Three Foundational Flaws of Partial Preterism

A Response to Keith Mathison’s Book

‘When Shall These Things Be’

by

John Noē, Ph.D.

     Once again, I, along with others, have been branded “heretics”[1] by a few partial-preterist, reformed scholars in Keith Mathison’s new book When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism Phillipsburg, NJ.: P&R Publishing, 2004), pp. 10, 352).[2] If this type of treatment from fellow Christians is part of the cost of understanding and believing that Jesus said what He meant, meant what He said, and kept his promise to come again on the clouds in age-ending judgment exactly as and when He said He would, then so be it.  Likewise, if this type of treatment comes from affirming that the Holy-Spirit-led expectations of the New Testament writers and the early Church were the correct ones, then praise the Lord.  We are in good company here.
      Moreover, I have seen nothing, scripturally or historically, in Mathison’s book, or elsewhere, to dissuade me from my belief that Jesus did in fact come again and all other associated eschatological events were fulfilled exactly as and when promised and expected.[3]  Therefore, these words of Jesus have special meaning and are a comfort for me, and perhaps will be for some of you as well: "Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.  Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you" (Matt. 5:11-12).
     Sad to say, the history of Christianity has been beset with Christians persecuting other Christians. But how should one begin a heresy defense?  I suggest it should be with conciliatory words such as, “Come now, let us reason together” (Isa. 1:18).
     Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Jr. in their hermeneutical textbook, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (also cited by Richard L Pratt, Jr., p. 123, footnote 4) raise two appropriate questions in this regard: “What are we to do when interpreters disagree?  How do we proceed when well-intentioned Christians come to different interpretations about the meaning of a text or passage?”  Their answer is twofold: First, we should set out precisely the nature of the difference . . . .  Second . . . . did either interpreter misconstrue some evidence or engage in shoddy reasoning, or were there other flaws in the process that indicate one of the positions must be relinquished.[4]
     Accordingly, this response will address the three major foundational flaws, along with numerous examples of misconstrued “evidence” and engagement in “shoddy reasoning,” that prevents partial preterists from accepting a full preterist understanding.  Others will no doubt speak to other flaws contained in Mathison’s book. 
     The three foundational flaws of partial preterism to be covered herein are:

1)      “How could anyone possibly believe this?”

2)      A false dichotomizing hermeneutic.

   3)      The deception of the elect.

    Before proceeding, however, I must respond to one personal item raised by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. Critically and rightly, he pointed out that when I wrote my book Beyond the End Times in 1999, I had “had no formal seminary training.”  He then characterized my scholarly deficiency as an “(all too typical) problem” (p. 4) which, in the (full) preterist movement, has produced “a small band of untrained theological innovators” (p. 45) who “feign[s] ‘scholarship’” (p. 61), “are largely unschooled in the standard theological disciplines,” and are “disoriented by theological naiveté” (p. 61).  Next, he associated me with classic dispensationalists, “popularizers: Dave Hunt . . . and Tim LaHaye,” with whom I apparently share this similar deficiency (p.4, footnote 14). 
     Perhaps, Dr. Gentry will be pleased to discover that this has all changed.  After the release of Beyond the End Times, I began work on a Ph.D. in Theology from an institution for which he serves as an adjunct professor.  In 2003, I finished my courses, successfully defended by dissertation (before three premillennialist professors), and completed my degree.  What Dr. Gentry may not be so pleased to discover is that in my now “formally trained” status there is only one thing that I have written previously that I would retract or change.  [For more on this, click on “He Never Left” on this site’s home page.[  With that said, let’s begin, as we expose the three foundational flaws of partial preterism.

1) “How Could Anyone Possibly Believe This?”

    Keith Mathison finds (full) preterism “almost laughable.” He questions, “How could anyone possibly believe this?” (p. 353). Below are four reasons (there are more) why increasing numbers of serious Bible students, including myself, are believing this.
     First, scholars agree, Jesus’ first hearers, the early Church, and the New Testament writers all believed Jesus would come again on the clouds in age-ending judgment within their lifetime.  And why shouldn’t they have?  In the words of the respected Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, “their Master had told them so.”[5]       Yet chapter contributor Robert B. Strimple makes a gross misstatement in attempting to dismiss the “alleged ‘imminency’ statements in the New Testament.”  He asserts that “none of the apostles knew when their Lord would return (citing Matt. 24:36)” (p. 344).  Fact is, all they did not known was “that day or hour.”  But this statement must not be extrapolated to mean they did not know at all, as Strimple assumes.  They knew the generation, because they had accepted the plain, natural, and straightforward meaning of Jesus’ words regarding the time of this coming.  I am embarrassed to report that C.S. Lewis later characterized Jesus’ clear and authoritative time statement in Matthew 24:34 as “the most embarrassing verse in the Bible” and “an exhibition of error.”[6]
     Even classic dispensationalist Larry Spargimino, in his recent and pejoratively titled book, The Anti-Prophets: The Challenge of Preterism, admits that “no one reading the New Testament would get the impression that Christ would not return for at least two thousand years.”[7]  Amillennialist John T. Carroll agrees that the “New Testament writings generally affirm the belief that Jesus’ parousia and associated eschatological events would occur within that first Christian generation.”[8] 
     In contrast to Mathison’s numerous uncertainty assertions that the New Testament’s temporal terms “cause difficulty for interpreters” (p. 173), that its time texts are “ambiguous” (p. 183), were only fulfilled “in some sense” (p. 189), are “already and not yet” (p. 190, 203), and that “there is nothing in the Gospels that even remotely suggests hyper (full)-preterism” (p. 205), amillennialist Donald Guthrie stresses that Jesus spoke “in absolute terms” with “authority” and was “certain of fulfillment.”  Moreover, there was a “complete absence of any awareness that his teaching might be wrong.”[9]  The contemporary relevance of Jesus’ prophetic words were emphatically confirmed when Jesus spoke to the Jewish religious leaders about the coming judgment.  “They knew he was talking about them” (Matt. 21:45), and not a future generation two thousand years removed. 
    Preterist J. Stuart Russell summed it up quite well in writing:

Every word is spoken to the disciples, and to them alone.  To imagine that the ‘ye’ and ‘you’ . . . apply, not to the disciples to whom Christ was speaking, but to some unknown and yet non-existent persons in a far distant age, is so preposterous a supposition as not to deserve serious notice.”[10]

    Secondly, Jesus’ first followers, including the inspired writers of the New Testament books, were guided into all truth and told the things that were yet to come by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13).  Obviously, their expectations were formed by this divine guidance.  So, here’s the rub.  If their Holy-Spirit-guided expectations for this coming of Jesus within their lifetime have been proven false by nineteen centuries and counting, how can we trust them to have conveyed other aspects of the faith along to us accurately, such as the requirements for salvation? 

Amillennialist Anthony A. Hoekema terms the expectation of Christ’s so-called Second Advent “a most important aspect of New Testament eschatology.” He affirms that “the faith of the New Testament church is dominated by this expectation.”[11]  Audience relevancy is the key factor here.  Again, scholars generally agree that Jesus’ generation was the original and only time context understood by Jesus’ first followers and the New Testament writers for fulfillment of all Jesus’ prophetic statements.  As we shall see in flaw #2, interpretations that contend otherwise are required because of adherence to false, unscriptural paradigms.

     Thirdly, no Holy-Spirit-guided, New Testament writer ever corrected these contemporary expectations.  Nor did they compromise or contradict Jesus’ teachings regarding the time of this coming.  They did just the opposite.  They intensified these nearness expectations—from Jesus’ I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened?” (made the week prior to his crucifixion, circa A.D. 30) to these intensifying statements of nearness such as:

·        Circa A.D. 57 – Paul’s “Time is short” (1 Cor. 7:29) . . . . “The world in its present form is passing away” (1 Cor. 7:31)

·        Circa A.D. 60 – James’ “the Lord’s coming is near (at hand). . . . The judge is standing at the door!” (Jas. 5:8-9)   

·        Circa A.D. 62 – Paul’s “that there will be [to be about to be] a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.” (Acts 24:15)

·        Circa A.D. 65 – the writer of Hebrews’ “In just a very very little while, He who is coming will come and will not delay . . . .’” (Heb. 10:37)

·        Circa A.D. 65-67 – Peter’s “The end of all things is at hand” (1 Pet. 4:7) . . . . For it is time for judgment to begin with the family [the house] of God . . . .” (1 Pet. 4:17 [KJV[)

·        Circa A.D. 67-68 – John’s “Little children, this is the last hour . . . it is the last hour” (1 John 2:18)

       Fourthly, reformed scholars concede that the New Testament’s time and imminency statements are to be taken naturally, plainly, and literally.  And they were so taken by their first recipients.  Hence, a 1st-century fulfillment seemed to be the intended meaning.  But they then subscribe to their long-running “delay theory” to circumvent this force of meaning (pp. 145-154, 202, 204, 239, 291).  Furthermore, if the words of Jesus and expectations of the New Testament writers and early Church regarding Jesus’ age-ending coming [return] were and still are of nebulous time value—as Mathison and many partial preterists also maintain—postulating a delay theory would be pointless.
     Hoekema clarifies that “the very expression, ‘delay of the Parousia’ suggests that something went wrong with the calculations.” [12] He terms it “the problem of the so-called ‘delay of the Parousia’” as he writes:

According to those New Testament scholars who speak about such a delay, Jesus, Paul, and the entire early church expected the return of Christ to happen very soon.  It seems obvious, however, so say these scholars, that Christ and Paul were mistaken, since he did not come soon—in fact, he has not yet returned.  This, then, is our problem: Why did Christ predict his early return, and why has he not yet returned? [13]

     Gentry claims this delay “allows time for the advancement and victory of Christ’s kingdom in the world and encourages a future-orientation to the labors of God’s people.” [14]   Reformed scholar Gordon J. Spykman elaborates thusly on what he calls “the ‘great delay:’”
     So doubts arose. Was the original faith of the disciples misplaced? Had Jesus miscalculated? Was God stalling? Down through the ages the experience of this “great delay” cast its disquieting shadows over the eschatological hopes of many Christians. Others accommodated these feelings of disillusionment by reading a prolonged period of time into the New Testament writings as a “make-shift solution” to the crisis of postponed expectations.” [15]
     Despite Hebrews 10:37’s inspired, emphatic, and contemporary application of Habakkuk 2:3,4’s “not delay” statement, all three futurist views (premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism) subscribe to some form of delay.  In so doing, they evade the original time-of-fulfillment framework and can devise futuristic time frames of their own.  But (full) preterists side with J. Stuart Russell as he maintains that interpreters must literally honor and restore the “distinct and decisive declarations of our Lord respecting the time of His [this] coming.” [16]   When this interpretative discipline is followed, the only Christ-honoring, Scripture-authenticating, faith-validating conclusion available is “our Lord’s second coming would take place within the limits of the existing generation.” [17]
     The question that must be raised is this: Why should it be so hard to believe what Jesus and the Bible said about this critical coming of Jesus—in a plain, natural, and straightforward manner?  (Full) preterists contend that this simplicity is the key.  In the words of the old church hymn,

                                                Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus,
                                                Just to take Him at His word,
                                                Just to rest upon His promise,
                                                Just to know, “Thus saith the Lord.”

     When understood in this manner, Jesus’ statements to come again on the clouds in age-ending judgment [return] within the lifetime of his hearers (Matt. 10:23; 16:27-28; 24:34; 26:64; John 21:22),[18] are no longer “ambiguous” (p. 183), or a “difficult problem” (p. 204).  Nor, must we ask, “What does this mean?” (p. 201) and seek to have these verses re-explained.  Ironically, profound things can be simple.  Apparently, Jesus wanted to keep his statements simple.  Otherwise, why say them?  So He spoke plainly and naturally, and “the common people heard Him gladly” (Mark 12:37KJV).  Why complicate Jesus’ words?  Maybe, just maybe, Jesus Christ knew in what generation He would come again [return], and taught that very thing using words and meanings his hearers could easily grasp.  Maybe, just maybe, it is the uninspired Church, its creeds, and our favorite theologians who have made the mistake.
     Mathison et al., however, are not willing to accept the plain, natural, and straightforward meaning of Jesus’ words regarding the time of his coming [return] and the fulfillment of other associated events.  Why not?   It is because they cannot.  They are driven by a false dichotomizing hermeneutic which hinders “straight thinking” and adversely affects what they consider to be “orthodoxy” (p. 35).  Like other futurist interpreters, they must seek alternative explanations—not because the text demands it, but because their paradigm requires it.  This all-too-common tendency is the reason why “the prophetic hope of a culminating act of God in history has continued to be reinterpreted.”[19]

      Spykman hits the proverbial nail on the head in writing, “at bottom every theological issue turns out to be a problem of hermeneutics.”[20]  Fact is, eschatology is a hermeneutical issue.  But it is also a paradigm problem. 
     Unfortunately, both the amillennial and postmillennial views are shackled with a false paradigm that produces a false dichotomizing hermeneutic.  Therefore, in a manner similar to dispensationalists,[21] they must make numerous arbitrary decisions as to which things pertain to one aspect of their hermeneutic and which to another.  But it is impossible for them to find a consistent way to do this.
     Paradoxically, Gentry makes a strong assertion with which I totally agree.  He claims that “no eschatological system with major theological problems ought to be held.”[22]  But, as we shall soon see, his system is plagued with major theological problems.  The root cause of which is a false paradigm and resultant false dichotomizing hermeneutic.  This blinds Gentry and his partial-preterist colleagues from being able to accept the (full) preterist position.  It results from simply not being true to the Bible.  Again, as we shall soon see, partial-preterists have succumbed to traditions of men which “nullify the word of God” (Mark 7:13, Matt. 15:6 KJV). 
     Before beginning this exposé, I believe postmillennialist Gary DeMar sets the proper tone by noting that “a Christian should never fear having his ‘system’ scrutinized by the plain teaching of the Bible.”[23]  I would add that every Christian should be willing to be honest with biblical evidence, particularly when that evidence demonstrates that one is wrong.  As we proceed through this second of the three foundational flaws of partial preterism, may our spirit be “Let God be true, and every man a liar” (Rom. 3:4a), including me if I am wrong. 
     A few years ago at a Christian Bookseller Association convention, R.C. Sproul explained his eschatological hermeneutic to me this way.  He said he has two columns—one for A.D. 70 and another for the end of time.  Hence, he places the fulfillment of most passages in his A.D. 70 column and the fulfillment of the rest in his end-of-time column.  He further volunteered that over the years, as he has evolved in his understanding, he has moved more and more fulfillment out of his end-of-time column and into his A.D. 70 column.[24]  “But,” he firmly assured me, “I still have a few things left in my end-of-time column.”
     Sproul’s dichotomizing hermeneutical approach may sound reasonable to many until one realizes that the Bible never mentions an “end of time” (pp. 178, 216, 217, 231, 237, 242, 245, 249); nor its corollaries—an “end of the world” (pp. 67, 69, 81, 243, 246, 251, 258, 259, 324, 345); or “end of human history” (17, 162, 274).  Not only are these non-scriptural phrases, but as we shall shortly see, they are also unscriptural concepts that are read into Scripture (eisegesis).  But they form the paradigm and consequential dichotomizing hermeneutic through which partial-preterist amillennialists and postmillennialists attempt to understand the fulfillment of end-time Bible prophecy. 
     Sadly, this false termination paradigm is so ingrained that it forces subscribers to overrule many sound hermeneutical and exegetical principles and to reach many unsound conclusions in order to comply with its demands.  Its resultant and false dichotomizing hermeneutic requires a partial-preterist position and necessitates:

·        Seeking fulfillment in two-different end-time periods—“an initial or  typological fulfillment in the first century, their ultimate or primary fulfillment remains to be seen” (p. 155, also 205).

·        Identifying two last-days periods—an “inaugurated the ‘last days,’ yet there is a sense in which the ‘last days’ are still to come” (p. 205)—after a protracted wait of thousands of years.

·        Establishing two different eschatological ends—one in A.D. 70 and “the ultimate end” yet to come (237, 254).  As Douglas Wilson writes, “Many of the prophecies of the New Testament should be understood in a preterist fashion, but not all” (p. 278).  Hence, partial preterists must pick and choose which scriptures, or portions thereof, apply to which end.  They must also weave in and out of divinely determined time context ordained over major eschatological passages—a daunting task. 

·        Advocating two different parousias (returns of Christ)—As Sproul explains, “in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. there was a parousia or coming of Christ . . . it was not the parousia. . . . not the final or ultimate coming of Christ. . . . It will come at the end of human history as we know it.”[25]

·        Bifurcating, artificially, major eschatological passages—such as Christ’s Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation—another daunting task.[26] 

·        Developing alternative explanations—to the clear and concise language and 1st-century expectations regarding Jesus’ coming again [return] and conjoined events, which Mathison terms “shallow exegesis of Scripture” (p. 213) and insists that “Jesus did not definitely predict that his second coming would occur at that time” (p. 212).  

     Tragically, this world-ending paradigm teaches that at the “end of time” God will bring to an end what Christ came and died to establish, and bring in something else totally new.  Again, why do they take these dualistic positions?  The answer is, they must in order to accommodate their dichotomizing hermeneutic based on their false termination paradigm.
     Additionally, amillennialists and postmillennialists must commit another error.  They place their “final” end at the end of the wrong age—at the end of the Christian age (pp. 105-106, 170, 206, 249, 321).  To the contrary, Jesus’ parousia [return] was to occur at the end of the Old Covenant age (Heb. 9 & 10).  The Christian age has no end (Eph. 3:21; Luke 1:33; Isa. 9:7).  At least, dispensationalists have this fact right, even though they erroneously must revive that old Jewish age (their 1,000-year millennium) so it can be ended, again. 
    Historic premillennialist George Eldon Ladd is doubly correct in noting that “Scripture says nothing about the end of the church age and a restoration of the Jewish age.”[27]  “This age” was the age Jesus and his contemporaries were living in, the age of Moses and the Law.  The “age to come” was and is the age of Christ, his kingdom, and the Church.  Once these two basic age distinctions are settled and the one-and-only eschatological end properly positioned, the eschatological debate with amillennialists and postmillennialists is practically over.  This two-age distinction is “the broader eschatological framework of the New Testament” (p. 157) and the “broader New Testament context” (p. 169) within which Mathison, et al. should be disciplining their understanding of eschatological fulfillment.  Christ’s coming again [return] was to finish what He had started, and not to end what He had instituted.   This is exactly what happened in A.D. 70 as that Old Covenant system and age were left “desolate,” forever (Matt. 23:38).[28]
     Yet, world-termination thought prevails.  In 1955 Rudolf Bultmann pathetically observed:

The problem of Eschatology grew out of the fact that the expected end of the world failed to arrive, that the ‘Son of Man’ did not appear in the clouds of heaven, that history went on, and that the eschatological community could not fail to recognize that it had become a historical phenomenon and that the Christian faith had taken on the shape of a new religion.[29]  

     He goes on to point out that “eschatology was never abandoned, rather the expected end of the world was removed into an indefinite future.”[30]  The significant theological problem that remains, however, is that this termination paradigm is unscriptural and false for these four reasons:

1.      The Bible never speaks of an “end of time,[31]” “end of the world,[32]” or an “end of human history.”  Consequently, neither do the creeds.  These are man made concepts that are imported into Scripture.  Most people have understood this termination terminology to mean the destruction of the Genesis 1:1 material creation and the end of human existence (at least, as we know it).  But the Bible teaches just the opposite, that our world is without end (Eph. 3:21KJV; also see Eccl. 1:4; Ps. 78:69; 93:1; 96:10; 104:5; 119:90); so are the moon and sun (Ps. 89:36-37) and highest heavens (Ps. 148:4, 6).  Scriptures tell us that the kingdom, the generations of man, and the earth itself are all to continue “forever” (Ps. 104:5; 145:13; Eccl. 1:4; Dan. 4:3, 34; 7:14, 18, 27; Luke 1:33; Eph. 3:21).  Furthermore, the kingdom of Christ that was established on this earth back in the 1st century would only “increase,” have “no end,” and would last “forever” (Isa. 9:7; Dan. 2:44).[33]

     Yet these unscriptural termination phrases and concepts form the paradigm through which partial-preterist amillennialists and postmillennialists attempt to understand end-time Bible prophecy.  Even worse, if that is possible, this false paradigm forces them to create more non-scriptural and non-creedal terms, and unscriptural concepts such as:                                                                                          

·        A “final” or “Last Judgment” (pp. iii, 7, 32, 50, 53, 82, 90, 159, 161, 167-8, 211, 219, 237, 242-6, 253, 291, 353, 354) – after which there will be no more judgment.[34]

·        A “final advent” or “last coming of Christ” (pp. 71, 72, 91, 282) – after which there will be no more “comings” of Christ of any kind.[35]

·        A “One coming, final resurrection” (pp. 297-8) – after which there will be no more resurrection(s).[36] 

     It bears repeating, there are no such limitations or terminations ever mentioned in the Bible, or even in the creeds of the undivided church.  This biblical fact can easily be confirmed by anyone familiar with a concordance.
     Rather, the consistent witness of Scripture is that the judgment and judgments (plural) of God have been revealed in many applications throughout Scripture.  For instance, as the psalmist states, “thy judgments are a great deep” (Ps. 36:6) and as Paul acknowledges, “how unsearchable his judgments” (Rom. 11:33).[37] 
     Similarly, the many comings (plural) of Jesus run like a thread throughout both the Old and New Testaments.  They take many different forms and happen to many different people, in many different places, and for many different purposes. 
     Likewise, resurrections have a long biblical history (Heb. 11:35).  But the “better resurrection”— the one first attained by Jesus, then by “many holy people who had died” (Matt. 27:51-53), then by the rest of the righteous dead in A.D. 70, and after that upon the death of each Christian—is without end.[38]       Like Christ’s unending kingdom (Isa. 9:7; Dan. 2:44; 7:14, 18, 27; Luke 1:33), the kingdom’s intrinsic parts—such as judgment(s), his comings, salvation(s), and resurrection(s)—are also without end.  For what is true of the whole is true of its parts, unless there is a scripture that clearly specifies to the contrary.  I know of no verse or passage of Scripture that limits or terminates these occurrences or their ongoing, established reality following the Lord’s parousia [return] in A.D.70.  Without a clear warrant from Scripture, we should not limit nor terminate these occurrences, either.[39]

2.      The Bible’s use of apocalyptic language, such as sun being darkened, the stars falling from the sky, earth being shaken, does not refer to nor necessitate a future coming of the end of the physical world or universe.  Quite to the contrary, this language has a long history of use and fulfillment in the Old Testament comings of a day of the Lord.  Never once in any fulfillment was the material universe ever altered one iota.[40]

     Postmillennialist Kik, for example, rightly understands this much about the “ideas of judgment, and apocalyptic language and style” in the New Testament.  He writes that “there is not a single figure [‘sun, moon, and stars,’ ‘the son of man riding on the clouds,’ ‘the fig tree’] employed whose use has not been already sanctioned and its meaning determined in the Old Testament.”  He concludes, therefore, “all events mentioned by Christ have found their fulfillment.”[41]
3.      “For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world (kosmos)” (John 3:17).  And neither should we, by unscripturally teaching that it is going to end catastrophically some day when the Bible teaches that God’s creation is without end.       Ironically, modern-day partial preterists sound like the original scoffers who said, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? . . . . everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation” (2 Pet. 3:4).  Fact is, “the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it” (1 Cor. 10:26).  And He has promised never again to destroy it “as long as the earth endures [remains]” (Gen. 8:21-22; 9:11) which is “forever” (Eccl. 1:4).[42]   
4.      Another biblical fact Mathison et al. seemed to have overlooked is, there are three different entities in the Bible called “heavens and earth.”  One is Planet Earth and the cosmos creation (Gen. 1:1; Isa. 51:13).  A second is the old world empire of Babylon (Isa. 13:13, 19-22).  The third is the Old Covenant creation (Deut. 32:1; 31:28; Isa. 1:2-3; 51:15-16; Heb. 12:26-27 from Hag. 2:6-7)
     Two of these “heavens and earth” entities have already ended.  The other, as we have seen, never ends.  Question:  So which one of these creations was the one to pass away and be made new as spoken of in the book of Revelation (Rev. 21 &22) and in the Old Testament book of Isaiah (Isa. 65:17-18; 66:22)?  I will not repeat here the lengthy scriptural arguments supporting these distinctions because I have dealt with this subject in depth in another place .[43]  I will only emphasize from my previous writings that the Bible’s “a new heaven and a new earth” (Rev. 21:1f) is a new covenantal creation, and not a new cosmic creation that follows an unscriptural “end of time” or “end of the world,” etc.   I simply challenge Mathison et al. to go back and more systematically deal with my “Ten Revelational Insights” on this matter of discovering the true identity of the Bible’s “new heaven and a new earth,” rather than resorting to selective quoting, ridicule, and assertion, as they have done (pp. 91, 192, 205, 250-1, 291, 321-6, 345, 351).
     Another major consequence of Mathison et al.’s false paradigm is clearly voiced by Hoekema regarding “the final state of those who are in Christ.”  He insists about the believers who are currently in heaven that:
     They will be happy during the intermediate state between death and resurrection . . . . But their happiness will be provisional and incomplete.  For the completion of their happiness they await the resurrection of the body and the new earth which God will create as the culmination of his redemptive work.[44] 
     Thus, for many, but not all, partial preterits, heaven is a temporary place and not our eternal dwelling, despite what Scripture states (Ps. 23:6; Phil. 3:20; Job 8:9).  Instead, they posit that someday all believers will dwell eternally on a new, terra-firma earth, and not in heaven.[45]  
     In concluding our discussion of this second foundational flaw of partial preterism, I affirm that the Bible emphatically declares only one eschatological “end” and  one “time of the end” (not “end of time”—big difference).  Daniel provides both the defining characteristic and historical setting for this one-and-only “time of the end” (Dan. 12:4).  It would be “when the power of the holy people has been finally broken all these things will be completed” (Dan. 12:7).  Please notice that Daniel did not stipulate an end of time, an end of history, or an end of Planet Earth and the cosmos. 
     This past-fulfilled, “time-of-the-end” paradigm is the one to which yours truly and other (full) preterists subscribe.  It is totally biblical and provides the hermeneutical discipline within which we seek to understand the nature of fulfillment for all end-time Bible prophecies, events, and redemptive realities. In our various writings, we have documented how “in these last days” (Heb 1:2) everything arrived right on time¾no gaps, no interruptions, no delays, and no ambiguous re-explanations.  At the climax of this divinely determined time period, on the “last day” (singular) of “these last days” (plural), the four chief moments, or eschatological events of Christ’s coming on the clouds in age-ending judgment [so-called return], judgment, resurrection of the dead, and consummation, all took place, concurrently and exactly, as and when they were supposed to take place.  This precision of fulfillment is God’s stamp of divinity in the end times.   What needs adjustment are our understandings, and not the time element.
     Once again, I agree with Klein and others when they conclude that:
     The historically defensible interpretation has greatest authority.  That is, interpreters can have maximum confidence in their understanding of a text when they base that understanding on historically defensible arguments.[46]  
     Fact is, the (full) preterist position is “historically defensible,” whether one agrees with it or not.  Another hermeneutical challenge issued by Klein et al., is also most applicable here: “The honest, active interpreter remains open to change, even to significant transformation of preunderstandings.”  And “since we accept the Bible’s authority, we remain open to correction by its message.”  If not, as they warn, we can “remain forever entombed in our prior commitments.”[47]  We simply must “allow the Bible to alter or clarify their [our] preunderstandings.”[48]  And, “where interpreters have committed errors of methodology or judgment, they must be willing to learn and change their interpretations. . . . determination and sincerity are no substitutes for accuracy. . . . Correct interpretation must always be our goal.”[49]
     Since the paradigm of an “end of time,” “end of the world,” or “end of human history” is not supported by Scripture—but is contradicted by it—I must conclude that this termination paradigm and its resultant dichotomizing hermeneutic of partial preterism must be, as Klein and others admonished, “relinquished.”  As long as interpreters are hamstrung by “misconstrue[d] . . . evidence . . . shoddy reasoning . . . flaws,”[50] their proper understanding of end-time prophecy will remain illusive.  The (full) preterist paradigm of a “world without end” and a “time of the end” is superior and a biblical strength to be kept and honored.

     Jesus told his disciples shortly before He was crucified that “Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me . . .” (John 14:19).  The Bible records that they did see Him again, several times.  This is part of Jesus’ many comings.  And, these were visible, bodily appearances. 
     The question we will raise in this third foundational flaw of partial preterism, however, revolves around Jesus’ statement that the world would not see Him anymore.  So, how long is Jesus’ “not . . . anymore,” anyway?  For Mathison, and all futurists, Jesus’ “not . . . anymore” is perhaps only a few thousand years in duration.  In contradistinction to this verse, Mathison insists that “Jesus’ return will be visible and bodily” and that “this has not happened yet, so if Scripture can be trusted, the visible return of Christ is something that literally remains to be seen” (pp. 187-8; 201-202, 204; also 181, 184-6, 291).
     Of all the objections to the (full) preterist claim that Christ came again [returned] in A.D. 70, by far the greatest is the traditional insistence upon a universally visible, final coming/appearing of Christ.  Interestingly, Jesus termed this insistence on a visual criterion to be part of the deception of the elect.  Twice, He warned against it in this way:
     At that time if anyone says to you ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it.  For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect – if that were possible.  See I have told you ahead of time.  So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it” (Matt. 24:23-26).  
    Jesus qualified this deception of the elect by saying, “if that were possible” (Matt. 24:24).  Apparently, it was possible or why mention it?  Not only do I believe it was possible and probable back then, but I believe it is a deception that still affects the elect yet today.  I submit that Mathison and the other contributors to his book are modern-day examples because of their misunderstanding of the nature of this coming of Jesus.[51]  That is the bad news.  The good news is, they are still “the elect”—something some of them seem unwilling to grant me and other (full) preterist adherents.
     Of course, while Mathison, et al. believe Jesus came in some sense in A.D. 70, most rely on verses like Revelation 1:7, Acts 1:11, and Matthew 24:27, which we will  covered later, to support their understanding that the nature of his future, non-time-restricted parousia would not only be visible, but would be visible to the whole world.   The invisible nature of his coming in A.D. 70, therefore, has been and is a principal stumbling block for partial preterists.
     Dispensationalists, on the other hand, do not believe A.D. 70 was any kind of coming of Jesus.  Robert L. Thomas terms the preterist “cloud-coming” a “no coming.”[52]  Spargimino derogatorily calls the preterist invisible coming, “a pathetic coming” which “does no honor to Jesus Christ or to the integrity of Scripture.”[53]  He further denigrates it as a “‘blasted hope’ instead of ‘the blessed hope.’”[54]  John F. MacArthur also jumps on (full) preterists charging that they “deny the bodily return of Christ.”[55] 
     On the surface, the futurists’ insistence upon a visible criterion would appear to be an insurmountable objection.  But I submit that Jesus’ coming “on the clouds” in A.D. 70 was a real, personal, and bodily coming, although not his return [See, again, “He Never Left” on this site’s home page].  Yet no human eye physically “saw” Him do it.  Not surprisingly, this has been the bane and chief blind spot of Christianity for more than nineteen centuries.  It results from a gross misunderstanding of the nature of this coming.  The answer to this perplexity is also rather simple and straightforward.
     First, the technical word most often used in the New Testament to speak of Jesus’ so-called “return” is the Greek word parousia.[56]  Although it is most often translated “coming,” its primary meaning is the personal “arrival” or “presence” of one who comes.  It is derived from two Greek words, para meaning “with,” and ousia meaning “being.”  It conveys the idea of a visitation.  And Jesus inseparably linked and time-limited his parousia coming with the destruction of the Jewish Temple and the end of the Old Covenant Age (Matt. 24:3, 27, 33-34).  All partial-preterist attempts to unlink these three conjoined events are textually indefensible.  Moreover, uncoupling devices are an affront to the veracity of Jesus Himself, the imminency expectations of his disciples and the New Testament writers, and the very soundness and inerrancy of Scripture itself.[57]
     Secondly, the long biblical precedent of cloud-coming in day of the Lord judgments in Old Testament times never referred to a visible coming of Deity, as many have assumed. But there were always major physical and visible effects produced. Christ’s “coming on the clouds” was consistent with those many past comings.[58] Furthermore, He said He was going to come “in his Father’s glory” (Matt. 16:27; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26).  But Jesus also reminds us that God the Father is “unseen” (Matt. 6:6; also see John ).[59]
     Thirdly, his disciples asked, “What will be the sign of your coming [i.e., your arrival, or your continuing presence]?” (Matt. 24:3).  The fact that a “sign” was asked for and needed should tip us off to the invisible nature of this particular type of coming.  If it were going to be visible for many or all to see, it would not need a sign.  A sign points to something that is real but not visible.
     I contend that Jesus’ real, personal, and bodily coming on the clouds [so-called return] during the “last days” was just as much a part of his redemptive work as his death on the cross, resurrection, going away to prepare a place for us, sending of the Holy Spirit, coming in judgment, and completion of salvation.  All of these redemptive acts were literal, “last days” events, and all were united in purpose¾the consummation of God’s kingdom and plan of redemption.  Consequently, Christ’s redemptive work is over, and He remains continually, bodily, and fully present with us.  Our better understanding of the reality of his never-left Presence will definitely affect the way we view the validity and viability of our faith.   
     Fourthly, Kik clarifies that if Christ’s coming was going to be visible, “he would have said, ‘And then shall appear the Son of man in heaven.’ [Matt. 24:30]  But he prophesied the appearance of a sign.”[60]  Clearly and inseparably, Jesus linked the physically visible destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple with the end of the Jewish age and his invisible parousia.  All three were part of his “all these things” (Matt. 24:34).  He said, “Immediately, after the distress [tribulation] of those days . . . the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven (or in the sky)” (Matt. 24:29-30).  Immediately after the four sieges of A.D. 66 – 70, the sign appeared in the burning and destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple—just as Jesus had said, “Look, your house [the Temple] is left to you desolate” (Matt. 23:38; 21:13).   In these destructive events, his Presence was manifested and He was truly revealed as the Son of God.  This was and remains a sign for all ages.
     Let us never forget that most 1st-century Jews missed the coming of the Messiah because of their false materialistic expectations.  They are still looking for a visible, physical, literal fulfillment.  The difficulty faced by many Christians today in accepting A.D. 70 as the plan-of-redemption, culminating coming [so-called return] of the Lord is similar to the problem faced by those Jews during Jesus’ lifetime.  Most Christians, too, are looking for a visible, material coming of Christ and his kingdom.  But both expectations are unscriptural.
     Regarding the nature of the coming of his kingdom, Jesus said that it “does not come visibly” (Luke 17:20b; 2 Cor. 4:18).  Therefore, why must his “coming in his kingdom” (Matt. 16:28) be visible?  But many want a different type of kingdom and a King they can see.  This desire is not new (see 1 Sam. 8:19-20).  Even the rapturists are expecting an invisible coming of Christ to remove them from Planet Earth (mistakenly so, however – see John 17:15, 20).  Moreover, faith consists of being “certain of what we do not see” (Heb. 11:1), including being “surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses” (Heb. 12:1).  This cloud includes a usually invisible Jesus (Heb. 12:22-24).  But to top it all, Jesus declared that “the world would not see me anymore” (John 14:19, also 22).   Do we trust his words?  Do we believe Him?  Again, just how long is Jesus’ “not . . . anymore,” anyway?[61]
     We need to wean ourselves from the idea that the Presence of Jesus, who is God, must be visible or somehow materialistic.  To do so, we will need to better understand the nature of his resurrected body and the practical reality of the spirit realm in which He operates.  “For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them” (Matt. 18:20).  Although unseen, Jesus is truly, fully, personally, and bodily present with them and us today as well, is He not?
     Another example of the reality of the invisible is how Jesus Himself interpreted the Old Testament prophecy of the coming of Elijah (Mal. 4:5-6).  This fulfillment preceded the coming and anointing of the Messiah in the Jordan River.  But it was not fulfilled by a literal reappearance of the Old Testament prophet Elijah, as the Jews were expecting.  Instead, Jesus said that John the Baptist was the predicted Elijah.  The invisible spirit and power of Elijah came into and operated through John the Baptist (Luke 1:17; Matt. 11:14; 17:10-13).  Also note that Jesus said, “And if you are willing to accept it . . .” (Matt. 11:14).  Undoubtedly He inserted this disclaimer because He knew many would not accept the invisible nature of this fulfillment.
     Despite these emphatic statements of Jesus, Ladd proves that traditional notions are quite resistant to plain Scriptural teaching.  He insists that “the Kingdom will become visible at the eschatological appearing of Jesus Christ.”[62]  Again, this is part of the deception of the elect of which Jesus warned (Matt. 24:23-26).  It is why most Christians today have missed his timely but invisible consummatory coming in A.D. 70.  But just because it was invisible does not mean that it was unreal, impersonal, non-bodily, or only symbolic or spiritual.  Invisibility does not lessen its significance.  Notably, it was not until the year A.D. 1560, in the First Scottish Confession of Faith, that an explicit declaration of a visible return was made in any of the historic creeds or confessions of the Church. 
     Amillennialist Jerry Newcomer appropriately asks, answers, and then reflects: “Why did the scribes and Pharisees blow it? Because of preconceived notions of His coming.  Is it not possible that many of us today might not misunderstand His second coming because of our preconceived notions?”[63]   There is only one solution for those who delay or postpone this previously fulfilled event.  As we have seen, they must change the Bible’s end-time framework.  And they must manipulate the time statements, instead of adjusting their understanding of the nature of the event.  Sad to say, this is the primary reason why Christianity has gotten into its current eschatological dilemma and also has become so vulnerable to the liberal/skeptic attack on Christ’s deity and the Bible’s inerrancy.[64] 
     Hoekema makes a very good point in this regard: “If believers like John the Baptist could have problems of this sort with predictions about Christ’s first coming [Matt. 11:2-3], what guarantee do we have that believers will not have similar difficulties with predictions about Christ’s second coming?” [65]
     At least the scoffers, to their credit, did not commit this error. They correctly recognized that Christ’s coming would have the physical quality of being conjoined with the destruction of the Temple. Contrary to much popular opinion and as Kik has well stated regarding Christ’s “coming on the clouds,” those “words do not point to a visible appearing.”[66]  
     Yet, the literal, bodily, personal presence of Christ has both physical and spiritual aspects.  After all, the better spiritual substance of the New Covenant was the fulfillment of the literal and physical institutions of the Old Covenant system.  It is ironic that one must defend the concept that the Bible speaks of spiritual things.  Invisible reality should not be viewed as lesser to visible reality.  Even Ladd recognizes that “in Hebrews [11:1] faith is the faculty to perceive the reality of the unseen world of God and to make it the primary object of one’s life . . . [it is] more real than the phenomenal world.”[67]  Amillennialist Dennis E. Johnson fittingly remarks about the book of Revelation that “by its very name, is an unveiling, a vivid disclosure of invisible realities.”[68]
     The tendency, however, has been to pit spiritual against physical and contend that perhaps some prophecies were only fulfilled “in some sense” spiritually and that Jesus only came spiritually in A.D. 70.  This “lesser” spiritual reality is then contrasted with the so-called “ultimate” or “better” physical and visible fulfillment some time in the future.  But Christ’s coming in A.D. 70 is not a “spiritualization” or a reduction “to a merely spiritual event,” as Seraiah claims.[69]  Rather, it is looking at this coming of Christ through the eyes of faith.  Neither his consummatory coming nor any of the consummation events or established realities is exclusively spiritual.  All are fully here in full reality, and yet greatly under-realized.  So Spargimino blasts (full) preterists for resorting to “a tortured explanation for their defense of a spiritual coming.”[70]  A corresponding challenge for Spargimino would be his non-literal manipulation, or “spiritualizing,” of the time statements.  In A.D. 70, Christ came not just spiritually and invisibly, but personally and bodily as well, in judgment upon Jerusalem. 
     Principally at issue, are three key verses used to support the idea that Christ’s end-of-the-age coming would or will be visible:

Revelation 1:7 – The opening chapter of Revelation announces regarding Jesus: “Look, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him even those who pierced him; and all the peoples (tribes) of the earth (land) will mourn because of him.  So shall it be! Amen.”

     Most people have been led to believe “every eye will see” is limited in its meaning to only being the eyes of those people alive on Planet Earth at the time of Christ’s so-called “Second Coming”—as He dramatically hangs suspended in the sky and/or is universally seen via worldwide TV and internet coverage.[71]  But let us look closer at what the phrases in this verse really mean.  
      I contend that this verse literally means exactly what it says “every eye will see him.”  That is: every eye of every person who has ever lived, now lives, or will live on Planet Earth—no exceptions.  Especially singled out are “those who pierced him.”  This is a direct quote by Jesus from the prophet Zechariah and what he had prophesied would happen (Zech. 12:10; 13:1-2, 6-9; also Matt. 24:30; John 19:37; Acts 2:23).  Therefore, “every eye” starts with a 1st-century context and audience—with those who physically nailed Christ to the cross (John 19:31-37; Ps. 22:16), those who instigated it, those who brought false witness, those who convicted Him (Acts 2:36; 3:12-15; 7:51-52), those who called down his blood upon their own heads (Matt. 27:24, 25), and those in the hadean realm (Luke 16:19-31; Isa. 53:8-9; also see Hos. 13:14; Isa. 24:21-22; 25:8; 28:18).[72]  It continues on from that time forward.
     The invisible nature of “coming with clouds” has already been addressed.  “All the peoples of the earth” is better translated “all the tribes of the land.”  It is comparable to Jesus’ use in Matthew 24:30 and is a reference to the twelve tribes of Israel.  Russell comments about this phrase that it is “referring evidently to the population of the land of Judea; and nothing can be more forced and unnatural than to make it include . . . ‘all the races and peoples of the globe . . . . its limitation to the land of Israel is obvious.”[73]
     Gentry adds that “this coming is a judgment coming focusing upon first century Israel.  Revelation 1:7 says He is coming upon ‘those who pierced Him.’”[74]  Eusebius affirmed that Jesus “came” in the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, fulfilling Zechariah’s end-time prophecy, which is quoted in Revelation 1:7 (Zech. 12:10).[75]
     With these comments in mind and in one application, Jesus’ Messianic birth, crucifixion, and coming in the destruction of Israel and the Judaic system were world-perceived, world-changing, and world-mourning events of that time.  They have been preserved and remembered in every subsequent generation.  Thus, in this application, “every eye” seeing (realizing or perceiving Who He was and is), cannot be limited to only a single generation in either the past or future.  In a similar statement, Simeon took the eight-day-old baby Jesus in his arms in the Temple courts and was moved by the Holy Spirit to utter: “For my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people” (Luke 2:30-31; also see Luke 3:6; Isa. 40:5).
     In another application, the book of Revelation’s declaration of “Look, he is coming” or “cometh,” is explicitly descriptive.  In the Greek language the verb, “is coming,” is a present deponent indicative.  This verb tense conveys the idea of either an in-process action or a present and continuous action.  In other words, it expresses Jesus as in the process of getting ready to come and/or the ongoing nature of his many, different, and countless comings.  In light of all that is promised in the book of Revelation itself, both meanings are supportable.  But let us focus on the latter.
     This sentence could be re-translated, “Look, he is coming, and coming and coming.”  Perhaps, He comes in the salvation experience, in witness, in vision, in body, in judgment, in death, in hell, in many other ways, and He is to be faced after death.  Somehow, in some way or other, at some time or times, in life and/or in death, “every eye” of every person literally sees Jesus, at least once.  But not everyone sees Him at the same time or in the same manner.  In my opinion, this reality better explains the continual fulfillment of the biblical promise that “every eye will see Him.”  It complies with the biblical fact that “every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10-11; also see Rom. 14:11; Isa. 45:23; Ps. 22:27-29; Rev. 5:13).  I contend that this also includes everyone who ever lived, lives, or will live.  But we have limited this glorious truth by our reductionistic unbelief and by our two-advent mindset to being only those alive in some future generation, or to only a heaven/hell, after-death experience.  Nevertheless, “every eye” seeing, “every knee” bowing, and “every tongue” confessing does not mean everyone believes in Him.
     What rightly must also be stressed, in our biblical unlimiting of the comings of Jesus is that we cannot and should not dogmatically preclude a future, “every-eye-will-see,” single coming event, which could be physically visible to many.  After all, God is sovereign.  But, the crucial and distinguishing point that must be equally emphasized is that this does not have to happen to fulfill any unfulfilled Bible prophecy.  Also, let’s recall that Jesus emphatically stated that “before long, the world will not see me anymore” (John 14:19).  So, how long is Jesus’ “not . . . anymore” anyway?

      Acts 1:11 – “‘Men of Galilee,’ they said, ‘why do you stand here looking into the sky?  This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come [back] in the same way (in like manner) you have seen him go into heaven.’”
     Thus, R.C. Sproul writes that “the return of Christ will be as visible as His departure.  This text [Acts 1:9-11] seems to preclude any possibility of an invisible return of Christ.”[76]  Or does it?