This is third in a series of essays pointing out those preterist arguments having no virtue at all (most of them).
Another straw man upon which the preterists spend their arrows is the idea that futurists (those who believe in a believing national Israel returned to the land) seek to rebuild the wall of separation between gentile and Jew. This is a false accusation. Futurists believe that God deals with all mankind only through Christ and the new covenant, and this is the meaning of spiritual Israel. However, futurists also believe that the historical/prophetic drama of national Israel (the Jew) has yet to fully play out. According to this view, national Israel (the Jew) currently stands outside spiritual Israel, but will not do so forever; God will soon make national Israel a part of spiritual Israel, uniting the two. This position has tremendous support in prophecy (Deut 28-30, 4, Micah 5, Zechariah 12, etc, etc, etc). Certainly, Paul believed this (Romans 11).
From this perspective, the Jew's return is a historical drama, and his return a historical event. Stated simply, this means merely that the Jewish nation will enter the new covenant. In the 5th century the Irish nation was saved and entered the new covenant. Why cannot God do the same with the Jewish nation in the 21st century? Why is Ireland's salvation acceptable and the salvation of national Israel unacceptable? Preterism has no answer to this question. In additional to receiving Christ, the Jewish nation will return to the land of Israel. This simultaneous spiritual and physical return of the Jew is one of the signs of the millennium – it fulfills too much prophecy to list. If God does not save the Jew and return him to the land, half of prophecy is wrong.
Thus the futurist position is not one that rebuilds a wall of separation between the Jew and gentile. The futurists position merely states the God will save the Jews and return them to the land as a nation. This is not a spiritual separation; rather it is a union, the union of all those partake of Christ. Also, it is a position that respects and upholds prophecy and God's book.
What makes this particular preterist argument so weak is that there is nobody who believes in (or desires) this rebuilding of a spiritual wall; I have yet to see anyone on this forum argue in its favor, and yet the preterists repeatedly voice this accusation. In the preterist's mind, the return of national Israel to the land and to God's favor (its entrance into the new covenant) is a spiritual distinction. This confusion in the preterist's mind arises from a primary logical fallacy which melds worldly (prophetic) history with spiritual destiny (or value). The two are not the same, and both prophecy and Paul take pains to draw a distinction between the two. The preterists often seem to forget that it was Christ's work that tore down the spiritual wall, not Israel's destruction at Roman hands. The return of believing Jew's to the land cannot restore this wall. The land of Israel is a place, and Jew is a lineage; how can place and lineage (both purely temporal things) constitute a spiritual wall? Thus, the preterist cannot explain how the believing Jew living in the land of Israel rebuilds a spiritual wall of separation – and yet the preterist insists that it is necessarily the case. Thus, this particular preterist fallacy is a non-sequitur; that is, it affirms a conclusion unsupported by initial premises.
Prophecy and Paul say the Jew will return to God's favor and to the land. Our job is not to deny prophecy in favor of doctrine, but find an honest way whereby both can be true. The ancient Jews had a doctrine which prevented them from understanding God complexity; they also had a doctrine preventing them from understanding the Messiah and his dual role. Both doctrines were supported by disconnected verses in scripture; however, the prophetic story implicitly denied both doctrines. If the ancient Jews had spent less time defending doctrine, and more time checking their doctrine against the prophetic story, they might have realized their doctrine had insufficient subtlety to deal with the complexities of the prophetic story.
Just the other day, talking with a fellow about education, I said that I supported vouchers for home-schooling, and he replied, “So you don't care if children go uneducated?!” It is the preterist's non-sequitur in a nutshell. This fellow's definition of education was artificially narrow, too narrow to accommodate the idea of home-schooling. Likewise, the preterist's idea of spiritual Israel is artificially narrow, too narrow to accommodate what prophecy says about the Jew's historical return; the preterist's response to this conflict is to discard prophecy. That is, the preterist's response to unassimilable prophecy is the same as the ancient rabbi's. In short, any form of preterism not able to accommodate prophecy's vision of the believing Jew in the land is a sort of modern Talmudism (sans beard and black hat, if you like). It is passing strange that anyone would want to perform an encore of the ancient rabbinic mistake.
Again, if one has a strong argument, one uses it; preterism's one scriptural argument is weak and trivially dispatched. Instead of finding stronger arguments to support his position, the preterist erects an opposing platoon of straw men, and amuses himself by beating the stuffing out of them. The problem, as with all straw men, is that nobody on the opposing side actually supports the revolting idea the preterist imputes. In this case, it is the idea of a renewed spiritual wall, separating gentile and Jew; the preterist imputes this renewed wall, but no such wall is to be found in the doctrine of anyone (here) believing in the return of the believing Jew to the land.
Another straw man upon which the preterists spend their arrows is the idea that futurists (those who believe in a believing national Israel returned to the land) seek to rebuild the wall of separation between gentile and Jew. This is a false accusation. Futurists believe that God deals with all mankind only through Christ and the new covenant, and this is the meaning of spiritual Israel. However, futurists also believe that the historical/prophetic drama of national Israel (the Jew) has yet to fully play out. According to this view, national Israel (the Jew) currently stands outside spiritual Israel, but will not do so forever; God will soon make national Israel a part of spiritual Israel, uniting the two. This position has tremendous support in prophecy (Deut 28-30, 4, Micah 5, Zechariah 12, etc, etc, etc). Certainly, Paul believed this (Romans 11).
From this perspective, the Jew's return is a historical drama, and his return a historical event. Stated simply, this means merely that the Jewish nation will enter the new covenant. In the 5th century the Irish nation was saved and entered the new covenant. Why cannot God do the same with the Jewish nation in the 21st century? Why is Ireland's salvation acceptable and the salvation of national Israel unacceptable? Preterism has no answer to this question. In additional to receiving Christ, the Jewish nation will return to the land of Israel. This simultaneous spiritual and physical return of the Jew is one of the signs of the millennium – it fulfills too much prophecy to list. If God does not save the Jew and return him to the land, half of prophecy is wrong.
Thus the futurist position is not one that rebuilds a wall of separation between the Jew and gentile. The futurists position merely states the God will save the Jews and return them to the land as a nation. This is not a spiritual separation; rather it is a union, the union of all those partake of Christ. Also, it is a position that respects and upholds prophecy and God's book.
What makes this particular preterist argument so weak is that there is nobody who believes in (or desires) this rebuilding of a spiritual wall; I have yet to see anyone on this forum argue in its favor, and yet the preterists repeatedly voice this accusation. In the preterist's mind, the return of national Israel to the land and to God's favor (its entrance into the new covenant) is a spiritual distinction. This confusion in the preterist's mind arises from a primary logical fallacy which melds worldly (prophetic) history with spiritual destiny (or value). The two are not the same, and both prophecy and Paul take pains to draw a distinction between the two. The preterists often seem to forget that it was Christ's work that tore down the spiritual wall, not Israel's destruction at Roman hands. The return of believing Jew's to the land cannot restore this wall. The land of Israel is a place, and Jew is a lineage; how can place and lineage (both purely temporal things) constitute a spiritual wall? Thus, the preterist cannot explain how the believing Jew living in the land of Israel rebuilds a spiritual wall of separation – and yet the preterist insists that it is necessarily the case. Thus, this particular preterist fallacy is a non-sequitur; that is, it affirms a conclusion unsupported by initial premises.
Prophecy and Paul say the Jew will return to God's favor and to the land. Our job is not to deny prophecy in favor of doctrine, but find an honest way whereby both can be true. The ancient Jews had a doctrine which prevented them from understanding God complexity; they also had a doctrine preventing them from understanding the Messiah and his dual role. Both doctrines were supported by disconnected verses in scripture; however, the prophetic story implicitly denied both doctrines. If the ancient Jews had spent less time defending doctrine, and more time checking their doctrine against the prophetic story, they might have realized their doctrine had insufficient subtlety to deal with the complexities of the prophetic story.
Just the other day, talking with a fellow about education, I said that I supported vouchers for home-schooling, and he replied, “So you don't care if children go uneducated?!” It is the preterist's non-sequitur in a nutshell. This fellow's definition of education was artificially narrow, too narrow to accommodate the idea of home-schooling. Likewise, the preterist's idea of spiritual Israel is artificially narrow, too narrow to accommodate what prophecy says about the Jew's historical return; the preterist's response to this conflict is to discard prophecy. That is, the preterist's response to unassimilable prophecy is the same as the ancient rabbi's. In short, any form of preterism not able to accommodate prophecy's vision of the believing Jew in the land is a sort of modern Talmudism (sans beard and black hat, if you like). It is passing strange that anyone would want to perform an encore of the ancient rabbinic mistake.
Again, if one has a strong argument, one uses it; preterism's one scriptural argument is weak and trivially dispatched. Instead of finding stronger arguments to support his position, the preterist erects an opposing platoon of straw men, and amuses himself by beating the stuffing out of them. The problem, as with all straw men, is that nobody on the opposing side actually supports the revolting idea the preterist imputes. In this case, it is the idea of a renewed spiritual wall, separating gentile and Jew; the preterist imputes this renewed wall, but no such wall is to be found in the doctrine of anyone (here) believing in the return of the believing Jew to the land.
Last edited:
