When Shall These Things Be?
A Review of Keith A. Mathison, ed. When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response to Hyper-Preterism (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2004).

[This is a working draft. It is not to be considered "final copy." Please send comments/suggestions to mathison@TheChristmasConspiracy.com ]

Executive Summary

I don't consider myself a "hyper" preterist. I really don't want to be a "hyper" 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. And who knows how many other Christians may also choose "hyper" preterism in the next generation. Mathison and his contributors admit that the reason they put together this book is that "hyper" preterists are growing very rapidly, and non-"hyper" preterist pastors are having to deal with this tsunami of "hyper" preterist parishioners. Mathison's book will do little to stem the tide.

Personal Journey

I write this review as a "neutral observer." I don't consider myself a "full preterist," "consistent preterist," or "hyper-preterist." I agree with many things they say, but I'm not completely comfortable with their conclusions. I feel sorry for Keith Mathison, Ken Gentry, R.C. Sproul, and other "partial preterists." They came out against pre-millennial futurists with their preterist guns a-blazing, writing glowing reviews of J. Stuart Russell's book, The Parousia, and they inadvertently started a preterist wildfire which now they can't contain. Consistent preterists are invading their churches, quoting their own pro-preterist writings against them, and that's why they wrote this book. I don't think it's going to put out the fires they started.

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 David 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.

Many Christian Reconstructionist "partial preterists" can remember the first time they read Rushdoony, who quoted the work of J. Marcellus Kik, who showed with the most clear and convincing evidence -- passages of Scripture -- that Matthew 24:30 (for example) was talking about events in A.D.70, not a future Second Coming. I was at least a partial preterist, on the road to "hyper" preterism. Here's where that road took me:

1. The basics: Matthew 24 fulfilled in the first century (Kik):
   • "Wars and Rumors of War"
   • "Famines"
   • "Earthquakes"
   • "Signs in the Heavens"
   • "Tribulation"
   • "Falling Away and Betrayal"
   • "False Prophets"
   • "Increased Lawlessness"
   • "The Gospel Preached to the Whole World"
2. From there, one New Testament prophecy after another was taken from the jigsaw of Hal Lindsey and added to the picture of what happened in AD70.
   • The Beast
   • The Antichrist
   • The Man of Lawlessness
     -- Gary DeMar finds them all in the first century.
3. The pervasive focus on "this generation," that is, the generation that witnessed and rejected Christ.
4. Repeated declarations that Christ was going to return at "any moment."
5. Even "The New Heavens and the New Earth" (2 Peter 3)
   -- David Chilton ( following the Puritan John Owen ) concluded that even this had been brought in at AD70 by the destruction of "the old world" of Judaism.

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").

Conflict with the Creeds

What I didn't realize then was that it 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 seemed at odds with the church creeds and confessions, which I believed were Biblical. Then I discovered they were not. 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 disagree with the creeds at this point. The Westminster Divines ascribe to a yet-future Second Coming prophecies of 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 creeds and confessions, 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.

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. In the late 20th century 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 are already fulfilled). 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 most Reformed writers now agree on this. I guess that many of Mathison's contributors would agree with this.

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 they 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.

Russell's The Parousia

When I became a simple "Matthew 24" preterist, I hadn't heard of J. Stuart Russell's book, The Parousia, which Mathison and his contributors refer to as "hyper" preterist. Russell's book received glowing reviews from Mathison's preterist contributors (reviews which they probably all now regret). 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 brought me to a further realization: the fact that all the great end-time events were associated or connected: the coming of one would bring the coming of the others. The "day of the Lord" was a day of His Coming, a day of Judgment, and a day of resurrection. If you deduce the time when one of these events could be expected, you have also deduced the time when the others would happen. If you're a preterist on one, you're a preterist on them all, because they're all connected.

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.

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).

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?

Mathison's book really does nothing to counter this prophetic exegetical inertia. People like Ken Gentry, by espousing preterism and recommending Russell's book, have started a big snowball rolling down the hill, and then they say, "Ooops! That snowball shouldn't roll any further." Preterist inertia is very powerful. This is why Mathison and his contributors are finding their churches invaded by preterists. Mathison's book tries to counter this movement by saying little more than "I should point out that no snowball has thus far made it all the way down the mountain."

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 aruge 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.

"When Shall These Things Be" -- Opening the Door to Preterism

Let's answer the question posed by the title of Mathison's book (When Shall These Things Be?). It's actually a dangerous question. Nobody, really, is asking it. "Everybody knows" (as the saying goes) that "these things" are yet future. Just asking the question, seriously and prayerfully, will make you a preterist.

The 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, 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.

The idea that Matthew 24 and Luke 21 have already been fulfilled is called "preterism," from the Latin word for "past." As far as I can tell, most (but not all) of the contributors to Mathison's book are "preterists" on Matthew 24, not futurists. They believe Matthew 24 was fulfilled in the past, before "that generation" died out.

This means the Mathison crowd is in the 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. They criticize a rival minority -- the "hyper" preterists -- which is rapidly becoming even more influential than the non-"hyper" preterists.

It means that the Mathison crowd disagrees with the historic creeds and confessions of the church, because those creeds are anti-preterist on Matthew 24.

Amillennial anti-preterist David Engelsma, disagreeing with Kik and the Reconstructionists, 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"

Engelsma arguably stands more closely with the historic creeds than Mathison et al, at least on the question of Matthew 24. The question then becomes, what level of disagreement with the rest of Christendom is acceptable? If it's acceptable to disagree with the creeds in their interpretation of Matthew 24, why not also 1 Corinthians 15?

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."

From "Preterism" to "Hyper-Preterism"

So what is "hyper" preterism? Sure sounds bad, doesn't it? Sounds a lot worse than "consistent preterism," which is exactly the same thing with a less pejorative label. Mathison calls his friends "moderate" preterists, which sounds more respectable, and is certainly more marketable than "pansy preterists." Nobody wants to be called "inconsistent." And Mathison figures that nobody wants to be "hyper." Nobody wants to be called an "extremist."

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

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?

But then Mathison says that "preterism" is reserved for those who believe only that "many" of the NT prophecies were fulfilled in the past, but not (it is implied) those who believe ALL New Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the past. This is question-begging, and it is suspicious. The dictionaries tend to view "preterism" in more "consistent" or "hyper" terms:  http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=preterism  Nobody I know voluntarily calls themselves a "hyper" anything. Reconstructionists had fun calling themselves "preterists" and distinguishing themselves so dramatically from dispensationalists at a time when nobody had heard the term "preterist." But now that growing numbers of laymen have begun applying preterist principles to every prophecy in the New Testament, the inconsistent preterist pots are now calling the consistent preterist kettles "black" (actually, "hyper"). Mathison's contributors want to make it seem like consistent Biblical preterists are bad -- really extreme and fringe -- but inconsistent lukewarm tradition-bound preterists are good, and on the same side of the debate as Tim LaHaye (who opposes all preterists), or at least among the great majority of Christians. But they aren't really. Not now, and not throughout church history. Mathison makes this admission: "It is important to note that the contributors to this volume do not completely agree in their interpretation of every eschatological text. ... Some of the contributors would consider themselves to be moderate preterists because they believe that some New Testament prophecies were fulfilled in the first century." But then he boasts, "All of the contributors, however, stand shoulder to shoulder with each other and with the church of the ages in their confession that the second coming of Jesus Christ, the general resurrection, and the Last Judgment are yet to come."^[2] But the church throughout the ages, at important points, has based its belief in these future events on texts which some of Mathison's contributors correctly believe were fulfilled by AD70.

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?

I am a "5-point Calvinist." I think it only engenders theological confusion for "4-point Calvinists" to speak of "5-point Calvinists" as "hyper-Calvinists." Less-than-5-point Calvinists are "Amyraldians" or something else, but they're not "Calvinists," and "5-point Calvinists" are not "hyper-Calvinists." Similarly, if there are 5 prophecies in the New Testament and you believe they were all fulfilled in the past, then you are a "preterist," which comes from the Latin for "past." If you believe one or more of those prophecies are going to be fulfilled in the future, then you are an "inconsistent preterist," or a "partial preterist," or maybe even an "inconsistent futurist." But the person who believes all the prophecies were fulfilled in the past is not a "hyper-preterist." He's just a consistent preterist.

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. "Preterists" (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.

"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. "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.

Consider the vast gulf that separates the partial preterists in Mathison's book with the rest of "the Church." Concerning the "hyper" preterist manifesto, The Parousia by J. Stuart Russell, Gentry wrote years ago:

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.

R.C. Sproul says he believes

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 consider Russell's book "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 goes through the New Testament and systematically shows that all NT prophecies referred to the events of the first century. 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.

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?

The problem is, the Creeds and Confessions agree with Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsey when it comes to Matthew 24. At these points, the Creeds are flat-out wrong, according to Mathison's preterist contributors. Mathison's contributors have convinced us that "preterism" as a general principle is Scriptural and "futurism" is not. Well, not exactly. What they have taught us is that preterism is Scriptural and futurism is creedal. The Bible teaches preterism, but the creeds teach futurism, so Mathison's contributors are preterists as a matter of Scriptural principle -- unless the creeds tell them to be futurists. (With certain exceptions, like when the creeds are "mistaken.")

I would rather be Scriptural than creedal. I believe the creeds are mostly Scriptural, and I have a profound respect for them, and won't jettison a creedal teaching unless . . . well, unless I really come to a point of crisis.

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.

If you believe Matthew 24 is talking about AD70, but you're not a "hyper" preterist, then your eschatology is in crisis. Nearly all the support for a future second coming throughout the historic creeds and confessions of the church comes from verses in Matthew 24 which you believe were fulfilled by AD70, and which contributors to Mathison's book agree were fulfilled in AD70. I see unconfessed hypocrisy here. I wish I could hear an opponent of "hyper"-preterism graciously admit, "Yes, it is a little embarrassing and troubling to find early church creeds and confessions building support for a yet-future second coming on verses which we now know were fulfilled in AD70." I've never heard this admission.

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

Three Benchmarks

Oh sure, Mathison et al give us three doctrines that must not be viewed preteristically: the Second Coming, the Last Judgment, and the Resurrection of the saints. These doctrines are taught in the creeds futuristically, not preteristically. Unfortunately, Mathison et al have already persuaded me that even inconsistent lukewarm tradition-bound preterism finds at least ONE coming of Christ, ONE judgment, and ONE resurrection that occurred in the first century. So how do I know that they ALL didn't occur back then?

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 think it's obvious that Jesus was teaching that "all these things" would come to pass before "that generation" died out. 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. 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, 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 et al say 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.

I'm not saying I have all the answers. I'm only saying that it appears that all the prophetic passages of the New Testament were designed to be interpreted preteristically. It appears that all these great eschatological events are "connected" together and occurred in the first century. The reason "hyper" preterists are gaining ground in many churches, forcing Mathison's crowd to come out with this book, is that they are asking questions like the Bereans did (Acts 17:11). Unfortunately, Mathison et al are not answering those questions.

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 wrong. The only question is, How wrong.

I think the "hyper" preterists have good points that need to be answered, rather than simply pointing out that they are contrary to the creeds or to the majority of other Christians. It seems to me from Matthew 16:27-28, Mark 8:38ff., and Luke 9:26-27 that the second coming of Christ in His Kingdom with power and all the angels to judge the world was scheduled to occur in "that generation." Many others have read the Bible this way, including atheists, who have said, "See? Jesus was wrong. The Kingdom didn't come and the world didn't end like he said!"

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

I would really like to know the answer to that question.

Protesting Too Much

What concerns me are the passionate and dogmatic attacks against consistent preterists by lukewarm preterists who don't have very good (very Biblical) arguments against it. I find their arguments to be more dangerous than "hyper" preterism itself.

Is Preterism Heretical?
Is Preterism Unorthodox?
Is Preterism UnChristian?

Editor Keith Mathison and the writers he assembled apparently believe consistent Preterism is anti-Christian. They have the same reaction toward consistent preterists as "Left Behind" futurists have toward Mathison's partial preterism. Many opponents of Preterism believe 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."

Doesn't sound good for "hyper-preterists."

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. David Engelsma, critical of Mathison et al, writes,

"Preterism" is a heresy that, astonishingly, is creeping into Reformed and Presbyterian churches. That it does so is largely due to postmillennial Christian Reconstructionism.

Mathison and his contributors don't want to be blamed for the "hyper" preterists, so they try to create distance by excommunicating "hyper" preterists and standing "shoulder to shoulder" with Tim LaHaye and Hal Lindsey.

Keeping the Masses away from "Hyper" Preterism.

For the benefit of Mathison and contributors, let me explain why I've moved closer and closer to preterism, and what must be (and must not be) included in any book that might have a chance at stopping thousands of young Christians from becoming "hyper" preterists.

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 fulfilled in the first century,
• 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.

That's a high burden of proof, but it's a necessary burden to meet before one starts throwing "hyper" preterists out of the churches. (For me, the text of 1 Corinthians 15 is hard to separate from my sentimental attachment to my earlier futurist beliefs. So I don't "deny" a future resurrection, I just don't affirm it. I'm on the fence. Arguments based solely on tradition or emotion rather than Scripture only push me closer to "hyper" preterism.)

Second, the teachings of Ken Gentry, Gary DeMar, and other "partial" preterists are opening the door to "hyper" preterism. Most people who were once captivated by the writings of Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye have undergone a "paradigm shift" by accepting the preterist framework and rejecting dispensational futurism. Gentry and DeMar need to explain why Dispensationalists are wrong to claim that Matthew 24:30 and other such passages are talking about a future Second Coming, but the creeds and confessions are right to talk about a future Second Coming using those same texts.

Manicheanism    Finally, writers in the Reformed and Calvinistic tradition, who are seeing members of their churches embrace "hyper" preterism, cannot portray "hyper" preterism as Manichean, "overly spiritual," or neo-platonic. There are some "hyper" preterists who might be neo-platonic. Richard Pratt 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 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.

Partial creed-bound preterists might ask, Why take preterism to an extreme? Why even consider the idea that traditional 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 a non-Christian?

For me, preterism has opened up new doors of understanding the New Testament that make it worth the "risk." It makes the whole Bible come together. It glorifies God more. I admit I don't like the idea of not knowing how, when, or even whether the world is going to end. But if the Bible doesn't teach a doctrine, I'd rather not believe it, even if I've believed it all my life, and don't have a doctrine to put in its place. In fact, I've come to see some real problems in the traditional futurist eschatology. These are more like "meta" reasons than specifically Scriptural reasons.

The traditional futurist view truncates life, misunderstands the dominion mandate and our purpose for living. Life is something we endure until we die (or get raptured) and get 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)

The traditional futurist view creates stagnation and despair about this life. It is anti-Reconstructionist. Many versions of the traditional futurist view teach that this life must get worse and worse before Christ comes. Attempting to bring peace, eliminate crime, encourage theonomic obedience, and reconstruct society along Biblical lines is seen as sinful, since it only delays Christ's Second Coming. Reconstructionist partial preterists don't believe the Second Coming is imminent, but they do believe that we won't really see the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy until after the Second Coming. It's not sinful to engage in Christian Reconstruction, just pointless, since the real reconstruction won't happen until the Second Coming. "Come on, God, get it over with! Let's get on with it!" Both Reconstructionists and Dispensational Premillennialists believe that this present age is a parenthesis, not the age all the prophets were looking forward to. Details.

The Centrality of Israel is another argument that I think about, but hasn't been raised in either camp. I admit that this argument runs the risk of making the Bible appeal parochial and less relevant to the modern age. But a holistic theonomic approach to "The Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" can still reconstruct modern societies and pagan cultures. In a nutshell, the argument is this: the Bible is mainly about Israel, and the New Testament is mainly about the end of Israel.

The book of Isaiah (just as an example) contains prophecies that span centuries, against empires that span the Eastern Hemisphere, and include prophecies against empires that didn't even exist at that time. The New Testament is like just one of Isaiah's prophecies. It's about one empire: Israel. It takes about 18 hours to read the entire New Testament. It's possible that Isaiah might have spent that much time standing in the public square delivering just one of his major prophecies, though only a fraction of his speech was recorded and preserved in the canon (cp. John 21:25).

The New Testament is about Israel in the same way the book of Jonah is about Ninevah, and it is about one single generation -- "the Terminal Generation" -- in the same way the book of Jonah is about 40 days in the history of Ninevah. It may be safe to say that Jonah, going throughout Ninevah, uttered much more prophetic content than is found in the book of Jonah, and if it were all recorded would fill a book the size of the entire New Testament. I'm beginning to see the New Testament more like the book of Jonah than the book of Isaiah. The New Testament is looking more and more focused upon the "terminal generation," and not a sweeping panoramic view of empires extending thousands of years into the future. The New Testament is urgently about the imminent end of the Old Testament, the end of Israel, and the beginning of a new creation, a new Body encompassing the old Israel and all the nations. This all happened in the first century, though the implications are still being lived out today.* Russell and the "hyper" preterists, however, have convinced me that the burden of the New Testament is Israel and the end of the Old Covenant, and "all those things" took place in the first century, in "that generation."

These views are being explicated in new websites, www.HeavenNow.org and www.ChristianizeTheWorld.com.

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

[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?"

[2] page 155. Continuing, "Therefore, despite differences over secondary matters, all of the contributors are futurists in this most important sense." Not preterists. So why do they get to claim the title of "preterist" for themselves and relegate non-futurist preterists to the fringe and extremist category of "hyper" preterist?