolve a possible dilemma with the notion that it seems as if the New Testament authors believed that they were living in the “last days”. Through the centuries the Church has offered both sound and robust interpretation to those passages that satisfies even modern readers who believe in the inspiration of Scripture.
