Preterism's Achilles Heel

[Guest]

Steve,

I've recently found the following article, and would be curious to hear your response to some of the author's points regarding Preterism. It is lengthy and uses many scriptures, but it is one of the best open critiques that I have read on the subject.

I love eschatology because it gives me strength to press on, hope to endure, and love to obey Christ because He is the one who is working to "sum up all things" in Himself.

As I was mowing my extremely tall grass the other day, I became empowered when noticing that I only had a few patches left. The adrenaline pumped within me as I thought about how the end will justify all the means, regardless of how difficult they have been.

Oh Lord, may our study of eschatology produce the same drive within us!

Preterism's Achilles Heel
by Reggie Kelly
http://www.benisrael.org/articles/Prete ... 20Heel.htm

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.

[Guest]

Hi Ryan,

I'll let Steve answer the finer points on this since you addressed it to him. But I just have to add my two and a half cents. There isn't too much to say on this since "there's nothing new under the sun" about this article.

In short, my opinion is that the major stumbiling block and "achilles heel" of dispensationalism seems to be an unfortunate insistence on an unnatural man-made literal hermenuetic forced on the Bible (except when it comes to words like "soon", "shortly", and "generation"). It amazes me that established figurative genres, cultural idioms, and application by NT writers can be so easily ignored by respected scholars (some of whom I respect a great deal). I've never heard of the author of this piece but he's saying pretty much the same thing as most of the others.

I have to wonder why they never seem to address some of the stronger arguments of preterism such as the past fulfillments of God "coming on a swift cloud" in judgment against nations in the OT prophets (Is 19:1, for instance). Jesus used the same type of apocalyptic language, why should we change it's meaning for a man-made literal hermenuetic?

It's also interesting that the anti-Semitic card is almost always played by dispensationalists. It's funny, because I can't see anything more anti-Semitic then condemning 2000 years of Jewish people to hell for a "temporary blindness" and then wiping out 2/3 of their population at the end of time to get to the point that we can say "all Israel shall be saved". I don't get it.

[Guest]

Christopher,

I appreciate your response, although I'm not quite sure what your point is regarding the hermeneutic used here. I'm not a fan of interpretations that do "gymnastics with the text' and would be glad to review any of Reggie's thoughts that you believe may have done so.

However, I want to first say that Reggie Kelly is NOT a dispensationalist. I understand that since that is the most popular viewpoint these days it is easy to assume that anything other than preterism is dispensational thought, but I believe Mr. Kelly's entire point is that the glorious appearing of Christ has everything to do with the blessed hope (rapture) of the Church at the same instant - the end of the tribulational period.

To quote:

"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] "

Also consider point 7:

"[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"

It is clear from these that Mr. Kelly is a historical premillenialist, like some of the early church fathers, who believe in a literal 7 year tribulation, followed by the rapture of the church at the glorious appearing of the Lord Jesus to rule and reign for 1000 years on the earth in Jerusalem.

Also, I agree with you that no one should be anti-semitic. I don't believe Preterist's have ill-will towards Jews in anyway, and as Steve has said before, he wishes that indeed all Israel does get saved! He's just not sure there is biblical precedent for that.

However, there is clear biblical precedent that God's judgment is really his mercy, because in doing so he is clearing the way for a people to repent and turn back to him. Mercy always triumphs over judgment, and I believe the viewpoint of the historical premill. would be that the greatest mercy and goodness God can show to a wayward Israel is judgment - so that "the redeemed of Zion shall return... with everlasting joy upon their heads... and sorrow fleeing away."

Curious, how would you interpret Isaiah 6 and Romans 11 in terms of "blindess in part" to Israel? Is this a latent anti-semitism in the premillenialists or a biblical precedent from God so that "the Gentiles might be grafted in"?

[Guest]

However, I want to first say that Reggie Kelly is NOT a dispensationalist. I understand that since that is the most popular viewpoint these days it is easy to assume that anything other than preterism is dispensational thought, but I believe Mr. Kelly's entire point is that the glorious appearing of Christ has everything to do with the blessed hope (rapture) of the Church at the same instant - the end of the tribulational period.

It is clear from these that Mr. Kelly is a historical premillenialist, like some of the early church fathers, who believe in a literal 7 year tribulation, followed by the rapture of the church at the glorious appearing of the Lord Jesus to rule and reign for 1000 years on the earth in Jerusalem.

This is where I get confused. From what I understand J.N. Darby (who invented dispensationalism) is the one who came up with the view of a 7 year tribulation. Before that it was general tribulation or even a time of tribulation. But 7 specific years came from Darby, by taking the final "week" of Daniel and applying it to the future.

Curious, how would you interpret Isaiah 6 and Romans 11 in terms of "blindess in part" to Israel? Is this a latent anti-semitism in the premillenialists or a biblical precedent from God so that "the Gentiles might be grafted in"?

Romans 11 is being discussed already in this forum under "Misc. Theological Topics" then: "Rom. 11:25-28"

There's some interesting reading there.

[Guest]

Hi Ryan,

Sorry it took so long to post an answer, I left for a long weekend right after my post and haven't had a chance to get back on until now.

You're probably right that I jumped to conclusions about the author being dispensationalist. It sometimes becomes very difficult to distinguish between the different futurist camps these days if you're not careful and I must confess that I often assume someone is dispensational when they use the typical futurist scripture references and arguments. I apologize to you and to Mr. Kelly for that.

I will say, however, that some of the things I said probably apply to historic premillenialists also. It seems to be a matter of taking passages literally where they weren't intended to be. Or, trying to create artificial dual fulfillments in passages without biblical warrant. I won't go over every point I disagree with in the article right now because I would have to re-read it and that would take more time than I have right now. Besides, you originally addressed this to Steve and I know he can do a much better job answering this than I can.

I will, however, give one example to make my point. I'll just use the quote you used to demonstrate that Mr. Kelly was not a dispensationalist. It seems to me that most futurists see the term "day of the Lord" always as one future event when the OT commonly uses this as a general term for God's judgment upon a nation (Egypt, Babylon, Edom, etc.). So the question is, why do we need to see the passage in Joel 2 as still future when Peter applied it to the days he was living in (Acts 2)? Why would we not naturally see "last days" in Acts 2 as speaking of the last days of the old order rather than the end of the world? It's really difficult to see the last days of world history beginning at Pentecost since it's been 2000 years (already longer than the former days of the old order).

Also, why couldn't Jesus be using that language to describe God's judgment upon Jerusalem in 70AD? That would seem to be the most consistent use of apocalyptic language biblically speaking.

Anyway, you may not find that to be a satisfactory answer, but that's the best I can do with the time I have. And I know Steve can give you a better answer anyway. I'm sure he'll be back on soon now that he's all moved.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Guest]

Steve, I know that you are a busy, busy man but I am hoping you will be able to give us/me some words of wisdom on this attempt to refute our beliefs. This web site pains takinly addresses preterism and amillinnealism to the point of rediculous but I could sure use some words from you as to how you would answer them. I have listened to many of your tapes and read many of your posts but am hopin you could condense it here.

The website in question is http://www.biblestudying.net/preterism1.html

[Guest]

Steve, I know that you are a busy, busy man but I am hoping you will be able to give us/me some words of wisdom on this attempt to refute our beliefs. This web site pains takinly addresses preterism and amillinnealism to the point of rediculous but I could sure use some words from you as to how you would answer them. I have listened to many of your tapes and read many of your posts but am hopin you could condense it here.

The website in question is http://www.biblestudying.net/preterism1.html

Until Steve types something up, are there any specific quotes you can cite that you are wondering about? I can try to help, but the topic is so big that it's a bit easier (sometimes) to focus on one point at a time.

Some things I noticed:

The problem with Partial Preterism is this. By definition Partial Preterism denies the Full Preterist claim that the second coming also had to occur in that first generation. By placing the second coming in the future they accept that at least one of the events prophesied in the Olivet discourse did NOT occur by the time that first generation passed away. In doing so, they negate that the timeframe statements (such as the one found in Matthew 24:34) require the preceding, prophesied events to occur by 70 AD. By allowing one of those prophesied events to remain unbound by the 70 AD deadline, Partial Preterists actually allow all of the rest of the listed events to be delayed as well.

I personally don't believe any events mentioned didn't happen in 70AD. But to assume the second coming is mentioned in Matt 24 is to not understand the language. Just as Jesus said "some of you standing here will not taste death until you see the son of man coming in His Kingdom". A Premiller can't say that's the second coming. So now who is being inconsistent?

The only alternative is for Partial Preterists to hypothesize that there are two second comings...

Wow, so that's a problem? And what in the world to Premillers do? They believe in a rapture and revelation of Christ. Two second comings, then the great white throne (another coming).

But, if the entire New Testament including Revelation was written prior to 70 AD, then one wonders why Partial Preterists think there will be another second coming? Since according to their hypothesis, all of the prophecies in the New Testament concerning a second coming would have been written before the first second coming, what reason would they have for assuming that ALL these prophecies and commentaries weren't fulfilled by that first second coming? Given their premise that all scripture was written before 70 AD, what would be their Biblical basis for assuming there is a second second coming?

Again, are we to assume that coming ALWAYS means second coming (the way we in the 21st century think of it?). If so then agian I bring up Matt 16:27-28

So what do I use for scriptural support?
1 Cor 15. It destroys (I.M.O.) the notion of Full-Preterism and Pre-Mill.

1Co 15:22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
1Co 15:23 But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.
1Co 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power.
1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

When does this happen?

1Co 15:49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.
1Co 15:50 I tell you this, brothers: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.
1Co 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
1Co 15:55 "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?"

At the second coming, aka the rapture and judgemnt.

[Guest]

Thank you very much Sean. This a big help. I gues I was overwelmed by the length of the whole arguement. Sometime my mind works clearer than at other times and this was one of those other times.

[_Steve]

A response to "Preterism's Achilles Heel" by Reggie Kelly

The title of this article is misleading. An “Achilles heel” usually refers to one fatal weakness that brings down an otherwise unconquerable person, entity or viewpoint. If one is going to speak of preterism’s “Achilles heel,” I should think he would identify some specific weakness in the position—e.g. its dependence upon the (debatable) early date of the writing of Revelation. To my mind, the arguments for some form of partial preterism are unassailable apart from this one vulnerability. If the early date of Revelation fails, so does the whole edifice of the preterist approach to Revelation (of course, the preterist approach to other passages, like the Olivet Discourse, or the prophecies of Daniel and Zechariah remain unaffected by this particular criticism).

Kelly’s essay does not clearly identify a specific weakness in preterism, but nips at a variety of preterist beliefs with which the author disagrees. He takes the obligatory swipes at the “consistent preterists”—those who do not believe in a future coming of Christ at all—apparently not recognizing the irrelevance of any criticism of that camp to the validity of the various varieties of partial preterism (to one or another variety of which all Christians adhere).

All Christians believe that the majority of biblical prophecies have been fulfilled in ancient history. Opinions among Christians with reference to how much of prophecy has been fulfilled, or how much may remain to be fulfilled, differ only in degree. Those who recognize more prophecies as having been fulfilled in the past can identify more instances of the faithfulness and sovereignty of God than do those who recognize fewer fulfillments (and appear to be acquainted with more of the details of history than do those who recognize fewer fulfillments).

Kelly’s complaint against what he regards as “preterism” and “replacement theology” resembles most of the critiques that are pouring forth from the word-processors of nervous futurist writers these days. These all share several common weaknesses.

First, their case against preterism is ill-researched, and ill-thought-out. The critics are not sure who the preterists are, or what they believe. They have, it would appear, only heard that some of their favorite end-times proof-texts are audaciously being relegated to a fulfillment in ancient history, which, for inexplicable reasons, offends them.

They then assume they can refute this "heresy" by quoting unsupportable dispensational cliches—apparently not realizing that most of us preterists were once champions of dispensationalism ourselves, and have long-since seen through the emptiness of the arguments.

Kelly, like all critics of preterism, has little idea what he is talking about. He begins with the inexcusably irresponsible assertion that the “cornerstone of replacement theology is ‘Preterism.’” There is nothing even remotely true about this statement. In reality, the "cornerstone" of what dispensationalists call “replacement theology” is not preterism, but historic Christianity—which has never been predominantly “preterist” in its approach to Revelation.

The early “replacement theologians,” like Irenaeus, Tertullian, Justin, and a number of other church fathers, were actually "historic premillenialists" (as Kelly considers himself to be). They were not preterists.

Other “replacement theologians,” like Luther and Calvin, for example, also were not preterists, but were amillennial historicists.

In our day, “replacement theology” is usually associated with amillennialism and postmillennialism, but theologians of these categories are not uniformly preterists. They have as often been historicists or idealists in their approach to Revelation.

The only theological commitments common to all who teach the dreaded “replacement theology” is their rejection of dispensationalism. That is, dispensationalists are the only category of Christians who have denounced “replacement theology”—and even they only denounce it because they don’t understand what it means. I have not yet found a critic of "replacement theology" who has been able to give an intelligible definition of the hated doctrine, nor a reason why it should be objected to.

Amillennialism's "replacement theology" is simply the viewpoint that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all the shadows and types of the Old Testament, and He has, as such, "replaced" them. This is plainly declared in the New Testament, and the church has always taught this, as they received it from the teachings of the apostles.

Even dispensationalists themselves believe this, and have written many books about Jesus as the antitype of the Old Covenant types (e.g. the tabernacle, the festivals, sacrifices, and so forth), but they differ from historic Christianity in that they believe Jesus only “replaced” them temporarily, because they expect all these types to reappear (with God’s approval) in the millennium.

Dispensationalists even affirm that Christ’s new order (the Church) has “replaced” Israel—temporarily. But, as in the case of the other Old Testament types, they expect this “replacement” to be reversed by the reinstatement of the "type" (national Israel) during the tribulation and the millennium (this must be expected to occur when God decides that Jesus has been the center of attention for long enough).

So “replacement theology” in the form that dispensationalism objects to differs from the "replacement theology" of dispensationalism only in that the former considers Jesus to be a permanent replacement for Judaism, whereas the latter views Him only temporarily holding this position. Eventually, the bulls and goats must find their way back into the limelight.

Both "dispensational replacement theology” and "non-dispensational replacement theology” see one Order as temporary, and the other as permanent. Historic Christianity sees the Old Order as temporary and the New Order as eschatological and permanent. Dispensationalism sees the present, New Order as temporary (lasting only “until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in”), and the Old Order as permanent and eschatological.

The scriptures side with historic Christianity, in declaring the Old as obsolete and "replaced" by the New, which is itself permanent and eternal (see Hebrews 7:11-12, 18-19, 24/ 8:13/ 13:20).

That is why I say that Kelly's article is poorly thought-out. The author doesn’t recognize that all Christians, including himself, embrace some form of replacement theology, and he naively (if not dishonestly) identifies “preterism” as the root of all such.

The second common weakness of every critique I have read against preterism is the gratuitous association of preterism with "anti-Semitism." Kelly writes:

“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.”

This typical cheap shot is a common ploy resorted to by those who have no ability to disprove their opponents’ arguments—the strategy is: when your argument has no hope of winning, play "the race card.”

There is nothing about preterism that would in any sense lead a person to anti-Semitism, and I have never met a person who became anti-Semitic through the embracing of the preterist interpretation of Revelation or the Olivet Discourse.

To suggest that certain judgments came upon Jerusalem in the first century AD, as predicted by Christ and by the apostles (which is the only distinctive claim of preterism), is no more anti-Semitic than for the post-exilc Jews to acknowledge that the judgments prophesied by Isaiah and Jeremiah came upon Jerusalem, as predicted, in the days of Nebuchadnezzar.

Why do some Christians find it so offensive to hear Christian teachers identifying the historical fulfillments of biblical prophecies? And how does their doing so qualify them for the pejorative anti-Semite label?

Ironically, it is the dispensational system that truly seems eschatologically anti-Semitic. I say this, not as a cheap shot, but as an inescapable conclusion from their basic claims:

First, dispensationalists say, based upon Romans 11:25, that the Jewish race as a whole has essentially been rejected by God, on the basis of their being Jewish, “until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.”

Of course, dispensationalists can't help but acknowledge that a few Jews may be saved, here and there, throughout the present age, but they consider that God will not allow most Jews to be saved in the present dispensation, and that He has denied them access, as a demographic bloc, until the time shall be right (so far, they have had to suffer for 50 generations, waiting for the time to be right).

Preterists do not believe any such thing. Preterists declare that God would be delighted to see every Jew converted right now and in every generation. It is dispensationalism, not historical Christianity, that forbids this, on an eschatolopgical basis, and thus excludes them until the time of the end.

Dispensationalism also considers it inevitable that, of the Jews regathered to the land of Israel in the end times, two-thirds must experience extermination in the tribulation (Kelly says this plainly in footnote #8). This is specifically because they are Jews: they must therefore be slaughtered! This appears to differ from Hitler’s ideal for the Jews only in a matter of degree! Hitler wanted to exterminate 100% of the Jews. God (according to dispensationalism) only wants to exterminate 66%. Talk about a "pro-Israel" system of eschatology!

While believing this, dispensationalists are foremost among those who donate money to transport Russian and other Jews back to Palestine so as to set them up for this anticipated slaughter in the Land. How does this exhibit a friendly posture toward the Jews?

Despite their claims to being the ones who really hold out a future for Israel, dispensationalists don’t really believe in the salvation of “all Israel” any more than the allegedly-anti-Semitic "replacement theologians" do. Kelly speaks for the majority of those in his camp when he says:

“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).”

Notice that Kelly doesn’t believe “all Israel” refers to “every Jewish person,” any more than an amillennialist believes it. Both camps believe that only the faithful remnant of Israel will be saved, and that Paul means nothing more than this when he says “All Israel will be saved.”

The main difference, in this regard, between dispensationalism and amillennialism is that historic amillennialism ("replacement theology") teaches that God has been actively and graciously saving that faithful remnant, along with believing Gentiles, ever since Pentecost (which is why there have always been many Christians of Jewish extraction). Dispensationalists believe that the saving of the remnant awaits the end of time (leaving no provision consistent with their theology for there being many Jewish believers in Christ at the present time—it's too early).

Like all critics of preterism, Kelly does not actually understand the beliefs of the people he villainizes and does not even seem to have very well thought-out the implications of his own beliefs. Like so many of us were (who once thought as he does now), he is apparently unaware of how many futurist assumptions he brings without warrant to his reading of biblical prophecies. Popular futurist assumptions concerning prophecy (having no exegetical basis, in most cases) are used to control his thinking and to undergird his criticism of those of us who have allowed ourselves to be disabused of dispensational indoctrination and to let the scriptures mean what they say.

Kelly's main argument against preterism (probably his intended “Achilles heel”) seems to lie in the assumed relationship between the so-called tribulation and the eschatological resurrection. He writes:

“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.”

It may be that the language of Daniel borrows from that of Jeremiah, just as Revelation borrows language from Exodus, but that in no sense means that Daniel is talking about the same events as is Jeremiah, any more than Revelation is talking about the same events as is Exodus. Similarity of idiom does not argue for identity of subject matter. Ezekiel 11 speaks of God leaving Jerusalem and standing on the Mount of Olives, so does Zehariah 14, but the fulfillment of one was in 586 BC, while the other was still future after the exile. Jeremiah 30 is clearly talking about the Babylonian exile, while Daniel 12 is talking about something much later.

I agree that Daniel 12:1 and Matt.24:21 are both talking about the same event (the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70), and that it is very much likened to that destruction of 586 BC by the Babylonians. There is no reason to make too much of the idiom that suggests an event unique in intensity, and thus to equate all three passages. The hyperbole used in these passages is also found in a number of other biblical passages. In Ezekiel 5:9, God says—“I will do among you what I have never done, and the like of which I will never do again…” He is talking about 586 BC, but Jesus uses essentially the same idiom (as does Daniel 12:1) in describing a very similar event (even though Ezekiel seems to say there would never again be anything similar!) that would occur in His generation (Matt.24:21, 34)—an obvious allusion to AD 70.

The claim that Daniel places the tribulation in the end times because of its proximity with the mention of “the resurrection” is ill-conceived. It ignores too many legitimate alternative considerations. I can think of three alternatives just off the top of my head—there may be others:

1. Despite Kelly’s claim that Daniel 12:2 is “the most unambiguous reference to resurrection to be found anywhere in the OT,” the passage might not be referring to the actual resurrection at all, since there are figurative as well as literal resurrections referred to in various parts of scripture. Kelly acknowledges Ezekiel 37 as an example of a figurative use of the imagery. Also, the eschatological resurrection, when it occurs, will not involve “many of those who sleep” (as per Daniel 12:2), but rather, “all who are in the graves” (John 5:28-29). The wording of Daniel 12:2 sounds much like that of the prophet Simeon, who met Mary and Joseph in the temple, and prophesied about Jesus, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel” (Luke 2:34), which is most likely a reference to the same sifting of the wheat and the chaff spoken of by John the Baptist, in Luke 3:17. The rising of some Jews was their embracing of Christ; the fall of the others was their judgment in AD 70. Daniel’s apocalyptic language could be referring to this as well;

2. Alternatively, Daniel 12:2 could indeed be referring to the resurrection of the Last Day, and the time of trouble may be that period that has befallen the Jews for the past 2000 years. Beginning in AD 70, and ending at the second coming of Christ, (Daniel may be saying) shall be a time of great trouble for the Jews, who rejected their Messiah, and now are experiencing all that Moses said would befall them if they were to break covenant with God (Leviticus 26:14ff/ Deuteronomy 28:15ff; 30:17-18; 32:19);

3. A third possibility sees Daniel 12:1a as occurring in AD 66-70, and 12:2 as referring to the resurrection of the Last Day. Between these events, there has been about 2000 years, which is summarized by the words “At that time, your people shall be delivered, every one who is found written in the book” (12:1b). In other words, the time from AD 70 to the end of the world will be characterized by the process of saving everyone who is in the Book of Life—that is, the whole church age.

In my view, any of the above explanations would adequately remove the “Achilles heel” that Kelly finds in Daniel 12.

Typical of Kelly’s naïve approach is the following string of “scriptural” points:

“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).”

This treatment of eschatology is replete with unfounded assumptions, common enough in popular prophecy discussions, which Kelly does not seem to be aware that he is making. The above paragraph, for example, presupposes all of the following (without warrant):

1. That “the Antichrist” is an individual with a “brief career;”
2. That there is some mention of Antichrist in Daniel 9:26-27;
3. That the 3 ½ years in Revelation is literal;
4. That the “gathering of the elect” refers to the rapture, and not to the global harvest accomplished through evangelism;
5. That the deliverance of “thy people” (Dan.12:1b) refers to the Jewish nation, rather than (as the next line indicates) “every one written in the book;”
6. That Daniel 12:2 must be describing the final resurrection;
7. That there are two resurrections—one of the righteous, and one of the wicked—and that Dan.12:2 refers only to the former, though the verse itself refers to both classes;
8. That all of the things in these chapters refer to a tight cluster of events that transpire over a short period at the end of the world.

The pros and cons of each of these assumptions would take a lot of time thoroughly to consider, but the problem is that dispensationalists are not even aware that these are propositions open to discussion. This is a result of overmuch indoctrination, and too little concern for discovering where our teachers, in their innocent but human fallibility, may deserve to be charitably questioned.

Given the number of non-exegetical presuppositions that control Kelly’s argument, it seems ironic that he says, of preterists:

“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.”

It is true that certain presuppositions inform the preterists’ decision to identify some references to “the coming of the Son of Man,” as applying to something other than the second coming and the attendant resurrection of the dead. I can’t speak for all preterists, but speaking strictly for myself, the difference between the presuppositions that I am making and those that Kelly makes is that mine have a cogent basis. For example, if Jesus and the Revelator both tell their audiences to expect a near-future fulfillment (e.g., “this generation will not pass…” and “some standing here will not taste death before…” and “these things must shortly come to pass,” and “the things about to take place…”), then my presupposition is that the communicator was trying to communicate with his audience that the fulfillment would not be delayed for 2000 years. Kelly presupposes otherwise, and it is “only the strength of [this] powerfully overriding presupposition,” that causes him to mistake such passages for references to the second coming of Christ.

Also, contrary to Kelly’s assertion, preterists do not see Matthew 24 and Revelation as “the exception to all other NT references to Christ’s coming”—if this means the only cases where the “coming” of Christ means something other than the second coming. We recognize many other “exceptions” as well (even in the same two books), including Matthew 10:23; 16:28, Revelation 2:5 and 3:20 (to name only cases which dispensationalists join us in recognizing as “exceptions”). What hermeneutic rule allows us (along with the dispensationalists) to recognize these four “exceptions,” but forbids us to include other cases occurring in the same books?

Kelly is upset that preterists don’t see any reference to the restoration of national Israel in the New Testament. He writes:

“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.”

I am not aware of selecting my “exceptions” with reference to implied or explicit references to Israel being in the Land. It just so happens, that very few prophetic passages in the New Testament even hint at Israel being in their Land, and the very few that do happen to have time-limiting information that tell us that they were fulfilled while the Jews were still in the Land, in the first century. There is no passage anywhere in the New Testament that hints at a return of the Jews to the Land at the end of history. In fact, there are none in the Old Testament either!

But why should we not see “the everlasting covenant…as completely fulfilled in Jesus”? When Jesus said, “This cup is the New Covenant in my blood,” He was referring to “the blood of the everlasting covenant” (Heb.13:20)—not some temporary covenant. There can be no covenants later to replace the everlasting covenant that was inaugurated 2000 years ago—since, in the reasoning of the writer of Hebrews, the coming of yet another covenant in the future would render the present covenant “obsolete” (Heb.8:13). The “everlasting covenant” cannot become obsolete—or else it was not everlasting.

If Jesus did not “completely” fulfill the promises of “the everlasting covenant,” then which ones did He fumble and allow to fall through the cracks? And why was Paul unaware of this defect in Christ’s fulfillment? Paul seemed to believe that “all the promises of God in Him are Yes, and in Him Amen, to the glory of God through [the church]” (2 Cor.1:20). Jesus must have been more of a failure than He realized, since He said He had come to do the will of the Father and to “finish His work” (John 4:34). Was Jesus forgetting something when, at the end of His life, He reported back to His Father that He had “finished the work” that His Father had given Him to accomplish (John 17:4)? Why did He, just prior to expiring on the cross, mistakenly say, “It is finished!” if it really wasn’t? What part of the “complete fulfillment” are we being criticized for giving Jesus credit for?

Kelly hits the nail on the head when he says, “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.” But this is just the point, isn’t it? Either the references to Israel’s trouble in their own land apply to the future or to the past—the question is—“which is it?” That is where biblical exegesis comes in handy. Context can help out a great deal in such cases. Dispensationalists would do well to take it into consideration.

To explain why the distinctive dispensational elements of eschatology are so conspicuously absent from the New Testament, Kelly writes:

“…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).”

Of course not—especially the parts of the rabbis’ eschatology with which Jesus and the apostles disagreed! However, given the abysmal failure of the Jews to recognize the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies (Matt.16:3/Luke 19:42)—even their blinded condition with reference to the Torah (2 Cor.3:14-15)—and their proclivity to “teach for doctrine the traditions of men” (Matt.15:6-9), it would certainly be folly for Christians to put any confidence in their nationalistic eschatological ideas, without first receiving some confirmation from the Messiah (whom they did not even recognize as the fulfillment of their prophecies!) or from His enlightened, Spirit-filled apostles (Luke 24:45/ John 16:13).

Kelly is both inaccurate and presumptuous in asserting:

“[In the New Testament] 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.”

This is simply not true! When the disciples asked, “Will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6), it is very unlikely that they had as yet come to understand that “the kingdom” was not to be a political entity (as the Jews and dispensationalists suppose), but that the kingdom is, in fact, “righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit” (Rom.14:17). It is also unlikely that the disciples, at that time, understood that “they are not all Israel who are of Israel” (Rom.9:6), nor that “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly…but he is a Jew who is one inwardly” (Rom.2:28-29), nor that “only those who are of faith are sons of Abraham” (Gal.3:7). It would appear that, even much later (Acts 10 and 11), they still did not know that the true “circumcision” (read: “Jews”) are those “who worship God in the Spirit, who rejoice in Christ Jesus, and put no confidence in the flesh” (Phil.3:3).

If the disciples, prior to Pentecost, did not know (as seems probable) either the nature of “the kingdom” nor the meaning of the word “Israel,” how can we imagine that their question, “Will you…restore the kingdom to Israel?” would mean the same thing to them (holding Jewish ideas) as it meant to Jesus and the instructed church?

Kelly writes:

“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?”

Very slick, but equating “Jesus, Paul, and John” with "apocalyptically oriented Jews of the first century”— as if the views of Jesus and the Jews of His time (and the apostles prior to Pentecost) all shared the same apocalyptic outlook—is gratuitous, and seems even dishonest. If “apocalyptically oriented Jews of the first century” had an adequate grasp of the prophetic scriptures, why did they not recognize Him who fulfilled 300 of them in their presence? Why also did Jesus have to supernaturally open the understanding of the apostles “that they might understand the scriptures” (Luke 24:45), if in fact any “apocalyptically oriented Jew” of average intelligence could have as accurately understood without this special endowment from Christ?

Dispensationalists have a propensity to overestimate the enlightment (as well as the eschatological importance) of the unbelieving Jews, whom Jesus and Paul both described as “blinded” (Matt.13:15; 15:14/ Romans 11:7/ 2 Cor.3:14). Biblical writers do not make this miscalculation, so I recommend that we not do so either.

To the dispensationalist, the unbelieving Jews are, as Kelly put it, “the people of the unfulfilled covenant.” Their Messiah came, but failed to fulfill His promises to Israel. Oh yes, He will someday fulfill those promises, but not until the Jews have experienced 50 generations of persecution and holocausts, and two-thirds of them are exterminated! No worries, though! God knows what He’s doing! He promised that “all Israel will be saved,” so never mind the tens of millions of Israelites that lived and died as “children of the devil” and shared in his fate (John 8:44). Be of good cheer! All Israel (or at least a few survivors fortunate enough to make it through the tribulation) will be saved after all! If this is the glorious fulfillment of God’s promises to “the people of the unfulfilled covenant,” then how sad that they didn’t get the chance that “replacement theology” offers them!

I am so glad that Paul didn’t believe, as the dispensationalists do, that Jesus failed to fulfill the promises to Israel, and simply prolonged their lost condition for another 2000 years (33% longer than the time they had spent lost before His arrival to save them—Matt.1:21!). Paul craved to see the salvation of his countrymen, but he also knew that, in the case of most Jews being lost, “it is not that the word of God [i.e., the Old Testament prophecies about Israel’s salvation] has taken no effect” (Rom.9:6). No, according to the apostles, the scriptural promises have indeed “taken effect” and have come to pass, just as predicted (Acts 3:22-26/ 13:32-33). God has brought salvation, in Christ, to all the remnant of Israel who believe in Him, and to the Gentiles who believe as well! “Thus all ISRAEL [the believing remnant, and the Gentiles grafted in among them] will be saved,” even as the Old Testament promised. Nothing mysterious about it—and nothing unfulfilled in it, either (Matt.5:17/Luke 21:20-22).

[Guest]

Steve, I was hoping you'd give a more complete response

haha, just kidding. Very thorough. I enjoyed reading it.

They almost always pull out that 'anti-semitic' card. The following was said about me recently on another board:

"What Matthew94 and his buddies do not realize is that they are living monuments of the fact that God's Word and prophecies are indeed the truth, for it says that anti-Semitism will grow into a frenzied hatred of the Jews in the last days. What concerns me is that Christians are in the front ranks in this hellish spout of hatred against the Jews."

I never knew I was part of a frenzied hatred and a hellish spout