Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled?-Part 3
| By: Dr. Thomas Ice; ©1999 |
| Dr. Ice continues his examination of the preterist position on biblical prophecy. |
Contents
Has Bible Prophecy Already Been Fulfilled? Part III
In the two previous articles I have been dealing with a view of Bible prophecy known as “preterism” which is Latin for “gone by,” or “past.” Preterists contend that most of the biblical passages that most of us would see as future have already been fulfilled in the first century. R. C. Sproul has adopted this view in his recent book The Last Days According To Jesus. Why are an increasing number of evangelicals coming to what I strongly believe is an erroneous conclusion?
Helping God
In the Introduction of his book on prophecy, Dr. Sproul believes that he is helping to save biblical Christianity from liberal skeptics like Bertrand Russell and Albert Schweitzer by adopting a preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy. “One of Russell’s chief criticisms of the Jesus portrayed in the Gospels is that Jesus was wrong with respect to the timing of his future return,” notes Dr. Sproul. “At issue for Russell is the time-frame reference of these prophecies. Russell charges that Jesus failed to return during the time frame he had predicted.” Dr. Sproul, along with many other preterists answer this charge from liberals by saying that Jesus did return in the first century, He returned spiritually through the acts of the Roman army who destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple in A.D. 70.
I do not believe you fight liberalism with liberalism. Dr. Sproul believes that he is defending the integrity of Scripture by adopting the preterist interpretation. However, in reality, I believe that he is adopting a naturalistic interpretation that too many liberals feel at home with. While Dr. Sproul sees Matthew 24 as a prophecy that was fulfilled in the first century, liberal preterists join him in giving a naturalistic explanation even though from a different framework. But they both deny that our Lord prophesied a supernatural, bodily, visible return of Christ in fulfillment of Matthew 24.
On the other hand, Dr. Sproul and other preterists would not have a supposed problem that they and liberals seem to think they have if they adopted the approach of dispensationalism which distinguishes between the rapture that could take place without warning at any moment and the second coming which will be preceded by the signs of Matthew 24. True, many of the post-Apostolic fathers believed that Jesus would come back soon, but the New Testament teaches that Christ’s coming in the clouds to rapture His church is imminent (1 Cor. 1:7; Phil. 3:20; 1 Thess. 1:10; Titus 2:13; Heb. 9:28; 1 Pet. 1:13; Jude 21; cf. Matt. 24:45-47; Mk. 13:33-37; Lk. 12:35-40), an event that could have taken place at any time during the last 2,000 years. Thus, Scripture does not need to be rescued from the higher critics by adopting the preterist interpretation.
Three Preterist Prooftexts
Dr. Sproul and other preterists often teach that there are three major passages in Matthew that demand a first century fulfillment. The three verses are Matthew 10:23; 16:28; and 24:34. I will examine this triad of texts in the order in which they appear in Matthew and demonstrate why they do not support a first century, preterist fulfillment.
Matthew 10:23
“But whenever they persecute you in this city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you shall not finish going through the cities of Israel, until the Son of Man comes.”
“Again, if Russell is correct in concluding that the coming referred to in this text is the parousia of Christ, then the primary time-frame for the parousia must be restricted to a forty-year period,” writes Dr. Sproul. “It surely did not take the disciples much more than forty years to cover the boundaries of Palestine with the gospel message.” This view is not defended in his book, instead Dr. Sproul merely asserts it as a supposition, taking J. Stuart Russell’s word for it. Russell tells us, “our Lord probably intended to intimate that the apostles would not finish evangelizing the towns of Palestine before He should come to destroy Jerusalem and scatter the nation.” Does the plain reading of this passage teach us what preterists say? I don’t believe it does.
First, the time of fulfillment for this passage depends upon establishing the context for which our Lord envisioned its realization. Even J. Stuart Russell believes that there is “abundant warrant for assigning the important prediction contained in Matt. x. 23 to the discourse delivered on the Mount of Olives.” He explains that, “It is an admitted fact that even the Synoptical Gospels do not relate all events in precisely the same order; …Dr. Blaikie observes: ‘It is generally understood that Matthew arranged his narrative more by subjects and places than by chronology.’” I am in agreement at this point that the context is that of the Olivet Discourse, even though we disagree as to when that period takes place. Thus, to a large extent, the time when Matthew 10:23 is to be fulfilled must be postponed until interpretative decisions are made concerning other passages such as Matthew 24.
Second, when consulting a harmony of the Gospels, it becomes evident that the other uses of the vocabulary from the context of Matthew 10:16-23 parallels in the Synoptic Gospels the various versions of the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24–25; Mark 13; Luke 17 and 21). In fact, the New Geneva Study Bible, of which Dr. Sproul is the General Editor says of this passage, “The ‘coming’ is the Second Coming of Christ to judge the earth. This view fits most of the other occurrences of the phrase (24:30; 25:31; 26:64; but see 16:28).” This data supports the conclusion from the previous point that the timing of the fulfillment of this passage is tied to the Olivet Discourse.
Third, all agree that there is no indication in Scripture that the disciples experienced the kind of persecution mentioned in this passage before the crucifixion of Christ. J. Stuart Russell admits, “There is no evidence that the disciples met with such treatment on their evangelistic tour.” Thus, this sustains the conclusion to which we are building: that our Lord has a future time in mind when He speaks the words of this passage.
Fourth, I believe that Matthew 10:21-23 refers to events that will take place in the tribulation, climaxing in the glorious second coming of Christ because of the nature of the vocabulary. This point could not be made any clearer than has been stated by the Reformed commentator, William Hendriksen:
- These explanations ignore the fact that in the other Matthew passages in which the coming of the Son of man is mentioned and described the reference is linked with the second coming. It is a coming “in the glory of his Father,” “with his angels,” “to render to every man according to his deed” (16:27, 28); a coming when Christ shall “sit on the throne of his glory” (19:28); a coming that will be “visible” (24:27); “sudden and unexpected” (24:37.39.44); a coming “on clouds of heaven with power and great glory” (24:30; cf. 25:31; 26:64). It would be strange therefore if from 10:23 any reference to Christ’s exaltation which attains its climax in the second coming would be wholly excluded. . . . The destruction of Jerusalem is predicted not here in chapter 10 but in 22:7; 23:38; see also 24:2, 15 f.”
Fifth, the use of the title “Son of Man” “’has a definite doctrinal signification—it always refers to the (Parousia) Second Coming.’ The phrase, so expressive of His humanity, indicates a visible, personal Coming, which was not exhibited at the destruction of Jerusalem. Beside this, all excepting John were deceased before the city was overthrown.”
Conclusion
John Calvin is correct when he notes of those who suggest that Matthew 10:23 was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem “is too far-fetched.” Some have suggested that the coming of the Son of Man refers to Christ’s Triumphal Entry (Matt. 21:1-11; Lk. 19:39-44) George Peters notes that “This took place before the disciples had made the tour of the cities, and meets the conditions of the passage.” It is noted that Matthew 21:9, speaking of Christ, says, “Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord.” While this view has much to commend, it does not handle the persecution aspects of the passage, which did not occur in relation to the Triumphal Entry. Instead, I believe that Matthew 10:21-23 refers to a still future time of tribulation and the second coming of Christ.
How should this passage be explained?
- The apostles never completed their kingdom ministry before they turned to the Gentiles. This was because Israel did not receive their message. This thought is developed throughout the remainder of chapter 10 and in chapter 11, in which Jesus finally castigates Israel, withdraws the message of national deliverance and turns to individuals with an offer of salvation in Mt. 11:28-30.
Dr. Stanley Toussaint further explains,
- The Messiah was simply looking past His death to the time of tribulation following. At the time the disciples would have the same message and possibly the same power. The narrow road leading to the kingdom leads through the tribulation (Matthew 10:16), and this persecution is to be of a religious and political nature (Matthew 10:16-19). . . .
- The Lord made no error and clearly had “the coming” for judgment in mind. However, the coming is contingent upon Israel’s acceptance of its King. Because even after His resurrection, that nation refused Him, it became impossible to establish the kingdom (cf. Acts 3:18-26). In fact, the tribulation period did not come; if it had, the promise of the soon coming of the Son of Man would have been of great comfort to the apostles.
Matthew 10:23 does not support the preterist contention that the coming of the Son of Man occurred in A.D. 70 through the Roman Army. Instead, Christ was looking ahead to another time, the tribulation leading up to the glorious second advent which I believe will be made clearer as we investigate related passages in future articles.
If you would like to read more about preterism and futurism, my debate book with preterist Ken Gentry is available. It is called The Great Tribulation: Past or Future? (Kregel Publishers, 1999).
Notes
_R. C. Sproul, The Last Days According To Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), p. 13.
_Ibid., p. 56.
_J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord’s Second Coming, new ed. (1887; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), pp. 28-29.
_Ibid., p. 27.
_Ibid.
_I used Kurt Aland, Synopsis of The Four Gospels, 7th edition, (Stuttgart, Germany: German Bible Society, 1984), pp. 92-94.
_New Geneva Study Bible, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), p. 1521. _ Russell, Parousia, p. 27.
_William Hendriksen, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1973), pp. 466-67.
_George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom, 3 Vols., (Grand Rapids: Kregel, [1884], 1978), II:56
_John Calvin, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Vol. I (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprinted 1979), p. 458.
_Peters, Theocratic Kingdom, II: 564.
_Ibid.
_Randolph O. Yeager, The Renaissance New Testament, Vol. 2 (Bowling Green, Ken.: Renaissance Press, 1977), p. 160
_Stanley D. Toussaint, Behold The King: A Study of Matthew (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1980), pp. 141-42.
