Summary4 min read

Defenders Podcast Episode Summary

Podcast: Defenders with Dr. William Lane Craig
Episode: Doctrine of the Last Things (Part 6): The Preterist Interpretation Continued
Date: April 28, 2021

Episode Overview

In this episode, Dr. William Lane Craig continues his in-depth critique of the Preterist interpretation of Christ’s Second Coming. He addresses the plausibility of viewing the coming of the Son of Man as an event confined to AD 70, the year of Jerusalem’s destruction, and provides three main arguments against this perspective. Dr. Craig maintains a clear, didactic tone rooted in biblical exegesis and logical analysis.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Visibility and Public Nature of Christ’s Coming ([00:01]–[08:00])

Perspective of “Coming” Versus “Going”:
Dr. Craig explains that terms like "coming" and "going" are perspectival and context-dependent, emphasizing that in the biblical narratives, “coming” refers to the Messiah returning to the locale of the observer (i.e., the earth).
Scriptural Support:
- Acts 1:11: The angels inform the apostles that Jesus “will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”
- Mark 13:26: "Then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory."
- Mark 14:61-62: During His trial, Jesus tells the high priest, “you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
- Matthew 24:24–27: Contrasts Christ’s public, visible coming with the secretive comings of false messiahs—“For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.”
- Revelation 1:7: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him..."
Conclusion:
Dr. Craig insists that Christ’s return, as forecasted by both Jesus and Paul, refers to a visible, public event, not a secret or hidden occurrence as some preterists suggest happened in AD 70.
Notable Quote ([06:42]):
“The coming of the Son of Man described by Jesus is an overpowering public event that will be plainly evident to everyone.” — Dr. Craig

2. The Timing of Christ’s Enthronement ([08:01]–[14:00])

The Preterist Problem:
Preterists claim that Christ was enthroned as King only after Jerusalem’s destruction in AD 70, but this necessitates a 40-year gap between resurrection (AD 30/33) and enthronement.
Paul’s Teaching:
- 1 Corinthians 15:23–28: Written in AD 55, Paul speaks of Christ already reigning (“He must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet”), awaiting the parousia, not enthronement.
- Hebrews 2:7–9: Jesus is already “crowned with glory and honor” after his resurrection, even if not all enemies are yet subjected.
Conclusion:
Dr. Craig argues that Christ did not have to wait until AD 70 to become King. His resurrection and ascension were the enthronement moments, making the preterist timeline implausible.
Notable Quote ([10:30]): “Christ doesn’t have to wait around until AD 70 to be enthroned in his kingdom. He is the risen and ascended King already.” — Dr. Craig

3. The Resurrection of the Dead: The "Achilles Heel" of Preterism ([14:01]–[20:00])

Paul's Expectation:
In letters predating AD 70, Paul consistently points to the resurrection of the dead as a feature of Christ’s return, meaning this did not occur in the first century.
Preterist Dilemma:
With the resurrection yet unfulfilled, preterists must claim that Paul and Jesus were referring to separate events—Paul to a future parousia, Jesus to AD 70.
NT Wright Example:
At a conference, N.T. Wright, though open to preterist ideas, admitted: “Of course not. I think Christ will come again at the end of the age and then the dead will be raised.” ([17:45])
Craig’s Critique:
This bifurcation is deemed “ad hoc and implausible,” as the natural reading is that Jesus and Paul spoke of the same, unified event: the final, visible return of Christ with the resurrection and gathering of the elect.
Notable Quote ([19:10]): “With all the best will in the world, at the end of the day, I just don’t buy preterism... it seems to me that this interpretation is implausible.” — Dr. Craig

Memorable Moments and Quotes

Public, global scope of Christ’s coming ([06:00]): “It is not going to be some sort of secret, invisible event. It is going to be observed.”
On Christ’s enthronement timing ([10:30]): “He is the risen and ascended King already when Paul writes in AD 55.”
The resurrection as the defeat of Preterism ([16:40]): “Obviously, the resurrection of the dead didn’t occur in AD 70.”
Craig’s summary stance ([19:10]): “It would be nice if it were true, because it would solve the problem of the delay of the parousia so adroitly, but it seems to me that this interpretation is implausible.”

Important Segment Timestamps

[00:01] – Introduction and review of preterist view
[02:30] – Perspective and linguistic analysis of "coming" versus "going"
[05:15] – Scriptural survey: Mark 13, Mark 14, Matthew 24, Revelation 1
[08:30] – Preterist chronology and Christ’s kingship
[10:50] – Paul’s understanding of Christ’s reign (1 Corinthians 15)
[13:10] – Hebrews and the timing of dominion
[14:20] – Resurrection as the critical issue for Preterism
[16:45] – N.T. Wright anecdote and implications
[19:10] – Dr. Craig’s final reflections and rejection of Preterism

Conclusion

Dr. William Lane Craig, in a methodical and scripturally anchored lecture, outlines why the Preterist interpretation fails to account for the biblical data regarding Christ’s Second Coming, enthronement, and the resurrection of the dead. He underscores the unity of Jesus' and Paul’s teachings, favoring a yet-future, visible, and cosmic return of Christ.

Next Session: Continued discussion on the return of Christ.
For further study: Visit reasonablefaith.org

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 I concluded last time by saying that despite the initial attractiveness of a preterist view of Christ's second coming, I cannot at the end of the day accept it because it forces upon us an implausible division of of Christ's return, spoken of by Paul, and of the coming of the Son of Man, spoken of by Jesus. How might this be seen? Well, let me make three points. First, it seems to me that according to Jesus and according to Paul as well, the coming of the Son of man predicted by Jesus is a visible coming to earth. Notice that the verb to come is a perspectival word. What do I mean by that? I mean that when somebody comes, that represents the situation of the speaker. Somebody comes to you. If you want to describe how you go to them, you use the verb go instead. You don't say I come to them. You say, I go to them and they come to me. Come and go are perspectival words, rather like here and there. Here is where somebody comes. There is where somebody goes. To see how such words are used in the New Testament, look at Acts chapter 1 and verse 11. This is a nice illustration, I think, of the perspectival nature of coming and going. Here the angels say to the disciples who are standing about, having just witnessed Jesus ascension. Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus who was taken up from you into heaven will come, and in the same way as you saw him go into heaven. So when Jesus in Mark 13 talks to the disciples about the coming of the Son of Man, this is a description of his coming to earth. It is where they will see him and experience Him. The language of the coming of the Son of man indicates that that he is coming to the place where the observer is. What that means then is that Jesus coming to earth is going to be visible and public just as it is described. It is not going to be some sort of secret, invisible event. It is going to be observed. Look at Mark 13 and verse 26. And then they will see the Son of Man coming in clouds with great power and glory. The people who are on earth will see the Son of Man coming with great power and glory. Also, if you look at Mark 14, the trial of Jesus, you have seen similar words. Mark 14, verses 61 and 62. Again the high priest asked him, are you the Christ, the Son of the blessed? And Jesus said, I am. And you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of power and coming with the clouds of heaven. Here Jesus says to the high priest, you will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, just as he had said in the Olivet discourse. Notice that this coming is in sharp contrast to the false messiahs that are predicted in the Olivet discourse, where someone will say, here is the Christ or There is the Christ. As Robert Gundry points out in his Commentary on Mark, the distinction between the true coming of Christ and the coming of these false messiahs will be the public, visible, demonstrative nature of Christ's real coming. These false messiahs come in deceptive, private ways which are seen but by a few. But the coming of the Son of Man described by Jesus is an overpowering public event that will be plainly evident to everyone. Compare in this connection Matthew's version of the Olivet discourse in Matthew, chapter 24, verses 24 to 27. There Jesus says, for false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray if possible. Even the elect Lo, I have told you beforehand. So if they say to you, lo, he is in the wilderness, do not go out. If they say, lo, he is in the inner rooms, do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. Christ's coming is going to be a visible, overwhelming event that everyone will see, not something that takes place privately in the inner rooms or out in the desert where these false Christs are. Also. Look at Revelation 1:7 to see that this was the view in the early church as well. Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see Him. Everyone who pierced him and all the tribes of the earth will wail on account of Him. So Christ's coming is a public event that will be witnessed by all people. Now, if that is right, then the coming of the Son of Man that is predicted by Jesus is not some invisible, secret thing that took place in AD 70 that nobody on earth saw. It will be the public, visible, overwhelming advent of the Son of Man to earth that will be experienced by everyone. Second, the Son of Man doesn't have to wait around until AD 70 in order to be enthroned. Remember that on this view, with the coming of the Son of Man and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, Christ is enthroned in his kingdom as the Son of Man. But what happened in between AD 30 or 33 and AD 70 for some 40 years. Did the Son of Man have to wait around in order to be enthroned? That seems preposterous. Jesus rose triumphant and glorified from the grave and ascended into heaven to the right hand of the Father. He doesn't have to wait to assume his kingdom. He assumes his kingdom with his resurrection and ascension into heaven. Look at what Paul has to say about this in in First Corinthians, chapter 15, verses 23 to 28 in his discourse on the Resurrection of Jesus. Keep in mind that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul around A.D. 55, I.e. before the supposed coming of the Son of man in AD 70. So Paul's perspective is one of looking forward to that event. It hasn't occurred yet in A.D. 55 when Paul wrote this letter. Referring to the resurrection, Paul says, but each in his own order. Christ the first fruits then at his coming, those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. So in A.D. 55, Christ is already on his throne. He is reigning as as the Son of Man. But he will deliver the kingdom over to the Father when He comes again. Paul continues, the last enemy to be destroyed is death. For God has put all things in subjection under his feet. But when it says all things are put in subjection under him, it is plain that that he is accepted who put all things under him. So according to Paul, God has already put all things under Christ's dominion. But obviously that excludes God himself. God put all things under his feet, but that doesn't mean that God is under his feet. God is the one who who put all things under Christ's feet. Paul proceeds when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him. That God may be everything to everyone. Christ will deliver the kingdom to God the Father and and himself be subject to God the Father when Christ's return is finally accomplished. So on this view, it seems to me Christ doesn't have to wait around until AD 70 to be enthroned in his kingdom. He is the risen and ascended King already. When Paul writes in AD 55, Compare this to Hebrews 2, 7, 9, a very similar reflection. The writer begins by quoting from the Old Testament. Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels. Thou hast crowned him with glory and honor, putting everything in subjection under his feet. Now, in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him, but we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone. So I'm not persuaded that what Jesus describes in the Olivet discourse is the presentation of the Son of Man in the throne room of heaven when he is then crowned and receives his kingdom. It seems to me much more evident that what is described is the coming of the Son of Man as king and conqueror, the glorious return of Christ to the earth as the risen and conquering Lord. Finally. Third, the real Achilles heel of the preterist view is once again the resurrection of the dead. Paul in his letters looks forward to the parousia. Remember, all of his letters were written prior to AD 70. Paul was martyred somewhere in the mid AD 60s. His Thessalonian correspondence was where he describes at length the appearing and the coming of the Son of Man was some of the earliest material in the New Testament being written around A.D. 51. From Corinth to the church in Thessalonica, Paul looks forward to the parousia of Christ and the resurrection of the dead at his return. So obviously the resurrection of the dead didn't occur in AD 70. What the preterist is therefore forced to say is that what Paul is looking forward to and describing as the coming of the Son of Man is not the event that took place in AD 70, but rather an event that will occur at the end of history when Christ comes back once again and the dead are raised. I remember at a conference at which NT Wright was speaking, someone asked him, if you believe that the coming of the Son of man occurred in A.D. 70, what about the resurrection of the dead? Do you think that that is already past? And Wright responded, of course not. I think Christ will come again at the end of the age and then the dead will be raised. So you see, you wind up doing exactly what the Rapture folks had to do. You have to postulate that Paul isn't talking about the same event that Jesus is talking about in the Olivet discourse. Despite the commonality of the vocabulary and the connections between the two, the preterist has to say that what Paul is talking about in Thessalonians and his other correspondence is this end time event, not not the event that Jesus predicted in the Olivet discourse. That seems to me to be extremely ad hoc and implausible. It seems to me that the natural understanding of Paul's teaching is that he and Jesus were talking about the same event. When Christ will return as the Son of Man, the dead will be raised, the angels will gather the elect from the four corners of the earth, and they will welcome Christ back to earth to establish his kingdom visibly so again, with all the best will in the world at the end of the day. I just don't buy preterism. It would be nice if it were true, because it would solve the problem of the delay of the parousia so adroitly, but it seems to me that this interpretation is implausible. Next time we meet, we'll continue our discussion of the return of Christ.