← Defenders Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript1 lines
- [00:01]
A
Welcome to Defenders, the teaching class of Dr. William Lane Craig. For more information and resources from Dr. Craig, go to reasonablefaith.org in our discussion of the doctrine of the Last things, we've been looking at the second coming of Christ. And we began by looking at views that posit multiple comings of Christ. Last time we we looked at the so called Rapture view and saw its biblical deficiencies. Today we want to turn to a second interpretation that also holds to multiple comings of Christ. This is the so called preterist view. You may have heard from your English teacher when she taught you English grammar something about the past preterite, the tense. The tense of a sentence communicates that something is past when it's in the preterite tense. And this is what the preterist thinks with regard to the second coming of Christ. Preterism says that the coming of Christ predicted by Jesus in the Olivet discourse has already occurred. According to the preterist, the coming of the Son of Man that Jesus predicted in the Olivet discourse has in fact already occurred. It occurred in AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem. With that event, the Son of Man was enthroned in heaven. This view was defended by the notable New Testament scholar G.B. caird, and also by the late R.T. france, a fine New Testament scholar, and most notably Perhaps today, by N.T. wright, a very well known and highly respected New Testament scholar. According to this interpretation, the events of the Olivet discourse that Jesus predicted are not end time events at all. Rather, these predictions were fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 by the Roman legions. The descriptions of the great tribulation that Jesus refers to was in fact the horror of the Roman siege of Jerusalem, which as we know from descriptions from the Jewish historian Josephus, really was indeed terrifying. It was a horrible siege as people began to cannibalize one another, even to eat their own children in order to stay alive under that terrible Roman Siege. In Mark 13:24 27 we have a description in apocalyptic imagery of the coming of the Son of Man. Jewish apocalyptic literature was literature about the advent of God or the judgment of God. That would often be in highly symbolic imagery. So the description that we have in Mark 13:24 27 is taken to be such an apocalyptic symbolic account. There we read, but in those days after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken and then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. And then he will send out the angels and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven. The preterist says that this is not a literal description of astronomical events. Rather this is a description in apocalyptic imagery of the events of AD 70 and the presentation of the Son of man before God. Compare for example Isaiah 13:10 in these verses. As we see from verse one, this is a prophecy that concerning the destruction of Babylon. In verse 10, Isaiah says, For the stars of the heavens and their constellations will not give their light. The sun will be dark at its rising and the moon will not shed its light. This is a very similar sort of imagery to what you have in Jesus Olivet discourse. Or turn over to Ezekiel chapter 32 and verse 7. This, as you can see from the first and second verses, is a prophecy concerning Pharaoh, the king of Egypt. In verse seven, Ezekiel says, When I blot you out, I will cover the heavens and make their stars dark, and I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give its light. All the bright lights of heaven I will make dark over you and put darkness upon your land, says the Lord. Here in Ezekiel as well, you have astronomical language used to symbolize the judgment of God that is coming up upon Egypt. Now lest anyone think that this sort of language should be taken literally, turn over to Acts 2, 1920. This is part of Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost. You'll remember that people there experienced hearing the disciples speaking in other languages and they saw tongues of fire resting upon their shoulders. In Acts chapter 2 and verse 16, Peter explains that this is what was spoken of by the prophet Joel. And then he quotes Joel's prophecy from the Old Testament and I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth beneath blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood before the day of the Lord comes the great and manifest day. Clearly those things weren't literally happening on the day of Pentecost. Yet Peter says it is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel. It is apocalyptic imagery used to describe earth shakingly significant events that God was bringing to pass. So the preterist says that Jesus description of the destruction of Jerusalem and the coming of the Son of Man in terms of asterisk. Astronomical images shouldn't be taken in a literal sense. Moreover, if you turn back to Daniel chapter seven where the coming of the Son of man is predicted, preterists will point out that this is not a description of the coming of the Son of Man to earth. Rather it is a description of the presentation of the Son of Man before God in the throne room of heaven. In Daniel 7:13 and following Daniel says, I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a Son of Man. And he came to the Ancient of days and was presented before him, and to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him. So what we have in Daniel is the coming of the Son of Man into the throne room of heaven and and his presentation before Yahweh before God, who then delivers to the Son of Man all kingdom, authority, glory and dominion. So the coming of the Son of Man that Jesus predicts in Mark 13 is not meant to be a visible return of Christ to the earth, but rather his enthronement in heaven. But what about the gathering of the elect from the four winds when he sends out his angels to gather the elect? The preterist would say that this is again in symbolic language, the prediction of the worldwide preaching of the Gospel and the gathering of the great harvest for the kingdom of God. And from every nation in the world, people throughout the world will be brought into the kingdom of Christ through the preaching of the Gospel. Now I'm sure you will agree that this is certainly an interesting interpretation of the Olivet discourse, but I think that what really motivates this view has not actually been mentioned so far. What really drives this view, I'm persuaded, is Mark 13:30 where Jesus says, truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. The preterist wants to solve the problem of the delay of the parousia by saying that all of these events predicted by Jesus and did take place within the lifetime of his hearers, they did occur just as Jesus predicted they would within the lifetime of those who heard Jesus. These events literally occurred and Jesus prophecy was fulfilled. What might we say then by way of assessment of this interpretation? I think we have to say that initially this is an attractive view because it solves the very knotty problem of verse 30 where Jesus says all these things will take place before this generation passes away. We don't have to do any fancy explaining away of that verse because they all did literally happen. So this makes the interpretation, I think, initially attractive. But I have to confess that after thinking about it, and with all the best will in the world, I'm just not persuaded that this is the correct interpretation of Jesus teachings like the Rapture view. In the end, the Preterist view also winds up having to posit and an invisible coming of the Son of Man prior to his second final coming to earth to establish his kingdom. So preterism, like the Rapture view, winds up postulating multiple returns of Christ. Next time, we'll look in greater detail at exactly why I claim that this is so, and in what ways it is problematic.