Fallacies of Preterism

[KJV1611Warrior]

Contrasts Between a.d. 70 and a Future Temple

Preterists misinterpret Luke 21:20-24 and say that all of Matthew 24 was a prophecy of the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and herod's Temple in 70 A.D. Dr. Randall Price has noted six major differences between the a.d. 70 Temple and the Temple of the future tribulation period spoken of in Matthew 24.

During this time Jesus speaks of a signal event connected with the Temple; its desecration by an abomination which was prophesied by the Prophet Daniel (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14). What Temple is being spoken of here by Jesus? Was the Temple that was to be desecrated the same Temple as the one predicted to be destroyed? There are a number of contrasts within this text that indicate that Jesus was talking about two different Temples:

(1) The Temple described in Matthew 24:15 is not said to be destroyed, only desecrated (see Revelation 11:2). By contrast, the Temple in Jesus' day (or Matthew 24:2) was to be completely leveled: " not one stone would be left standing on another" (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44).

(2) The Temple' s desecration would be a signal for Jews to escape destruction (Matthew 24:16-18), " be saved" (Matthew 24:22) and experience the promised " redemption" (Luke 21:28). By contrast the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24:2 was a judgment " because you did not recognize the time of your visitation [Messiah' s first advent]" (Luke 19:44b) and resulted in the Temple being level[ed] to the ground and your children [the Jews] within you" (Luke 19:44a).

(3) The generation of Jews that are alive at the time that the Temple is desecrated will expect Messiah' s coming " immediately after" (Matthew 24:29), and are predicted to not pass away until they have experienced it (Matthew 24:34). By contrast, the generation of Jews who saw the Temple destroyed would pass away and 2,000 years (to date) would pass without redemption.

(4) The text Jesus cited concerning the Temple' s desecration, Daniel 9:27, predicts that the one who desecrates this Temple will himself be destroyed. By contrast, those who destroyed the Temple in a.d. 70 (in fulfillment of Jesus' prediction)- the Roman emperor Vespasian and his son Titus- were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple.

(5) The time " immediately after" (Matthew 24:29) the time of the Temple' s desecration would see Israel' s repentance (Matthew 24:30), followed by, as Matthew 23:29 implies, a restoration of the Temple. By contrast, the time following the destruction of the Temple only saw a " hardening" happen " to Israel," which is to last " until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25)- still 2,000 years and counting.

(6) For the Temple that is desecrated, the scope is of a worldwide tribulation " coming upon the world" (Luke 21:26; compare Matthew 24:21- 22; Mark 13:19- 20), a global regathering of the Jewish people " from one end of the sky to the other" (Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27), and a universal revelation of the Messiah at Israel' s rescue (Matthew 24:30- 31; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:26- 27). This scope accords with the prophesied end-time battle for Jerusalem recorded in Zechariah 12- 14, where " all nations of the earth will be gathered against it" (Zechariah 12:3). By contrast the a.d. 70 assault on Jerusalem predicted in Luke 21:20 is by the armies of one empire (Rome). Therefore, if there are two different attacks on Jerusalem, separated by more than 2,000 years, then two distinct Temples are considered in Matthew 24:1- 2 and Matthew 24:15.[6]

The above points demonstrate preterist problems that have no resolution in their attempt to cram still future prophecy into a past mold. Details of Matthew 24 cannot be made to fit into a first century fulfillment.

Dr. Randall Price is credited with the six points contained within the OP.

 

[NumberOneSon]

Just an FYI; it's a forum rule that if you quote copyrighted material in your posts, you have to provide a link to the source.

 

[PureDose]

Just an FYI; it's a forum rule that if you quote copyrighted material in your posts, you have to provide a link to the source.

Hrrm, googling a line in that I do see the post has been in many various places, but could not find a reference. It was presented as original material.

 

[NumberOneSon]

It's a section copied out of a book entitled The End Times Controversy by Tom Ice and Tim LaHaye, page 158. Indeed, it was presented as original material....problem is, it's not.

 

[Biblewriter]

The accusation that the OP presented this "as original material" is clearly and demonstrably false. The second sentence of the OP is "Dr. Randall Price has noted six major differences between the a.d. 70 Temple and the Temple of the future tribulation period spoken of in Matthew 24." If indeed this is quoted from a book, the poster violated a rule by posting it without noting that fact. But how many of us even remember all the rules? We read them a long time ago, and only look them up when there appears to have been a flagrant violation. Did he even know there was such a rule here?

The accusation is nothing more elevated than a lame attempt to avoid the issues raised in the OP.

 

[NumberOneSon]

The accusation that the OP presented this "as original material" is clearly and demonstrably false.

The "original material" I was referring to was the post itself, not the summaries of Dr. Price's views.

The second sentence of the OP is "Dr. Randall Price has noted six major differences between the a.d. 70 Temple and the Temple of the future tribulation period spoken of in Matthew 24."

It doesn't matter; that quote, as well as everything else in the OP, was copied directly from a published work. It was not the poster's original material.

If indeed this is quoted from a book...

There's no "if" - it is. I even provided the title and page number the quote is taken from.

...the poster violated a rule by posting it without noting that fact.

Yep, and now he knows for the next time that if he copy and pastes from a book or web article, he is supposed to supply a link that shows the source. Simple.

But how many of us even remember all the rules? We read them a long time ago, and only look them up when there appears to have been a flagrant violation. Did he even know there was such a rule here?

I really don't know....but now he does.

The accusation is nothing more elevated than a lame attempt to avoid the issues raised in the OP.

Nah; posters passing off other peoples' works as their own is a pet peeve of mine. I've pointed this out to other posters in the past - even to a preterist - so I'm an equal opportunist on the issue.

 

[daq]

Contrasts Between a.d. 70 and a Future Temple

Preterists like to misuse Luke 21:20-24 and say that all of Matthew 24 was a prophecy of the Roman conquest in a.d. 70. Dr. Randall Price has noted six major differences between the a.d. 70 Temple and the Temple of the future tribulation period spoken of in Matthew 24.

During this time Jesus speaks of a signal event connected with the Temple; its desecration by an abomination which was prophesied by the Prophet Daniel (Matthew 24:15; Mark 13:14). What Temple is being spoken of here by Jesus? Was the Temple that was to be desecrated the same Temple as the one predicted to be destroyed? There are a number of contrasts within this text that indicate that Jesus was talking about two different Temples:

(1) The Temple described in Matthew 24:15 is not said to be destroyed, only desecrated (see Revelation 11:2). By contrast, the Temple in Jesus' day (or Matthew 24:2) was to be completely leveled: " not one stone would be left standing on another" (Matthew 24:2; Mark 13:2; Luke 19:44).

(2) The Temple' s desecration would be a signal for Jews to escape destruction (Matthew 24:16-18), " be saved" (Matthew 24:22) and experience the promised " redemption" (Luke 21:28). By contrast the destruction of the Temple in Matthew 24:2 was a judgment " because you did not recognize the time of your visitation [Messiah' s first advent]" (Luke 19:44b) and resulted in the Temple being level[ed] to the ground and your children [the Jews] within you" (Luke 19:44a).

(3) The generation of Jews that are alive at the time that the Temple is desecrated will expect Messiah' s coming " immediately after" (Matthew 24:29), and are predicted to not pass away until they have experienced it (Matthew 24:34). By contrast, the generation of Jews who saw the Temple destroyed would pass away and 2,000 years (to date) would pass without redemption.

(4) The text Jesus cited concerning the Temple' s desecration, Daniel 9:27, predicts that the one who desecrates this Temple will himself be destroyed. By contrast, those who destroyed the Temple in a.d. 70 (in fulfillment of Jesus' prediction)- the Roman emperor Vespasian and his son Titus- were not destroyed but returned to Rome in triumph carrying vessels from the destroyed Temple.

(5) The time " immediately after" (Matthew 24:29) the time of the Temple' s desecration would see Israel' s repentance (Matthew 24:30), followed by, as Matthew 23:29 implies, a restoration of the Temple. By contrast, the time following the destruction of the Temple only saw a " hardening" happen " to Israel," which is to last " until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in" (Romans 11:25)- still 2,000 years and counting.

(6) For the Temple that is desecrated, the scope is of a worldwide tribulation " coming upon the world" (Luke 21:26; compare Matthew 24:21- 22; Mark 13:19- 20), a global regathering of the Jewish people " from one end of the sky to the other" (Matthew 24:31; Mark 13:27), and a universal revelation of the Messiah at Israel' s rescue (Matthew 24:30- 31; Mark 13:26; Luke 21:26- 27). This scope accords with the prophesied end-time battle for Jerusalem recorded in Zechariah 12- 14, where " all nations of the earth will be gathered against it" (Zechariah 12:3). By contrast the a.d. 70 assault on Jerusalem predicted in Luke 21:20 is by the armies of one empire (Rome). Therefore, if there are two different attacks on Jerusalem, separated by more than 2,000 years, then two distinct Temples are considered in Matthew 24:1- 2 and Matthew 24:15.[6]

The above points demonstrate preterist problems that have no resolution in their attempt to cram still future prophecy into a past mold. Details of Matthew 24 cannot be made to fit into a first century fulfillment.

Dr. Randall Price is credited with the six points contained within the OP.

Fallacy of Preterism and Full Preterism:

''I believe Josephus and historians who saw these things with their eyes of the flesh!''

Fallacy of Dispensational Futurism:

''I do not believe Josephus because I did not see it with my own eyes of the flesh!''

Fallacy of both camps:

''The temple in question is not myself but a building made with hands'' ...



... . ...

 

[ebedmelech]

I'm still trying to figure out where the future Temple is to be built that Jesus is going to allow. Jesus is now the temple "made without hands".

Revelation clearly speaks of the temple in heaven, Ezekiel's temple vision was never commanded to be built...throughout his vision he was going through the heavenly temple of Revelation.

Meantime the Jews are planning to build a temple because the don't believe Messiah has come. They don't understand what is written "sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body you have prepared for Me".

The only fallacies of preterism are "full" and "hyper" preterism.

 

[Biblewriter]

Preterism imagines it can explain a few passages in Matthew and the Revelation with the war described by Josephus. This is inaccurate, but that is not my point.

There are a great many Old Testament prophecies that very explicitly state that a significant number of specific events will happen. There is no way to even rationally reduce many of these explicitly stated prophecies to figurative language. Yet we know that they have not happened. If they are not indeed going to happen in a future time, then one of two things absolutely has to be true.

either: The Bible is not indeed the word of God
or: God lied

Neither of these choices is acceptable as Christian doctrine.

 

[ebedmelech]

Preterism imagines it can explain a few passages in Matther and the Revelation with the war described by Josephus. This is inaccurate, but that is not my point.

There are a great many Old Testament prophecies that very explicitly state that a significant number of specific events will happen. There is no way to even rationally reduce many of these explicitly stated prophecies to figurative language. Yet we know that they have not happened. If they are not indeed going to happen in a future time, then one of two things absolutely has to be true.

either: The Bible is not indeed the word of God
or: God lied

Neither of these choices is acceptable as Christian doctrine.

That wouldn't be correct.

Be up front and understand that preterism is based in a hermenuetics that acknowledges the language of scripture, it's symbols and images, moreso than the futurist hermeneutics.

You don't observe all of the figurative, symbolic, and imagery in scripture, that preterist do.

Anytime you wish we can compare that. I do believe that "full"and "hyper" preterism is heresy.

I acknowledge you as a brother always, because aside from how we view portions of scripture, that is not where salvation lies. Salvation is in Christ, so this difference of views we have, is not about salvation...but about interpreting scripture.

There no imagery in salvation, the scripture is pretty clear:

Romans 10:9, 10
“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

That's what it's about!

 

[Interplanner]

re #1. You (ie Price) are very confident of inserting a couple thousand years into a coherent message where you like. why? Because it is there or because you need to? I don't know if I'm a preterist (no one seems to know what Christocentric eschatology means), but I know that there is a unified, coherent message in Mt 24 & //s. It is so unified that I would say it is ridiculous to have a destroyed vs desecrated temple. You must not have noticed the end of Mt 23.

re #2: the instructions of Mt 24 & //s are not to "the Jews." They are to His followers, believers. And in fact, when the over-the-top pretend messiahs of 66+ showed themselves, the Christians did leave for Pella in the Trans-Jordan.

re: #3. Many people have observed that the cosmic end of the world was implied as being after the destruction of Jerusalem in Mt 24 & //s. But this is also in a message in which he also said 'only the Father knows the times'! 2 Pet 3 answers this dilemma (unless you think the 'coming' there is the 1st): God simply wants to delay the end, to save even more people.

re: #4: I think you mean the 'prince.' However, the antecedent of the paragraph is the Messiah. I think you mean the verb 'cut off, but not for himself.' That is the sacrifice of the Gospel by Messiah.

re #5: i think you mean Mt 23:39 (not :29). This (like the end of Rom 11) is a contingency and is rhetorical, but not a chronology. Huge difference. Actually, since some people did just say/sing that in praise of Jesus, I think you kind of missed the action. He is condemning Judaism. That's ch. 23. The people in it who won't sing what the followers sang won't see/understand him. You are assuming 'see' is very plain and optical. Instead it is loaded with the paradox of the times, the blindness of Judaism as it was. Why could it not mean what Jn 9 means, that they can't percieve?

You are also assuming that 'until the fullness' in Rom 11 is an alternate focus of God's instead of just the duration. Or rather, assuming that all the action goes back to focus on Israel, even though he has just explained that the now-concluded focus is on all people-groups and if that makes Israel jealous, they should channel their jealousy into belief. After the calamity of Jerusalem in AD 70, it might be easy for people to think something like this would happen, and many church leaders did start thinking that way a generation later (cf Biblewriter for quotes on that). But that does not mean it was how the apostles saw things, and last I checked, we were to base ourselves on the apostle's teaching. there may have been 'futurist' prophecy beliefs in the next generation of leaders, but I'm not interested. I'm trying to restore apostolic beliefs.

#6: as I have described many times here, we have a coherent message from Jesus. It is an immediate warning about horrible things happening to that generation of Judaism because the Judaizers would react to the Gospel instead of become its missionaries (like Paul). It consisted of:

pretend messiahs,
a Judaistic police-state (hence the warning about Sabbath violations) and
a failed 'messianic' war (this is what many Dead Sea Scrolls, the War Scroll, the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness are about).

In light of keeping Jesus' message coherent, yet applicable to the future, I accept the idea that the things that happened in the 7th decade could replicate. They would basically look the same. there would need to be an aggressive and mean-spirited Judaism. There would need to be pretend messiahs (there is only one true one). There would need to be a 'messianic' war--and isn't it strange how many 'Christians' are interested in being part of that!

Dr. Price is welcome to a copy of my book at my site Interplans.net.

--Inter

 

[KJV1611Warrior]

It's a section copied out of a book entitled The End Times Controversy by Tom Ice and Tim LaHaye, page 158. Indeed, it was presented as original material....problem is, it's not.

I smell bacon.

 

[NumberOneSon]

I smell bacon.

I don't get the reference.

 

[Interplanner]

Tim Lahaye is a market-driven sensationalist. It would be better if you spent time with a NT background scholar.

--Inter

 

[Jipsah]

either: The Bible is not indeed the word of God
or: God lied Neither of these choices is acceptable as Christian doctrine.

You're right. But Choice C, which says "The Dispensational Futurist interpretation of Scripture is as bogus as a $17.43 bill" sets it all right. Good grief, DFs have to duct tape together so many unrelated Scriptures and "interpret" so many others within an inch of their lives that it's comical to watch them puff and blow about the "clear teaching of Scripture".

 

[Jipsah]

no one seems to know what Christocentric eschatology means

Sad but true.

 

[KJV1611Warrior]

I don't get the reference.

I did not know that the OP was ever in a Tim Lahaye book. Although I believe in a pre trib rapture, I do not align myself with Lahaye because of his ecumenical notions set forth in his books, i.e.; The Pope and Mother Theresa are raptured, etc. Apparently what I presented was an article within an article. All I knew was that the points of emphasis were credited to Price, but thanks for your excellent police work!

 

[NumberOneSon]

I did not know that the OP was ever in a Tim Lahaye book. Although I believe in a pre trib rapture, I do not align myself with Lahaye because of his ecumenical notions set forth in his books, i.e.; The Pope and Mother Theresa are raptured, etc. Apparently what I presented was an article within an article. All I knew was that the points of emphasis were credited to Price, but thanks for your excellent police work!

So next time you know that if you post another person's article, a link to the source must be provided.

 

[KJV1611Warrior]

Disregard

 

[Biblewriter]

That wouldn't be correct.

Be up front and understand that preterism is based in a hermenuetics that acknowledges the language of scripture, it's symbols and images, moreso than the futurist hermeneutics.

You don't observe all of the figurative, symbolic, and imagery in scripture, that preterist do.

Anytime you wish we can compare that. I do believe that "full"and "hyper" preterism is heresy.

I acknowledge you as a brother always, because aside from how we view portions of scripture, that is not where salvation lies. Salvation is in Christ, so this difference of views we have, is not about salvation...but about interpreting scripture.

There no imagery in salvation, the scripture is pretty clear:

Romans 10:9, 10
“The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching,
9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10 for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.

That's what it's about!

I agree that views on eschatology have zero bearing on salvation. I do not question that status of a preterist as a Cristian, but as a student of scripture.

You see things as "figurative, symbolic, [or] imagery" when the scriptures flatly say they will happen. I reject this as simply not believing what the Bible says. I understand that you think that it does not mean what it says, but my answer is: Huh?

I fully agree that the visions in prophecy are symbolic, rather than literal. I have often pointed out, even here in this forum, that without even one exception, every prophetic vision recorded in the Bible for which a divinely inspired interpretation is also recorded, the meaning was something entirely different from what the prophet saw happening.

But explicit statements of coming events are markedly different. But the Bible is filled with explicit statementsthat certain events would happen, which events indeed happened exactly as stated, down to the finest detail. For this reason I conclude that explicit statements that specific events will happen mean exactly what they say.

An example of this is Daniel 11. From verse 2 to the middle of verse 35, every event predicted actually happened. It was all literally fulfilled exactly as stated, down to the finest detail. Indeed, it so accurately describes the multi-generational war between the Ptolemaic empire and the Selucid empire that unbelievers agrue that its very accuracy proves it could not have been written before the events actually took place. But then the last part of verse 35 says "even to the time of the end; because it is yet for a time appointed." Then the account continues from verse 36 to the end of the chapter.

Now we know from scripture that this was revealed to Daniel long before any of it took place. So we know the entire account was written before any of it happened. But why would we even imagine that the portion of this that was explicitly reserved until a later time would not be fulfilled as literally as the first part of the account was.

Now the only way preterism could even possibly be correct is if the last part of the chapter suddenly changed to symbolic language. This, to my mind, is an infathomable conclusion. I find it totally irrational.

There are many such cases in scripture. Wars that have never taken place are described in high detail. Invaders that have never attacked are specifically named. To assume that all this is simply figurative speech is irrational.