Shalom dear doves,
The following was taken from:
http://www.benisrael.org/articles/Preterism%20Achille%27s%20Heel.htm
Preterism's Achilles' Heel ... by Reggie Kelly
A Short Bible Study Course
(for the Serious Student)
The Deception of Preterism
(and attendant Replacement Theology)"
The cornerstone of replacement theology is
'Preterism,' - "the belief that holds that the
Tribulation prophecies occurred in the first century
[A.D.], and thus are past" (Kenneth Gentry). The
hallmark of Preterism is its denial of the futurity of
'the great tribulation' (specifically Mt 24:21). But
compare closely the parallel relationships between Jer
30:7; Dn 12:1 and Mt 24:21. It is clear that the very
language of Daniel's prophecy of an 'unequaled'
tribulation borrows directly from Jeremiah's prophecy
of the same event, [1] as Jesus not only describes the
great tribulation by His own word for word reference
to Daniel (compare Dn 12:1; Mt 24:21), but explicitly
directs His disciples to pay attention to Daniel as
the source prophecy for the events that signal His
return (Mt 24:15; with Dn 9:27; 11:31; 12:11).Any comparison of these texts, particularly in their
larger contexts (e.g. Dn 7:21-25; 11:36-12:13 with 2
Thes 2:1-8; Rev 11-13), displays a clear and
inextricable connection between (1) the 'unequaled'
tribulation ("THE tribulation THE great" Dn 12:1; Mt
24:21; Rev 7:14), (2) the brief career of Antichrist
(Dn 7:25; 9:27; 12:11; Rev 11:2; 13:5), and (3) the
post-tribulational return of Christ (Mt 24:21-31; 2
Thess 2:1-3, 8). This complex of events starts with
the 'abomination of desolation' (Mt 24:15, 21, 29-31),
[2] lasts for 'approximately' 3 ½ years (Dn 7:25;
9:27; 12:11; Rev 11:2-3; 12:6, 14; 13:5), [3] and ends
in nothing short of (1) Christ's glorious return (Mt
24:29-30), (2) the gathering of the elect (Mt 24:31; 2
Thes 2:1), (3) the final 'deliverance' of Israel ("thy
people" Dn 12:1), and (4) the resurrection of the
righteous dead (Dn 12:2). [4] To place any of these
events in past history is to ignore their manifest
proximity to the resurrection (Dan 12:1-2 with Mt
24:21-31). However, preterists of the so-called
'replacement' schools of prophetic interpretation
(a-millennial, post-millennial, historical) are forced
to deny the proximity of these events to a future
resurrection.Scholars agree that Dn 12:2 stands out as the most
unambiguous reference to resurrection to be found
anywhere in the OT. However, in order to avoid the
implications of 'apocalyptic futurism,' preterists
must interpret this otherwise clear reference to
eternal resurrection as a non-literal metaphor
standing for national revival (e.g. Ezk 37). [5] But
Daniel, who sees a prolonged exile, puts the unequaled
tribulation and subsequent resurrection at "the end".
(7:25-26; 8:17, 19; 9:27; 11:27, 35, 40; 12:1-13).
This, however, provides no deterrent at all to
preterism's postulate of two distinct ends to two
distinct ages, i.e., the 'Jewish age' and the 'church
age'. [6] But there is no analogy in Israel's history
for such an end as these passages so definitely
specify. Even if Daniel's reference to resurrection
is interpreted figuratively, it cannot be separated in
time from the unequaled tribulation which preterists
interpret as literal. Clearly, Daniel's vision looks
beyond any transitory national revival to the ultimate
eschatological salvation "at the end of the days"
(12:1-2, 13). According to Daniel, 'Jacob's trouble'
ends in the final deliverance of Israel and the
resurrection of the righteous (Jer 30:7; Dn 12:1-2)
which includes his own resurrection "at the end of the
days" (12:13).The exegetical force of this manifest interrelation of
events is not lost on a minority of scholars that
identify themselves as 'consistent preterists'
vis-à-vis 'moderate preterist'. However, rather than
admitting a future fulfillment of this indivisible
complex of events, 'consistent preterists' feel
justified in saying that the resurrection described in
Daniel 12:2 is already past. This interpretation,
however, contradicts the uniform witness of the NT.
In virtually every text in the NT where the
resurrection is mentioned, it is treated as an
inseparable feature of the judgment that accompanies
Christ's return at the still future 'day of the Lord.'
The time of the day of the Lord is made clear by
noting that the stellar darkness that comes
"immediately AFTER the tribulation of those days" (Mt
24:29) is shown in Acts 2:20 to precede and signal
'the great and notable day of the Lord" (Joel 2:31;
3:14-16). So the darkness is "AFTER" the tribulation,
but "BEFORE" the day of the Lord, showing that the
great tribulation ends with the day of the Lord. The
day of the Lord does not include the tribulation, but
follows it. Thus the 'thief-like' day of the Lord IS
the post-tribulational advent of Christ (cf. Mt
24:43; 1 Thes 5:2; 2 Pet 3:10-12; Rev 16:14-15).
However, a comparison of the following texts will show
that the day of the Lord is consistently treated as
marking the point of the Church's ultimate redemption
(1 Cor 5:5; 2 Cor 1:14; 1 Thes 4:13-5:4; 2 Thes
1:7-10; 2:1-3, 8). These texts show that Christ's
post-tribulational return cannot be separated from the
day of the Lord, but neither can the day of the Lord
be separated from the future hope of the church. [7]Only the strength of a powerfully overriding
presupposition can account for the decision to make
the post-tribulational coming described in the Olivet
prophecy and in John's Apocalypse the exception to all
other NT references to Christ's coming and attendant
resurrection. In all other NT texts, the resurrection
is united to the 'blessed hope' of the Church. It is
therefore the more curious that the only passages that
are treated as exceptions happen to be those that make
explicit or implicit prophetic reference to the Land
of Israel. It is suggested that since the NT contains
no clear reiteration of the land promise, this feature
of 'the everlasting covenant' (Ps 105:10-11; Jer
32:40-41; Ezk 37:25-26) has been reinterpreted as
completely fulfilled in Jesus, and thus the Land no
longer retains its former significance.But NT witness to the abiding prophetic significance
of the Land would not be so 'missing' if the larger
part of NT prophecy was not assigned to the past.
Furthermore, it is not the New Testament's first
interest to 'reiterate' everything that Jews of the
first century naturally understood as irrevocable
features of the covenant (Jer 31:35-37; Ezk 36:22, 32;
Ro 11:29), deferred only "UNTIL the times of
restoration of all things" (Acts 3:21). Rather, the
NT's emphasis falls on the revelation of things
formerly hidden, bound up in the mystery of Christ's
twofold advent. All that related to a future
"restoration of the kingdom to Israel" was never in
question (only 'the times and seasons' Acts 1:6; 1Thes
5:1-2), and required no special reaffirmation; it was
self-evident.The real question to be decided is what the exegetical
and historical evidence is for how Jesus, Paul, and
John, all apocalyptically oriented Jews of the first
century, would have understood the relationship of
Daniel's unequaled tribulation to the resurrection?
Both 'moderate' and 'consistent' preterists insist
that Christ returned mystically in apocalyptic
judgment "immediately after the tribulation of those
days" (Mt 24:19, 22, 29), understood as the days of
the Roman sacking of Jerusalem. But while moderate
preterists interpret Daniel's reference to a
post-tribulational resurrection as a non-literal
metaphor of past fulfillment, so-called 'consistent
preterists' go even further to say that living
believers were translated and the dead in Christ
actually rose around the time of Jerusalem's fall.This is the price that 'consistency' must pay if the
time of unequaled tribulation is to be placed in the
past. Such strained interpretations force themselves
whenever the time of 'unequaled tribulation' is placed
in the past, simply because all exegetes are compelled
to recognize the inseparable relationship of Daniel's
reference to the resurrection in 12:2 with the
'unequaled tribulation' that precedes it in 12:1.
Among 'moderate preterists,' however, there is usually
the belief of a future unsignaled return of Christ and
a general resurrection that is not to be identified
with the resurrection that Daniel describes as ending
the unequaled tribulation (12:1-2). But this is to
forfeit consistency, as it divides the indivisible (2
Tim 2:15).The manifest interrelation and indivisibility of the
events described in the above parallel passages
reveals a basic eschatology common to both testaments,
viz., a last days' anti-Christ persecution of the
saints followed by Christ's return as the glorified
Son of Man to destroy the Antichrist, and resurrect
the righteous. The same eschatological structure
stands behind Paul's 'little apocalypse' (2 Thes
2:1-12) and his comprehensive apologetic for the
mystery of Israel's deferred salvation (Ro 9-11),
since both prophetic scenarios assume as their goal
the OT day of the Lord. For Paul, the 'day of the
Lord' marks the great transition point in history that
God has appointed to remove Israel's partial blindness
(Ro 11:25) and to re-engraft the 'natural branches'
into "their own" olive tree. This is also the time
when the "deliverer comes out of Zion to turn
ungodliness away from Jacob" (Ps 14:7; Joel 3:16; Isa
59:18-21; Ro 11:26-27).Thus, at the moment of Christ's return the Antichrist
is destroyed (2 Thes 2:8), the Church is raptured (cf.
Mt 24:31; 1 Thes 4:13-5:4; 2 Thes 2:1; 1 Cor
15:51-52), and a nation is "born in one day" (Isa
66:8; Ezk 39:22; Zech 3:9), as the surviving remnant
of Israel in penitent contrition "shall look upon Me
whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for Him,
as one mourns for his only son, and shall be in
bitterness for Him, as one that is in bitterness for
his firstborn" (Zech 12:10 with Mt 23:39; 24:30; Rev
1:7).Until then, the blinded nation (Israel) is subject to
the "vengeance of the covenant" (Lev 26:25; Isaiah
10:6; Lk 21:22-23). Therefore, whether in or outside
the Land, Israel must continue to pass under the rod
UNTIL (Lk 21:24; Acts 3:21; Ro 11:25-29) final
deliverance and new covenant transformation comes at
the post-tribulational day of the Lord (Jer 31:31-37;
32:37-42; Ezk 36:26; 39:22-29; Joel 3:21). Until
'that day,' God's face remains hidden from the larger
nation (see Ezk 39:22-29), as the people of the
unfulfilled covenant are delivered over to tribulation
and flight (Mt 24:16; Rev 12:6), and the land, cities
and holy places to desolations (Lev 26:31-32; Isa
10:5-6; 63:18; 64:10-11; Ezk 36:35-36; Mt 24:15; Lk
21:20).This is the uniform perspective that becomes
unmistakable in Jesus', Paul's and John's parallel use
of Daniel. For all that the 'secret' of NT revelation
(Ro 16:25-26) adds to the glory of God's eternal
purpose, it does nothing to alter the essential
framework of OT eschatology. Though so much
concerning the ground of the eternal covenant in
Christ's atonement and twofold advent has come to
light in the revelation of the mystery, Paul is unable
to conceive of the covenant's final vindication in
history apart from the 'salvation of all Israel' at
the day of the Lord (Jer 31:34; Isa 59:17-21; Ro
11:26).In both testaments, the day of the Lord marks the
point of ultimate divine deliverance that divides
'this present evil age' ("the times of the Gentiles")
from 'the age to come' that begins with Christ's
post-tribulational return to destroy the Antichrist
(cf. Dn 7:11, 21-24; 11:31-12:1; 2 Thes 2:2-4, 8; Rev
16:13-16; 19:20; also Dn 2:44 with Rev 17:12 in light
of Acts 1:6; 3:21). This is the pivotal point where
the eschatology of both testaments converge. Even if
a case can be made for the occurrence of a double,
archetypal, or partial fulfillment of certain of the
more 'apocalyptic' expressions of NT prophecy, one has
still to contend with the NT's continued treatment of
the day of the Lord as a yet future event.A later spiritual application or enlargement of an OT
prophecy does not nullify or preclude a future literal
fulfillment that meets all the demands of context and
original authorial intention, particularly when the
still future 'day of the Lord' is its stated time of
fulfillment. By what logic, then, can any presume
that the future day of the Lord may not bring with it
the great turning from ungodliness on the part of the
'natural branches' that Paul so clearly confesses in
complete agreement with the entire eschatology of the
OT? And if this much is true, what part of OT
prophecy may not be interpreted literally? Such a
wholesale overhaul of 'Jewish eschatology'
(disdainfully referred to as "nationalistic" and
"carnal") is based on unjustified presuppositions that
must rule out a future post-tribulational coming of
the Son of Man to change believers, raise the dead,
and deliver Israel [8] all according to the mystery
traced by Paul in Ro 9-11.All that is new to the eschatology of the NT is what
has issued out of the mystery of Messiah's twofold
advent ("the mystery of the kingdom"). By this
foretold but no less unexpected turn of events, a new
tension was created that theologians, borrowing a
famous term from Oscar Cullman's "Christ and Time,"
refer to as "the already and the not yet." Theologians
of the so-called 'Heilsgeschichte' school of NT
interpretation also subscribe to a kind of
'middle-view' among scholars called 'inaugurated
eschatology.' It is basically the idea that in
Christ, and through the spirit of revelation, 'the
powers of the coming age' (Heb 6:5) have invaded the
present, thus the title of George Ladd's "The Presence
of the Future." It means that the decisive
eschatological visitation has come in unexpected
advance of the day of the Lord, creating a new center,
and this new center is the hallmark of all NT
eschatology. 'The already' is the 'inaugurated'
kingdom as first-fruits; 'the not yet' is the
kingdom's fuller conquest that comes with Christ's
return, the yet awaited 'day of the Lord.' The
kingdom is both here and coming, as also the powers of
the 'approaching day' (Heb 10:25). This means that
the revelation of the mystery does nothing to nullify
the necessary 'not yet' of all that waits the still
future 'day of the Lord,' nor does it justify a
sweeping "reinterpretation" of any of the events and
ends attained only with its still awaited arrival. An
overly 'realized eschatology' is as unbiblical as an
overly 'futurized' eschatology that fails to emphasize
the power and presence of the kingdom that has come
and is still coming.Thus, the logic of Preterism is clear: Since the
tribulation described in Daniel and the Olivet
prophecy is past, and since it is without dispute that
Jesus returns in glory 'immediately after the
tribulation,' it follows that Christ has in some sense
already returned. But according to the parallel
passage in Daniel, if the tribulation is past, then so
is the resurrection (12:1-2). But if the tribulation
(depicted as brief, unequaled, and age ending) is not
past, it is future; and a future tribulation that has
its inception in the Land (Dn 11:41-45; Mt 24:16; Lk
21:24; Rev 11:2; 14:20: 16:16) carries all kinds of
implications for the prophetic future of Israel.One might even wonder if a latent anti-Semitic
triumphalism is not the real attraction of Preterism
This is perhaps more possible than we are prepared to
conceive. Both scripture and history attest to a deep
and powerful natural aversion to God's electing
prerogatives, and this is particularly exposed when it
comes to the question of the Jew in history and
prophecy. However, given the amazing story of the
modern return of the Jews to a revived national
existence that seemed to rise out of the ashes of the
Holocaust, together with the ominous portents implicit
in the ensuing Middle East crisis, it would appear
that history is being positioned for the 'literal'
fulfillment of prophecy.Indeed, it is hard to see how any objective observer
could possibly disregard the prophetic futurism
implicit in Zechariah's amazing prophecy that depicts
the final world crisis as centered upon the question
of Jerusalem (Zech 12:2). This is precisely what we
see on the world stage. Jerusalem is now and will
increasingly become 'a cup of trembling' destined to
sift all nations. The 'controversy of Zion'
represents the great issues of covenant and election,
and the sovereignty of the divine rule manifest
through prophecy (Isa 46:10; Rev 19:10b). Indeed, the
entire eschatology of Daniel is built around an age
enduring war against "the holy covenant" (11:28, 30)
led by an invisible host of 'principalities and
powers' (4:17; 8:11, 13, 25; 9:25-26; 10:12-21; 11:18,
22, 12:1).Therefore, according to the eschatology of both
testaments, the final provocation of divine wrath
comes in response to an ultimate arrogance of the
nations against the covenant, particularly as it
touches the question of the Jew and the Land (cf.
Joel 3:2; Ezk 38:16-19; Dn 11:39; Zech 12:2; Mt
24:15-16). This is the eschatological context in
which the gospel was first preached 'for a witness' to
all nations; it must be so again (Mt 24:14 with Rev
19:10b).The first disciples lived under the shadow of an
imminent, age-ending judgment of Jerusalem.We have come full circle!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[1] Working from Jeremiah's prophecy of the 70 years
(see Dn 9:2), Daniel shows that Israel's final
tribulation ("Jacob's trouble" Jer 30:7; "Zion's
travail" Isa 66:8) does not soon follow the end of the
exile, as might have been inferred from Jeremiah, but
comes only at the end of an extended exile of seventy
additional sevens (9:24-27; 12:1-2, 11). Thus,
Daniel's message of an extended probation addresses
the problem of delay. The exiles could not have known
that the glorious conditions depicted by the former
prophets in association with the promised return would
be only partially realized. Much more was expected
than a "day of small things" (Ezr 3:12 with Zech 4:10)
[2] Especially note the connecting and delimiting
phrase "those days" in Mt 24: 19, 22, 29[3] Because of the mysterious extension of days
recorded in Dan 12:11-12, the precise time of the
Lord's post-tribulational return must remain slightly
indefinite, but the 'approximate' duration of the
Tribulation is most certain.[4] Compare also "the great sound of the trumpet" in
Mt 24:31 with Paul's eschatological 'last trump' as a
resurrection event 1Cor 15:51-54 (also Rev 10:7;
11:15). Note the clearly post-tribulational context
of Paul's OT references to resurrection and the 'great
trumpet' in connection with the final deliverance (cf.
Isa 25:6-8; 26:19-21; 27:13).[5] Philip Mauro interprets the language of Dn 12:2 to
signify nothing more than a national spiritual
'awakening' in the form of the contemporary preaching
of the gospel by which the believer is 'spiritually'
raised to everlasting life and the unbeliever
sentenced to final judgment ("The Seventy Weeks and
the Great Tribulation" 168-171).[6] Interestingly, both preterisism and
pretribulationism share a common tendency to double
the major events of eschatology. Such unnatural
doubling of events is the result of a forced
distinction and division between events that are
exegetically indivisible.[7] Such definite timing of the day of the Lord is
equally troublesome for the pretribulational
dispensational school of prophetic interpretation,
because a principal pillar of this position is the
view that Christ's special pretribulational coming
'for the Church' can occur any moment. It cannot
therefore be contingent on any preceding events; it is
imminent and unsignaled. But in 1 Thes 4:13-5:4 Paul
clearly associates the Church's hope of rapture with
its expectation of the day of the Lord, which 'day'
Paul says "shall NOT come, except there come a falling
away first, and that man of sin be revealed ." (2 Thes
2:1-3). Hence, the day of the Lord is NOT unsignaled,
and NOT imminent in the sense of pretribulationism.[8] By the phrase 'all Israel shall be saved,' it is
evident that Paul has two aspects of OT promise in
mind. First, since Paul is clear that 'they are not
all Israel who are of Israel,' it is only the elect
remnant (Isa 4:2-4; 10:20-23; 11:11-16) that receives
the quickening revelation of Christ at the
post-tribulational day of the Lord (Zech 12:10; Ro
11:26). This penitent remnant will constitute the
beginning of the renewed nation, as the greater part
of the nation ('two thirds') will die amid the
covenant judgments of 'Jacob's trouble' (Ezk 20:38;
Amos 9:9-10; Zech 13:8-9). Secondly, the phrase 'all
Israel' stands for the promise that EVERY member of
the renewed nation (Ezk 36:25; Isa 66:8) will know the
Lord "from that day and forward" (Jer 31:34; Ezk
39:22), and so continue 'forever' (Isa 4:2-3; 59:21;
60:21; 66:22; Jer 32:40 et al). Such sudden and
radical transformation of the entirety of the
surviving remnant stands in remarkable analogy to
Paul's own divine arrest on the Damascus Road, and
thus guarantees Jewish permanency in the Land, because
the perennial cause of exile is permanently obviated.
Articles Index:
http://www.benisrael.org/articles/articles.html
Shalom shalom,
David
dwzavitz@yahoo.com
dwzavitz@mymelody.com
http://www.geocities.com/dwzavitz