Summary

Like millions of other Christians, I started out my Christian walk without ever hearing the word "preterism." But the day came when I started becoming more and more preterist. I don't yet consider myself a consistent preterist. I'm still undecided. But if Mathison's book is the best that anti-"hyper" preterists can do, I may well become a "hyper" preterist, even though I don't really want to. And who knows how many other Christians may choose to become "hyper" preterists in the next generation. That's the trend. That's where the inertia is leading. That"s why this book was written. Consistent preterism is growing fast. This book will do nothing to change that.

• Introduction
• Personal Journey
• Russell's The Parousia
• Conflict with the Fallible Creeds
• Protesting Too Much
• From "Preterism" to "Hyper-Preterism"
• Three Benchmarks
• Keeping the Masses Away from "Hyper-Preterism"

Introduction

In case you're unfamiliar with the theological landscape, let me give you my take as a "neutral observer" who really doesn't feel comfortable with either group.

The contributors to Mathison's book believe that many of "these things" have already happened.

Mathison's question is found and answered in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21. Here is Luke's account:

{5} And as some spake of the temple, how it was adorned with goodly stones and gifts, Jesus said, {6} As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in the which there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. {7} And they asked Him, saying, Master, but when shall these things be? and what sign will there be when these things shall come to pass? [Matthew's account has: "what shall be the sign of Thy coming [parousia], and of the end of the world?" {KJV}] And He said,
{20} When ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. {21} Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. {22} For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.
{32} Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

"When Shall These Things Be?" In Matthew 24:34 Jesus says, "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." Consider some of "these things":

• "wars and Rumors of War" (Matthew 24:6)
• "famines" (24:7)
• "earthquakes" (24:7)
• "false prophets" (24:11)
• "the Gospel Preached to the Whole World" (24:14)
• "abomination of Desolation" (24:15)
• "great tribulation" (24:21)
• "false Prophets" (24:24)
• "sun darkened, stars fall from heaven" (24:29)
• "sign of Son of Man in Heaven" (24:30)
• "all tribes mourn" (24:30)
• "they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." (24:30)
• "gather the elect" (24:31)

Ken Gentry, R.C. Sproul, and an unknown number of the other contributors to Mathison's book, believe these events already took place, just like Jesus said they would.

This means the contributors to Mathison’s anti-preterist book are a tiny "fringe" minority as far as Christians today are concerned, most of whom read "Left Behind" books and are "futurists." Mathison and his contributors disagree with LaHaye and the multiple-millions of people who read him, as well as Hal Lindsey, whose Late Great Planet Earth was the biggest selling book of the 1970's, Christian or secular. Mathison and his preterist companions represent a very small minority of Christians. In their book they criticize a rival minority -- the "hyper" preterists -- which is rapidly becoming even more influential than the non-"hyper" preterists.

There are thus two "extremist" or "fringe" groups in conflict, and the book we're reviewing is part of that conflict. Both groups claim to be "preterists." Both groups believe that some of the most well-known New Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the climactic years leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD70. One group believes that only some of the New Testament prophecies were fulfilled at that time, the other believes they all were. The group I would call "partial preterists" believes that such noteworthy events as "The Great Tribulation," the "Battle of Armageddon," and other events of "the last days" have already taken place. The other group, which I would call "full preterists" or "consistent preterists" believes that all other prophecies -- including those of the Second Coming, Day of Judgment, and Resurrection -- have also taken place. Obviously most Christians today believe the "Great Tribulation" and all "these things" are yet future, so both of these groups are way out of the "mainstream."

Personal Journey

Let me tell you how I became a "preterist," and how I'm just the tiniest step away from becoming a consistent preterist (or as Mathison would prejudicially call me, a "hyper" preterist, and maybe even "a non-Christian").

I still consider myself a "Christian Reconstructionist," though perhaps few other Reconstructionists do. I met David Chilton, author of Days of Vengeance (a preterist commentary on the Book of Revelation), The Great Tribulation, and Paradise Restored (an introduction to preterist eschatology)  in 1977 or 1978, while he was attending classes at Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS. We became very good friends, and I shared the pulpit with him at Reformation Bible Church in Anaheim, CA. As a Chalcedon Scholar, I joined Chilton on occasion as a kind of substitute for R.J. Rushdoony at Rush's weekly services in Westwood, CA. We worked together on the writing of books and newsletter articles. The 1st edition of his book Productive Christians In An Age Of Guilt Manipulators evidences our friendship in the Acknowledgments and in the text.

It was a "paradigm shift." It seemed to change everything. We went from pessimism to optimism, from waiting to working. Most of us had come out of dispensational churches. Living in the vicinity of Chuck Smith's Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, I remember how this new way of seeing put us at odds with most Bible-believing Christians in Orange County (and I think Chilton and I both relished the idea of being at odds with the reigning "orthodoxy").  I was at least a partial preterist, seemingly on the road to "hyper" preterism (though I didn't know anything about "hyper" preterism at the time).

I think Ken Gentry and other preterists might have had the same feeling. They came out against pre-millennial futurists with their preterist guns a-blazing, even writing glowing reviews of J. Stuart Russell's book, The Parousia (which we'll look at in a moment), and they inadvertently started a preterist wildfire which now they can't contain. Consistent preterists are now invading their churches, quoting their own pro-preterist writings against them, and that's why they worked with Mathison to get this book out. I don't think it's going to put out the fires they started.

Russell's The Parousia

Russell's strategy is disarmingly simple: he just goes through the New Testament from beginning to end, looking at every prophetic passage. It's an incredible journey, because it looks at passages that aren't looked at enough (or at all, by people like Hal Lindsey), and puts all the other more-frequently quoted passages in this context, and it becomes plain that preterism is the dominant eschatological hermeneutic of the New Testament. Preterism is everywhere. Russell documents:

• The pervasive focus on "this generation," that is, the generation that witnessed and rejected Christ.
• Repeated declarations that Christ was going to return at "any moment."

One after another, everything I thought was future turned out to be past. I made a shift in thinking that now presupposes that everything is past unless inescapably future. At this point I can't find a New Testament verse that absolutely cannot logically and Biblically be understood preteristically. I may not know exactly how it was fulfilled, but I assume it was because the contrary assumption (futurist) has been disproven so overwhelmingly in so many instances.

Russell's book leads systematically and ineluctably to the conclusion that "the Second Coming," "the Last Judgment," and "the Resurrection" were all events that took place in the first century. Biblically I agree with him; emotionally I am not yet able to take the plunge.

Although I do not agree with all the conclusions of J. Stuart Russell's The Parousia, I highly recommend this well-organized, carefully argued, and compellingly written defense of Preterism to serious and mature students of the Bible. It is one of the most persuasive and challenging books I have read on the subject of eschatology and has had a great impact on my own thinking. Russell's biblico-theological study of New Testament eschatology sets a standard of excellence.

that Russell's work is one of the most important treatments on Biblical eschatology that is available to the church today. The issues raised in this volume with respect to the time-frame references of the New Testament to the Parousia are vitally important not only for eschatology but for the future debate over the credibility of Sacred Scripture.

Most Christians, hearing of Russell's thesis (but not reading the book prayerfully) would think that Russell is totally out to lunch. Probably the vast majority of pastors today would never "highly recommend" Russell's book. They would consider it  "dangerous" or "heretical," and would never want any in their congregation to even read it, much less take it seriously. Mathison's preterist contributors do not stand "shoulder to shoulder" with most Christians on most of the NT prophetic texts. But Christians who do read Russell prayerfully are going to follow Russell and abandon Mathison. Russell's book is Biblical in a way Mathison's book is not. Russell goes through the New Testament from beginning to end and systematically shows that all NT prophecies referred to the events of the first century. Even if you don't agree on a couple, you're overwhelmed by the vast number of passages that clearly are preterist.

Conflict with the Fallible Creeds

I admit I probably had too much of a perverse delight in telling premillennialists that "the Great Tribulation" was past, and shocking them with the preterist interpretation of Matthew 24. I probably enjoyed being out of step with the Calvary Chapel crowd. What I didn't realize then was that preterism also put us at odds with the Westminster Divines, and most of the creeds, which err on this point. Their basic hermeneutical approach is erroneous.

I didn't realize this for many years. For many years I was decidedly NOT a "hyper" preterist, because "hyper" preterism, with its denial of a future Second Coming, Day of Judgment and Resurrection, seemed at odds with the church creeds and confessions, which I believed were Biblical. Then I discovered the creeds were on Hal Lindsey's side. After making this discovery, "hyper" preterism is a completely open question for me.

John Knox began The Scottish Confession of Faith (1560) with these words:

And these glad tidings of the kingdom shall be preached through the whole world, for a witness unto all nations, and then shall the end come.
Matthew 24:14

I'm a big fan of Knox. This verse, I now believe, spoke of events in the first century, not in Knox's day, nor in ours, nor in a future day.

Let's look at the Westminster Larger Catechism:

Let's focus in on the exegesis behind the answer at prooftext [c]

This is plain error. Mathison's partial-preterist contributors teach us to disagree with the creeds at this point. The Westminster Divines ascribe to a yet-future Second Coming prophecies concerning the judgment of Israel in A.D.70. This is Hal Lindsey-ism. If you've read Gentry and DeMar and consider yourself a "partial" preterist, loyal to the historic creeds and confessions of the Church, you're saying to yourself, "oops."

Consider the next prooftext:

Luke 9:26 is erroneously applied by the Westminster Divines to a yet-future Second Coming, as can be seen from the very next verse:

Luke 9:27 But I tell you truly, there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the kingdom of God.

Combining Luke's text with Matthew's and Mark's, we have preterism in a nutshell:

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels to reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, That there be some that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the Son of man coming in His kingdom with power.

In Mathew 23:36 - 24:34 Jesus repeats the preterist emphasis:

Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.

In the late 20th century partial preterism became Eschatology 101, at least for Reconstructionists.

The Westminster Standards apparently lack even the most elementary understanding of preterism (the belief that Matthew 24 and other passages were fulfilled before AD70). Whatever you believe about Matthew 24:36ff., you should know by now that Matthew 24:30 is talking about Jesus' Coming in judgment against covenant-breaking Israel. All Reconstructionists and many Reformed writers now agree on this. I guess that many of Mathison's contributors would agree with this.

It's pretty heady to come to the conclusion that the most popular prophecy teachers of all time are wrong and you're right. It's exciting when you think you've stumbled on to some new paradigm that unlocks the true meaning of Scripture. When Gentry, DeMar and Sproul write against premillennialism and for postmillennial preterism, they create this feeling, this inertia. Their readers conclude that the writers of The Westminster Standards and most of the church creeds — and thus "orthodoxy" itself — are in fundamental hermeneutical error on these points. On this point the creeds can be viewed as no more reliable or authoritative than Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye.

But Mathison, Gentry, and other anti-"hyper" preterists are apparently content to excommunicate anyone who is willing to entertain a different interpretation of these passages.

The position of Mathison et al is not just "We expect believers to agree with the creeds even if they disagree with Scripture," it's "We expect believers to agree with us even if we disagree with the creeds."

And I think that's how I would describe myself at this point: in a crisis. I really don't want to be a "hyper" preterist, but the preterists in Mathison's book have opened Pandora's Box, uncorked the Genie, let the camel get his nose under the tent, and many other not-very-Christian metaphors. I've believed in a second physical coming of Christ and my body popping out of the grave at the "end of the world" as far back as I can remember. I really don't want to give up those doctrines and enter into a state of eschatological agnosticism. I like black-and-white answers.

Before he became a consistent preterist (or, as Gary North puts it, a "heretic"), David Chilton concluded that there were no verses in the Bible which taught a future (to us) coming of Christ, in which Christ would bodily return to this planet. Nevertheless, he continued to believe this, the "orthodox"  doctrine of the "Second Coming," because it had been taught for nearly 2000 years by "Holy Mother the Church" (Chilton's words). At this point Chilton was actually more preterist than I was, but it was his reasoning that just about pushed me over the line. He put "Holy Mother the Church" ahead of Scripture. He believed something not taught in the Bible solely because it was in the creeds. I was ready to become a full preterist just to avoid that kind of reasoning.

This is the evolution that many Reformed Bible students are making. Eventually they come to a position of wondering whether there are ANY Bible verses that teach the "orthodox" view of a yet-future physical return of Christ, judgment and resurrection. If the church creeds have been wrong on Matthew 24, why should we believe them in other areas of eschatology?

I don't claim to be a "hyper" preterist—yet—but I'm very close to being one. I was not raised a "hyper" preterist. For at least 20 years I believed in a future Second Coming, Last Judgment, and my own future bodily resurrection. I don't have any particular desire to abandon those beliefs,^[1] and I'm uncomfortable adopting the "hyper" preterist position because I prefer certainty about the future rather than eschatological agnosticism. I resist the idea of abandoning a future discontinuous event which brings a sense of "finality" or "justice." As I put it on another webpage, I don't "deny" a future second coming. It's just that "hyper" preterists have raised some very good questions about prophetic interpretation, and none of these questions are answered in Mathison's book, a book which will probably not keep any "Berean" from becoming a "hyper" preterist. It seems like the whole argument of Mathison's book, and the strategy they offer to today's pastors boils down to: "Those guys don't agree with the creeds, so don't listen to them." "Don't even dialogue with them." Simply ordering someone not to look at something is usually the best way to direct their attention to that very object. Mathison's book will gain followers among the churchmen (clergy) but it's Russell's book that will win the hearts of laymen.

Reformed churches are already full of preterists, like Mathison's contributors. They don't really want to be "hyper" preterists. (I prefer just being a "Berean.") But laymen can't figure out from Mathison's book where we are supposed to stop being preterists (that is, a Biblical guideline, not just "because we say so"). If we apply a preterist hermeneutic to Matthew 24, why not to the whole Book of Revelation? Why not to the entire New Testament? How can we know where to stop? Are we supposed to look at the Creeds for the answer to that question?

Protesting Too Much

Amillennial anti-preterist David Engelsma, critical of the preterists Mathison has assmebled, writes,

Engelsma's dagger is aimed right at Ken Gentry and the other postmillennial partial preterists who contributed to Mathison's book. They wrote this book to shield themselves from such attacks.

I may not agree with the last details of "hyper" preterism. But I disagree even more with the "protestations" of Mathison and his preterist contributors, which boil down to "Our preterism doesn't lead to their preterism, and we hereby declare that anyone who starts out with our preterism and eventually believes their preterism isn't a Christian at all." The dogmatism here is dangerous.

Many opponents of consistent preterism are publicly and vociferously proclaiming that consistent preterists should be kicked out of Christian churches. Pastor Brian Abshire of Chalcedon says "Since the Chalcedon Foundation is NOT a church they cannot and do not excommunicate anyone. However, Reformed Heritage IS a church, and we will if this pernicious error shows up in any of our churches." Many noteworthy Reconstructionists have gone on the war-path against full or consistent preterism. One Reformed Church has officially set forth its view that a sola scriptura, sola fide, six-day creationist, Trinitarian Calvinist who believes in full preterism is damned and going to hell. Gary North and Andrew Sandlin have spoken in no uncertain terms against the "heresy" of full preterism, even to suggest that no debate or discussion of the issues should be engaged in with full preterists; those who adhere to it have denied Christianity itself. Ken Gentry says

• hyper preterism is "a corrosive theological fad"
• hyper-preterists are "outside of the faith of the historic Christian church";
• hyper-preterists reject "the faith of our fathers";
• "hyper-preterists are adrift on the tides of wholesale theological change";
• hyper-preterists have broken away from "the anchor of historic Christianity,"
• hyper-preterists stand against the very "fundamentals of traditional Christianity,"
• hyper-preterists are undercutting the "foundations of Christian theology."

When it comes to the contributors to Mathison's book, the irony is (and it explains in part their passion) many of them have been a strong voice over the years against the futurism of "dispensational premillennialism," and have argued for a preterist interpretation of Scripture at many key points. Many of their students have been at first startled by their preterism, but have come to see its validity as a principle of interpretation, and have gone on to take those preterist hermeneutical principles more consistently, and have embraced "hyper" preterism. Mathison and his contributors are worried, and are trying to undo the "damage" they themselves have (in part) caused. So they lash out at "hyper" preterists.

Mathison says in effect, "It's OK for you to reject the beliefs of 99% of all Christians today concerning "those things" in Matthew 24, but it's not OK for you to disagree with "those things" which we say are still future." Mathison says this refusal to be a consistent preterist -- though it rejects the views of the vast majority of Christians -- makes the difference between being a Christian and being an apostate or a heretic.

David Engelsma, rightly points out that Mathison et al are going against the creeds and confessions of the church. Disagreeing with Kik and the Reconstructionists, Engelsma takes the Mathison/Gentry crowd to task by arguing:

The interpretation of Matthew 24 is the difference between the hope of the Christian faith and the hopelessness of preterism. Christian Reconstruction is committed to a consistent preterism, despite its protestations to the contrary. . . ..
"Timely Questions about Preterism and Reconstruction"

From "Preterism" to "Hyper-Preterism"

Except me. If preterism is true, who would want to be a "lukewarm" preterist?

"I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. {16} So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of My mouth."
Revelation 3:15-16

My suspicions are already aroused. Why label "the enemy" using pejorative terms? The way to refute a theological opponent is by Biblical exegesis, not by name-calling. If Mathison and his contributors spoke of "consistent" preterism and then proceeded to destroy "consistent" preterism with compelling Biblical evidence, their "lukewarm" preterist position would be much stronger and attractive. And I would be less suspicious of their ability to Biblically battle the "hyper" preterists. Mathison's definition of "preterism" is misleading:

The word preterism has traditionally been used to describe the view that many of the prophecies of the book of Revelation were fulfilled in the first century. (p. xiii, his emphasis)

To begin, there's no point in speaking about anything "traditionally" being used to define "preterism." The word is very new, as Mathison admits later on. You won't find "preterism" in the first edition of Noah Webster's dictionary (1828), nor is it listed in Charles Hodge's multi-volume Systematic Theology (1873). Even J. Stuart Russell in his book The Parousia (1878) never uses the word or any form of it. What can it mean for anyone to say how the word "preterism" has "traditionally" been used?

Some of Mathison's preterist contributors would say that all of Matthew 24 has been fulfilled, while other of Mathison's preterist contributors would say that only part of Matthew 24 has been fulfilled. Does that mean that some of Mathison's own contributors would be called "hyper-preterists" by other contributors to the same book? Who's right? How do we decide?

By calling their opponents "hyper" preterists, Mathison and his near-preterist contributors are trying to "mainstream" themselves. But most Christians don't agree with Mathison and his partial-preterist contributors. Let's remind ourselves of this fact. The "preterists" in Mathison's book (by Mathison's definition), believe this passage was fulfilled in the first century:

(Matthew 24:21,29-30) For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.{29} Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: {30} And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

For Mathison's preterist contributors, "The Great Tribulation" is past, not future. This is a "fringe" position by sheer numerical standards. Most Christians have believed the "stars falling from heaven" is yet future. Go to 99 churches out of 100 and ask the man-in-the-pew if the "Great Tribulation" already happened. He'll think you're nuts. Ken Gentry and Gary DeMar believe that "the battle of Armageddon" already happened. The average churchman asks, "Are they crazy?" But Mathison wants to claim that he and his preterist contributors stand "shoulder to shoulder" with the rest of the Church. I think they're actually closer to the "hyper" preterists (at least the "hyper" preterism I'm leaning toward) than to the futurists. And the historic Creeds and Confessions are on Hal Lindsey's side, not Mathison's. Both the partial preterists and the consistent preterists are out of step with the Creeds and the majority of Christians.

Gentry and Mathison et al can't give us helpful and Biblical guidelines as to where Russell should have stopped being a preterist. They can't even give guidelines from the creeds, because they themselves disagree with the creeds.

But preterism is true, as Gentry, Sproul and Mathison's other preterist contributors admit, and Mathison's book just doesn't tell us where "preterism" ends and "hyper-preterism" begins.

Three Benchmarks

These are the issues that separate the partial preterists from the consistent preterists.

Let's return to the question posed by the title of the book, and ask concerning these three events: "When Shall These Things Be?" I mentioned above that Russell showed me that the "Second Coming," the "Day of Judgment" and the "Resurrection" were "connected." Notice first how "coming" and "judgment" are connected. In Matthew 16:27-28, Mark 8:38ff., and Luke 9:26-27, Jesus said spoke of His "coming" and "judgment":

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of My words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father with the holy angels to reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, That there be some that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the Son of man coming in His kingdom with power. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. When you see all these things, you know that He is near, right at the door.

So there's the coming and the judgment, in the first century, before those then living would taste of death. James adds,

You also must be patient. Strengthen your hearts, for the parousia of the Lord is near. Beloved, do not grumble against one another, so that you may not be judged. See, the Judge is standing at the doors!
(James 5:8-9)

There's "coming" and "judgment." "Near" and "at hand."

Concerning the resurrection, Charles Hodge notes (III.841), "The general resurrection is represented as connected with the final judgment." "Hyper" preterists agree with Hodge and (presumably) Mathison and his contributors that the resurrection is "connected with" the Parousia, or Second Coming. But Jesus teaches (above) that the Parousia -- His Coming and Judgment -- were to be in the first century. Why not the resurrection, if it's "connected with" the parousia? Concerning resurrection, Jesus says:

(John 4:23) But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
(John 5:25) Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live.
(John 5:28-29) Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear His voice, {29} And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Sure enough, something like Mathison says is yet future happened in the first century, some time after Christ's resurrection:

(Matthew 27:52-53) And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, {53} And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

You can't find answers unless you ask questions. Doors aren't opened unless you knock. Mathison et al seem to be saying that there are some questions that just shouldn't be asked. "Close that Bible and study the creeds!"

Mathison and his contributors agree that some form of preterism is certainly true. The vast majority of Christians who interpret Matthew 24 as predicting a coming of Christ after  "that generation" has died out, a coming which is still yet future, are mistaken. The creeds are also wrong. The only question is, How wrong.

So where is the dividing line between a "preterist" and a "hyper-preterist?"

Keeping the Masses away from "Hyper" Preterism

First, the difference between "partial" preterists and "hyper" preterists is the difference between some and all. "Partial" preterists believe some NT prophecies were fulfilled in the first century, "hyper" preterists believe they all were. If there were only a few NT prophecies that were preteristically fulfilled, it would be more likely that only some were fulfilled. But David Green has compiled a list of NT prophecies that speak very clearly about the imminent first century coming, a list that is so long that it seems like all NT prophecies must have been fulfilled. This is the power of J. Stuart Russell's book, The Parousia: He just goes through the New Testament from cover to cover and hits virtually every prophecy there is. It's a dizzying experience when approached so systematically. "Partial" preterists need to match that list of prophecies with a list of prophecies that cannot by any stretch of the hermeneutical imagination be said to have been fulfilled in the first century. The problem is, Gentry and DeMar have already stretched our imaginations, especially if we came out of dispensational churches. Now our hermeneutical muscles are in better shape, and can lift loads we couldn't get off the ground a few years ago. "If Matthew 24 was actually fulfilled in the first century," some will say, "and I couldn't have imagined that possibility when I was reading Hal Lindsey, what keeps me from imagining that the last few remaining non-preterist prophecies in the NT were also fulfilled the same way?" Russell's book makes it seem like the overwhelming, vast majority of NT prophecies were fulfilled by AD70. If I was wrong about all those prophecies, why should I be surprised to be wrong about the few remaining apparently-futuristic holdouts? And why should I be surprised if the creeds and confessions of other fallible interpreters were wrong as well?

I would like to see a list of NT texts that cannot possibly, in any way, by any credible hermeneutical or logical process of argument engaged in by a regenerate heart, be said to have been fulfilled in the first century. The list will be very short, and the claim that such texts could not possibly have been intended for fulfillment in the first century must appear persuasive in light of

• the surprisingly long list of texts that were intended to be fulfilled in the first century,
• the surprisingly long list of texts that were actually fulfilled in the first century,
• the surprisingly long list of prophecies that declare on their face that they were "at hand" or "soon" going to be fulfilled, and either were fulfilled or are evidence of an untrustworthy New Testament,
• the fact that these events all seem "connected" and
• the fact that most of us were raised believing very similar texts spoke about an event or events in the far distant future, but have undergone a preterist "paradigm shift" by reading Kik and Gentry.

For me, consistency is aesthetically pleasing. I want to be consistent with my position. Ken Gentry has convinced many Christians that preterism is true, and I want to be a "consistent" preterist. (Of course, being a Biblical preterist is more important to me than being merely "consistent," but I know from Mathison and Gentry that some preterism is Biblical, so I want Biblical reasons for not becoming more preterist, not simply creedal reasons.)

Perhaps a related claim that must be proven by anti-"hyper" preterists is the implicit claim that just as the doctrine of justification has been clarified and perfected by centuries of debate with Pelagians and Arminians, the creedal statements on eschatology should be considered fully hammered out and beyond criticism. I can't find these debates, so I'm increasingly willing to re-write the creeds on this issue.

Manicheanism    Writers in the Reformed and Calvinistic tradition, who are seeing members of their churches embrace "hyper" preterism, cannot portray "hyper" preterism itself as Manichean, "overly spiritual," or neo-platonic. There are some "hyper" preterists who might be neo-platonic, but preterism itself doesn't have to be. Richard Pratt (note 26 of his essay in Mathison) quotes a "hyper" preterist source who says his brand of preterism "puts emphasis on the spiritual nature of God's Kingdom, not the physical, materialistic, sensual, and sensational. It teaches a realized spiritual salvation in Christ and the Church now." But there's no inherent reason why consistent preterism cannot be as physical, material and sensual as the whole Bible is, and have exactly the same "reconstructionist" goals as Gentry and the Christian Reconstructionists. I personally believe that Christianity underscores and is bringing to fruition the basic purpose of man: "to exercise dominion over the earth" and pursue unlimited material wealth. I have a very materialistic conception of "the Kingdom," but I believe it comes about spiritually (theonomically), not politically. My conception of "the Kingdom" is not defined exclusively by prophecy, but by God's Law, which requires earthly dominion and promises material blessings for obedience. Nothing in "hyper" preterism sets aside this fundamental characteristic of God's covenant with the whole of His creation.

This is probably where I part company with many "hyper" preterists who "spiritualize" everything. I still consider myself a strong Reconstructionist and functional Theonomist (even if I don't accept Bahnsen's interpretation of Matthew 5:17-20). And this may be why I'm more dangerous for the churches of Mathison and his contributors than neo-platonic preterists.

Traditional creed-bound partial preterists might ask, Why take preterism to an extreme? Why even consider the idea that creedal eschatology is wrong? Why not just accept the traditional view? Why even listen to someone who challenges the creeds? Why open yourself up to heresy, unorthodoxy, or even becoming an apostate unbeliever?

The traditional futurist view is anti-Christ. That's right, anti-Christ. "Christ" means "king." Mathison's contributors believe Christ will not fully be a King until after the Second Coming. I see this as the biggest obstacle to the Christian Reconstruction of society and the Christianization of the world. Details.

The traditional futurist view truncates life, misunderstands the dominion mandate and our purpose for living. It rewards passivity. Life is something we endure until we die (or get raptured) and get promoted to "real" life, real meaning, real happiness. "Real" life, the "real" Kingdom, is handed on a silver platter to a passive and childish people, people who refused to engage in Christian Reconstruction for their entire lives. Details.

The traditional futurist view downplays the salvation we have in Christ. It makes Christ's first advent a failure. Christ is not really the Last Adam, but the almost-ready-to-be Last Adam. Christ failed to undo the damage done by the first Adam. (Details coming; in the mean time, check out this suggestive essay by Ward Fenley)

Reviews of this review would be appreciated. Please send comments/suggestions to mathison@TheChristmasConspiracy.com

Notes

[1] even though the contributors to Mathison's volume have assured me that there is hardly the slightest chance that those events will occur in my lifetime. Gentry suggests "it may be another 10,000 [years] or more . . . ." If we're in "the millennium" right now, and a thousand years is only one day for the Lord (2 Peter 3), then we've only finished the first two days of "the millennium." Since there are 365,000 "days" in "the millennium," each of which is like a thousand years to the Lord, there are 363 million calendar years left before the Second Coming. I'm really not sure why it matters whether or not I believe in an event thousands of years from now. The important thing is that I believe whatever the Bible says. So the question is, "What saith Scripture?"