Review of John Noe's

"Unravelling the End"

 

In this article, I review John Noe’s most recent book “Unraveling the End, A balanced scholarly synthesis of four competing and conflicting end time views.”

 John approached me with an invitation to debate his book, but as I had not read it, I was hardly in a position to agree to debate it, so I offered instead to read it and write a review. For those who are not familiar with John, John has been in the Preterist movement for many years. He authored several very influential books, including “Beyond the End Times,” “Shattering the Left Behind Delusion,” and “Dead in Their Tracks.” John has also been a prominent speaker in Preterist circles and was by all accounts a leader in the movement. However, John’s following has waned in recent years by making public his view that the charismata (gifts of the Holy Spirit) are still extant, and more recently and especially by his public announcement that he is a Universalist.  With publication of his newest book, it looked like John was getting his publishing career back on target. Unfortunately, this book fell short and missed the mark.

“Unraveling the End” does an excellent and unparalleled job presenting the Preterist view of eschatology, and the conflicts and contradictions inherent in futurist paradigms.  If John had chosen to merely make the case for Preterism, his work would have been very valuable. However, John does not stop there, but goes on to argue for a Preterist/Idealist synthesis based upon his “many comings/never left” material and his arguments that the terms “second coming” and “return” of the Lord are unscriptural. In my estimation, this utterly derailed John’s argument and spoiled the book. Not wanting to make an overly critical or unbalance review of John’s work, please keep in mind that while much of what follows is critical, calling attention to points of disagreement or error, the first half of “Unraveling the End” was very, very good.

New International Version

John uses the New International Version. This is not a version used by serious scholars. It is an “easy to read” paraphrastic version that ignores verb moods to fit doctrinal slants of its editorial board. For example, Jn. 3:16 in the Greek uses the subjunctive mood to express desire, chance, or possibility:

 

King James Version 

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

 

 

 

New International Version 

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

 

 Where the Greek uses the subjunctive mood (“should not perish”) The NIV drops this and substitutes the indicative mood (“shall not perish”). This is scholastically dishonest and reflects the theological bent of the editorial committee and its willingness to corrupt the word of God. It also fails to translate the Greek word “monogenes” (“only begotten”), substituting “one and only Son.” This sort of paraphrastic translation means that the reader sometimes gets more of a commentary reflecting the dogmatic views of the translators, than the uncorrupted word of God. Hence, it has never gained currency among scholarly writers.

The NIV also uses a Westcott-Hort type text. For those who are unfamiliar with Westcott and Hort, they are the editors responsible for the Revised Version (1881), published in America as in 1901 as the American Standard Version. This text changed the Received Text in about 6000 places, impugning many authentic pieces of scripture, including the last twelve verses of Mark (Mk. 16:9-20), the woman taken in adultery (Jn. 8:1-11), and Acts 8:37. The NIV takes “God” out of I Tim. 3:16, substituting “he”, despite the fact that a whole book has been written demonstrating the authenticity of the word “God” in the passage.  The methodology of Westcott and Hort has been widely criticized as attaching too much importance to the three oldest manuscripts in our possession: The Sinaiticus, the Alexandrian, and the Vaticanus manuscripts. Yet, these three manuscripts disagree between themselves more often than they agree, and only survived as long as they have precisely because they were known to be unreliable and therefore were not used, but left upon the self as curiosities. In fact, Sinaiticus was rescued by Tischendorf from a rubbish pile at St. Catharine’s Monastery where it was set aside to be burned, so little was the esteem it held with the monks of that monastery.[1]

I would not normally call attention to the use of the NIV this way, but truth requires precision. The NIV is not a precise translation and is used by no serious scholars that I am aware of. John’s use of the NIV was a “red flag” to me to be on the look-out for questionable argument and conclusion in balance of the book. After all, if someone is undiscerning enough to settle for a notoriously dishonest translation, how reliable can their treatment of scripture be in other areas? If the foundation is rotten, how can the building be sound?

Failed Synthesis of Four Dominate Views

The stated goal and subtitle of John’s book is to synthesize four competing and conflicting end-time views of Dispensational Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Preterism. “I now believe the whole divisive area of eschatological views can be fully synthesized, harmonized, reconciled, and unified.”[2] Yet, so far as I am able to identify, John never actually synthesized any part of Premillennialism, Amillennialism, or Postmillennialism with Preterism. Rather, John discards Amillennialism and Premillennialism entirely, retains one part of Postmillennialism, and adds Idealsim. In his own words: “Today, however, I have further evolved into what I am calling a P.I.P.S. That’s an acronym for Preterist Idealist/Postmillennial Synthesis.”[3] But even here, John does not synthesize Postmillennialism with Preterism.

Postmillennialism holds that Christ returns after the millennium; that the world in the meanwhile will grow better and better, culminating in a material new creation at Christ’s return. Virtually all Preterists believe Christ returned following the millennia. This is not because they obtained that view from Postmillennialism. If Postmillennialism never existed, Preterists would still have this belief. To synthesize is to combine separate elements to fashion something new. Thus, for there to be a synthesis, Postmillennialism must add to or change Preterism making it new or different in some essential way. However, since Preterists already believe the second coming occurs after the millennia, John’s retaining this aspect of Postmillennialism hardly represents a synthesis. John assesses some of the alleged strengths of the other eschatological views and encourages incorporating these as part of Preterism. For example, John lists the following items as strengths of Premillennialism:

·         Strong interest in end-time prophecy.

·         Emphasis on the dynamic role of Christ in the present and future affairs of humankind.

·         Recognizes that eschatology is connected to Israel and pertains to the end of the Jewish age.

·         Realization that at least one coming of Christ is not visible.[4]

But merely pointing out these alleged “strengths” in Premillennialism hardly equates with synthesizing them with Preterism. Preterism already has a strong interest in end-time prophecy; already recognizes its connection with Israel and the end of the Jewish age; recognizes the role of Christ in the world today; and it has always argued for the invisible coming of Christ. So, where is the synthesis in this? Preterism already incorporates all these things! And this is true of all the “strengths” of the other schools proposed by John for adoption.  In fact, so far as I can tell, their strengths are measured by a Preterist view of scripture, and if they are inconsistent with Preterism, John does not recommend them. Thus, if anything, it is Preterism that John is urging upon the other schools and nothing from them upon Preterism! Hence, if the success of John’s book lies in synthesizing the four main views of end-times, then it does not appear to me that he has succeeded.  No synthesis occurs.

John’s Presentation of the Conflicts and Contradictions of the Four Main Views

In order to justify and demonstrate the need for synthesizing the four interpretative schools, John lays before the reader a critical assessment of their weaknesses. John does a masterful job here, providing abundant quotes critiquing the three main futurist paradigms. John has done his homework and this is certainly one of the strong parts of the book. But, in order to justify synthesizing Preterism, John must show that, like the futurist models discussed, it too is somehow deficient or fatally flawed. Here, John does not come off presenting a convincing case at all. The very fact that all of the points John recommends as strengths in the other views are measured by their consistency with Preterism proves there is no intrinsic element of Preterism that is in error. If Preterism is the rule against which the other models are measured, how can John genuinely fault it? Thus, there is a contradiction here. The faults John assigns to Preterism justifying its need for synthesis are:

·     A spiritualizing tendency vis-à-vis the kingdom and resurrection (Max Kingism/Corporate Body View)

·         Does not account for many past comings of Jesus

·         Does not allow for future comings of Jesus (Jesus came in finality in AD 70)

According to John:

“The insistence by some leading preterists that A.D. 70 was the final coming of Christ−he came ‘in finality’− creates a terminus ad quem, or finality paradigm and another dichotomizing hermeneutic. Hence, Christ’s involvement in human affairs is largely viewed as being fulfilled and over. Scriptures and post-A.D. 70 reality are then read through this mindset. Likewise terminated (depending on which preterist you talk to) are intrinsic elements of Christ’s kingdom, such as: the functioning of charismatic gifts, the activity of angels, demons, and Satan, water baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and even the Church itself. “[5]

I share John’s concern about several of the items appearing in this list. However, I do not share his assessment that these result from the view that Jesus came in finality in A.D. 70. First of all, the number of “leading Preterists” that teach Jesus came in finality in A.D. 70 is very few, probably one: Ed Stevens. Ed Stevens and Don Preston debated to Amillennialists in 2006, in which the proposition was “Did Jesus come in finality in A.D. 70?”  “Finality” here can mean different things to different people. If one means that Jesus came in prophetic finality in A.D. 70, then, Yes! Of course this would be true. There are no more specific comings prophesied in scripture beyond Christ’s A.D. 66-70 coming (John admits this). On the other hand, if one means that there are no more providential comings or times of divine judgment visited upon men and nations, then, No; this would be incorrect. But, I know of no Preterists that take this position.

I corresponded with Ed Stevens about this issue as a result of reading John’s book, and Ed does believe Jesus came in finality in A.D. 70, but he does not deny that God still governs the world or that there are times of judgment and divine visitation upon nations. Whether Ed would characterize these visitations as “comings” I cannot say. But this is merely a question of semantics; the substance is the same, so that whether one calls it a “coming,” a “visitation” or a time of “divine judgment” really does not matter very much.  But even if it were true that Ed believes Jesus came in complete finality in A.D., he would be the only one I know holding this opinion.  Clearly, this is not a sufficient basis to fault all of Preterism or to subject it to synthesis for correction!

Second, not everything listed by John are “intrinsic elements” of Christ’s kingdom. Most people reject the idea that charistmaic gifts still exist; John is in a tiny minority (fringe) here. If Preterism is to be faulted for believing the charismata ceased millennia ago, then so must the majority of Christians and churches. The activity (to say nothing of the existence) of demons and Satan are certainly not “intrinsic elements” of Christ’s kingdom. Belief in demons and a supernatural being called Satan is not intrinsic to the faith either.  There are many views about these and no one view can claim to be correct to the exclusion of all others. As long as reasonable minds can differ, there is no place for dogmatizing about this issue and it certainly cannot justify synthesizing Preterism .

As to the activity of angels, I would be surprised if twenty people could be produced who deny angels exist or are active in the world today. I have been a Preterist for 32 years and have not so much as heard this before; if it exists at all, it can hardly be representative of more than a tiny, tiny percentage of Preterists.

I have read one article arguing that the church belonged only to the transitional period between Pentecost and A.D. 70, but this view, like the view that baptism belonged only to the transitional period, is an aberration, and reflects the view of only one or two vocal personalities within the movement, and is not representative of Preterism in overall.

I agree that the King/Preston Corporate Body View’s spiritualizing method is bad; very bad. This view equates the eschatological resurrection with justification from sin. It holds that the church, the body of Christ, remained under bondage to sin and death by the Mosaic Law until A.D. 70; that it was in the “grave of Judaism” until the fall of Jerusalem, when it was raised by removal of the law. This spiritualizing method has proven to be a virtual fountain of error, and has treated us to the most absurd notions over the years, including that we are in “heaven now,” that believers have their “resurrection bodies now,” that “sin no longer exists” (because the Mosaic Law is removed), etc. In fact, the idea that baptism belonged only to the transition period between A.D. 33-70 rises from this quarter. Virtually, all the errors present in Preterism do. But this has nothing to do with Preterism, but a distorted, spiritualizing hermeneutic used by some of its members. Preterism can no more be faulted for this than it can because some of its members are Universalists or believe in the charismata.  These are appendages superadded to Preterism, not essential elements of it, and therefore cannot justify synthesizing Preterism with Idealism or anything else.

Discontinuance of the Lord’s Supper is, however, a question that frequently arises; this must be admitted. But this is because of Paul’s comments in I Cor. 11:26, and has nothing to do with belief that Jesus came in “finality” in A.D. 70, nor will John’s “many comings” view (see below) prevent this question from rising, nor correct mistaken views about it. In fact, none of the items John mentions will be corrected by his “many comings” view, for the simple fact that most Preterists already believe in many past comings of the Lord and that he still comes providentially today. Thus, John’s whole argument for the need to synthesize Preterism is, for me, a complete wash.

World Without End

One of John’s arguments against futurist paradigms calling for the end of the world, the end of time, and the cessation of life as we know it on earth, is the notion that the world will never end. John originally floated this idea in his book “Beyond the End Times.” I remember when I read this argument all those years ago thinking that this was a clever retort to quickly stop the mouths of futurists. But its main attraction is that it made it easy for Preterists to dispense quickly with passages that seemed to teach the end of the world or the destruction of the cosmos (II Pet. 3:10-13). Rather than needing to provide full and adequate explanations of these passages, we could simply dismiss objections by citing scriptures that seem to say the world or earth will last forever. Wholla! Although I used this argument myself for some years, I no longer do. I do not believe the Bible teaches the earth is without end. Before looking at why I no longer believe the earth or world is endless or eternal, let’s look briefly at John’s arguments.

End of the World versus End of the Age

According to John,

“The original King James Version of the Bible mistranslates the Greek word aion as “world” rather than ‘age’ in the phrase ‘the end of the world (age)’ in Jesus’ longest prophecy (see Matt. 12:32; 13:22, 39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20, for instance. Most modern Bible translations, including the New King James Version, clear up this confusion and render it properly as ‘age’.”[6]

The problem with this argument is that almost all words have multiple meanings depending upon their context, and the Greek word aion does sometimes mean “world” as defined by life beneath the sun. For example, in Matt. 13:22, one of the passages John cites, Jesus says in the Parable of the Sower

“He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.”

Clearly, the phrase “the cares of the aion (world)” here describes the things of this life that distract us and draw us away from God, rendering the word of the gospel unfruitful. There is nothing in aion in this passage that would justify limiting its meaning to the pre-Messianic world or age. Its use in this case is equal to the word “cosmos” which appears in I John 2:15-17:

“Love not the world (cosmos), neither the things that are in the world (cosmos). If any man love the world (cosmos) the love of the Father is not in him.”

I think we can all see that “the care of the world” and “the deceitfulness of riches” in Matt. 13:22 are equal to “love of the world” in I Jn. 2:15. Both are describing things pertaining to the flesh and their ability to draw us away from God or render his word unfruitful in our lives. There are many passages like this where aion must be understood as speaking to the world as defined by life beneath the sun and can be used interchangeably with cosmos. See for example I Cor. 1:20, 21; 2:6, 13; 3:18,19 where Paul alternates between aion and cosmos, using the terms interchangeably to describe things pertaining to fleshly life beneath the sun.  By the same token, there are times when the English word “world” must be understood as speaking to an epoch or age. In the phrase “pre-Messianic world or age” which we used above, we see that “age” and “world” carry the same meaning, and describe conditions belonging to a time or epoch of history. This is the correct meaning underlying the phrase “end of the world” in Matt. 24:3 – the conditions of the world marking the pre-Messianic reign were going to end, and a new world order ensue in which Christ rules the nations with a rod of iron and guides all things to the advancement of his gospel.

All this to say that simply translating the word “aion” as “age” solves nothing alone. Admittedly, for those who use English the phrase “end of the world” carries connotations larger than “end of the age,” but even here the phrase is sufficiently elastic to allow futurists to still understand it in terms of the “end of the earth.” Futurists who use new translations have not abandoned notions about the “end of the world” merely because their translations now render aion “age.” Moreover, the church fathers thought and spoke in Greek and they uniformly understood the word in the sense of “world” and looked for a cataclysmic end of earth. Thus, the problem has more to do with the baggage we bring to the phrase than whether it is rendered “world” or “age.”

A Look at Ephesians 3:9, 21

Although John faults the King James Version for translating aion “world,” he readily uses it when it fits his purpose. John quotes Eph. 3:9, 21 from the King James to prove that the world is without end:

“The biblical truth about the proverbial ‘end of the world’ is contained within the biblical phrase ‘world without end, Amen.’ The Bible says that the world had a beginning, but is without end. ‘From the beginning of the world…throughout all ages, world without end. Amen.’ (Eph. 3:9, 21, KJV).

I could not help but smile when I read this, because the very word John says must be rendered “age” he here wants rendered “world” to prove that life on earth will continue forever! So, apparently, “aion” means “world” when John needs it to. The fact of the matter is the Bible is not here teaching the eternality of the earth or cosmos as John affirms. What the Greek actually says is:

“To him be glory in the church in Christ Jesus, to all the generations of the age of the ages. Amen”

In other words, God the Father is to receive glory through Christ and his church throughout all generations of the “ages of the ages.” What is the “age of the ages”? One interpretation is that it is the Messianic or Christian age; the world marked by the reign of Christ over earth. The Messianic or Christian age is the “dispensation of the fullness of times” (Eph. 1:10); it is the “consummation of the ages” (Heb. 9:26) in which all redemptive promises, and all races of men, are “gathered together in one in Christ” (Eph. 1:10). As long as the Messianic age endures, God will receive glory through Christ and the church for our redemption by the work of the Cross. Another interpretation is that the Greek idiomatic phrase “age of the ages” carries the idea of “forever and ever,” so that rather than pointing to the Messianic age per se, it means that God will receive eternal glory (in the eternity of heaven and the next life) in those whom he has saved though Jesus.  That is all Eph. 3:9, 21 teach. They do not affirm the eternality of the earth (“world”) as John would have us believe.

Other Passages thought to affirm the Eternality of the Earth

Several other passages are relied upon as teaching that the earth will never end:

Eccles. 1:4 – One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth forever.

Psalm 78:69 – And he built his sanctuary like high palaces, like the earth which he hath established forever.

Psalm  104:5 – Who has laid the foundations of the earth that it should not be removed forever (cf. 93:1; 96:10; 119:90).

Verses John cites for the proposition that the cosmos is eternal include:

Psalm 89:36, 37 – His seed shall endure forever, and his throne as the sun before me. It shall be established for ever as the moon, and as faithful witness in heaven. Se-lah.

Psalm 148:3-6 – Praise him sun and moon: praise him, all ye stars of light. Praise him, heavens of heavens, and ye waters that be above the heavens. Let them praise the name of the Lord: for he commanded, and they were created. He hath also stablished them forever, and ever: he hath made a decree which shall not pass.

We should notice at the outset that, with the exception of Ecclesiastes, all of these statements come from the Psalms, which are books of poetry. And even Eccl. 1:4 is in a poetic part of the book, whose purpose is to set forth the vanity and brevity of mortal life beneath the sun. None of these statements are intended to make scientific statements about the eternality of the material cosmos or earth, any more than statements about the sun “rising” (Josh. 10:12, 13; Eccl. 1:5; Isa. 45:6) are intended to make statements about a geocentric universe. During the Renaissance, the Catholic Church forbade teaching Copernicus’ theory of a heliocentric universe in which the earth and planets orbit the sun. When Galileo invented the telescope and was able to prove Copernicus’ theory that ours is a heliocentric (sun centered) cosmos, not geocentric (earth centered), Catholic authorities tried Galileo for heresy. They relied upon the sort of statements John relies upon to prove the earth is eternal. Rather than suffer imprisonment for life, Galileo recanted. But since none of these verses are uttered with the intention of making scientific statements, it is wrong to take them that way. Certainly John will not argue that the sun, moon, and stars can “praise” God, as the Psalmist proclaims. Clearly, all can see that these are poetic expressions. The “forever” in all of these passages must be taken relatively, in comparison to mortal existence, and as expressions of the greatness of God, whose ordinances are immutable and cannot be overthrown.

The Earth is not Eternal

There are statements in the Bible that teach that the earth is not eternal, but will some day cease to exist.

Gen. 8:22 – While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.

God made this promise after the flood, ensuring Noah and mankind that he would not cause the cataclysmic destruction of the world as he had done. While earth remains, the normal cycles and patterns of life will endure. The phrase “while earth remains” qualifies God’s promise. Earth itself will not remain forever. God, who is a spirit (Jn. 4:24), called the material realm and universe into existence, and may one day vanish them into nothing again. That is what the Psalmist says:

Psalm 102:25, 26 – “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment: as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed.”

Here is a passage that expressly declares that the heavens and earth “shall perish.” The Psalmist likens them to a garment that grows old and is discarded, and something new put in their place. John says that God is eternal and so is creation: “Eternalness is not only an attribute ascribed to God and his glory, it’s also an attribute ascribe to his creation.”[7] But in the passage before us the eternality of God is compared with the temporal nature of the heavens and earth. God is greater than his creation: he will endure forever, the heavens and earth will not.

Matt. 24:35 – “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

This passage is similar to that of the Psalm 102:25, 26, above. There, the eternality of God is compared to his creation. God will endure forever and ever, but the physical creation will not. Here, Jesus contrasts his divine word and prophetic utterance with the physical creation. Heaven and earth will pass away (fail), but his predictions will not fail. Jesus appeals to the heaven and earth as the most enduring and reliable thing of all physical creation: The ordinances of the sun, moon, stars, and seasons are fixed and irrevocable; they cannot be broken or changed; they are inalterable and permanent. Yet, for all that, they are still matter and not spirit; they last only so long as God ordains. The very heavens and earth themselves therefore are less reliable than the certainty of Jesus’ divine word: they depend upon God’s word for continuance; his predictions are God’s word. This passage is therefore equal in meaning to Luke 16:17: “And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.” Here we see that the “passing” of the one is compared with the “failing” of the other. We must imagine that it would be a very hard thing for heaven and earth to pass away. Yet, hard as that seems, it is easier that should happen than God’s law fail; what he has decreed, will stand.

I Jn. 2:17 – “The word passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.”

The Greek term rendered “world” here is cosmos. The cosmos passes away, but those that do God’s will abide forever. This verse thus becomes like the preceding ones, where the physical creation is declared to be temporal and passing; but God, his word, and those that obey his word are said to abide forever.

Covenantal Heaven and Earth?

John attempts to dismiss the plain meaning of passages declaring that the physical creation is not eternal, by saying that they refer to the Old Testament system. Thus, the “old” heavens and earth refer to the Old Testament, the “new” heavens and earth refer to the New Testament. This error has a fairly strong showing among Preterists, so let’s address it briefly here.

This model was first invented by Max King as a way of explaining the prophecy of Isa. 65:17 and 66:22, which is mentioned by Peter in his second general epistle (II Pet. 3:10-13) and the Revelation of St. John (Rev. 21:1). According to King, the heavens and earth are symbols for a covenantal system. A.D. 70 saw one covenantal system removed and a new covenantal system put in its place. But this is precisely the error that led Max King and his ministry into Universalism. According to Tim King, Max’s son:

“Simply stated, man is changed because his world changed. Man is reconciled to God because he no longer lives under the rule of sin and death as determined by the Mosaic world. Through the gift of Christ he dwells in a world of righteousness and life. The issue is cosmic and  corporate, not individual and limited.” Tim King, Comprehensive Grace, 2005

Hear also Kevin Beck, president of King’s Presence Ministries:

“There’s no sin and no sin-related death in a world that has the New Jerusalem in it’s midst.”  Kevin Beck, he Creation of Jerusalem, Feb, 08

And last, hear David Timm in a piece posted on the Presence Ministries web site:

“In the new world people are reconciled to God without any say in the matter. God loves all those that He has made in His image equally.” David Timm, Grace Upon All, Oct. 06

Thus, King’s covenantal heaven and earth model is inexorably bound up in his Universalism. John has recently come out as a Universalist; his endorsement of King’s hermeneutic perhaps should not surprise us. The error that the heavens and earth are metaphors for the Old and New Testaments is easily dispelled. In the new heaven and earth, the saved are in the city the new Jerusalem, the bride, the covenantal habitation of the saints. The lost (damned) are outside the city; the gates are open for them to come in by obedience to the gospel, but so long as they remain without the city, they are damned.

“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosover loveth and maketh a lie.” Rev. 22:14, 15; cf. 21:8.

This one passage totally dispels the covenantal heaven and earth model (to say nothing of Universaism). The wicked and damned are in the new heaven and earth, outside the city! Thus, the new heavens and earth cannot represent the New Testament, for only those in the city are in a covenantal relationship with Christ; they alone are his bride; those outside the city, though in the new heaven and earth, are damned!

Verses evoked to support the covenantal heaven and earth model include the following:

Deut. 32:1 – “Give ear, O ye heavens, and I will speak; and hear, O earth, the words of my mouth.”

According to John, Don Preston, and others who follow Max King’s interpretation, heaven and earth here refer to the elders of the Jews. But all that is happening here is that Moses appeals to the inhabitants of heaven and earth as witnesses of his prophecy against the Jews (cf. Isa. 1:2). Moses is not evoking the Jews as witnesses of his prophecy against themselves! We bring third parties in as witnesses of our oaths; parties to an oath cannot serve as witnesses for themselves.  Thus, when Jacob made a covenant with Laban that neither would pass over to the other for harm, he gathered a heap of stones and erected a pillar and said “God is witness betwixt me and thee…This heap be witness, and this pillar be witness, that I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shalt not pass over this heap and this pillar until me, for harm” (Gen. 31:50, 52). Likewise, when Moses or God (Isa. 1:2) evokes the heaven and earth as witness, they are appealing to third parties to give witness to the violation of the covenant by the Jews. The heaven and earth (their inhabitants) are the witnesses of the covenant, not the covenant itself.

What about Isaiah 51:13-16?

This passage is probably the most relied upon by Preterists in support of the idea that the heavens and earth refer to the Old Covenant, so we will look at it separately under its own heading.

Isa. 51:11-16 -  And forgettest the Lord thy maker, that hath stretched forth the heavens, and laid the foundations of the earth; and hast feared continually every day because of the fury of the oppressor, as if he were ready to destroy? and where is the fury of the oppressor? The captive exile hasteneth that he may be loosed, and that he should not die in the pit, nor that his bread should fail. But I am the Lord thy God, that divided the sea, whose waves roared: The Lord of hosts is his name. And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people.

Reference to the Red Sea crossing leads some to suppose that “planting the heavens” and “laying the foundations of the earth” contemplate giving of the Old Testament. But this is mistaken.  A review of the chapter will show that the overall theme is God’s coming salvation, first, in the return of the Babylonian captivity, second, by the reign of the Messiah in the new heavens and earth.

v. 3 – “For the Lord shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving and the voice of melody.”

This verse speaks to the return of the captivity: “comforting Zion’s waste and desert places” describes the rebuilding of villages and towns left desolate by the Assyrio-Babylonian invasions. These would be rebuilt by the return of the captivity beginning 536 B.C. (cf. v. 11). When God sent the Jews into captivity in Babylon, he described the desolation of the land in terms of its “de-creation,” as though it reverted to the chaos before God ordered creation.

“I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void, and the heavens, and they had no light. I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly. I held, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled. I beheld, and lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the Lord and by his fierce anger.” Jer. 4:23-26

Thus, “planting the heavens” and “laying the foundations of the earth” speak to the return of the captivity and the repopulation of the land, reclaiming it from desolation, destruction, and chaos, not the giving of the law at Sinai.  Reference to the Red Sea crossing points to the return from Babylon: As God led Israel out of Egypt, so he would lead the captives back to Palestine (cf. Isa. 27:12, 13). Proof of this is seen a chapter earlier in Isaiah:

“Thus saith the Lord…I have helped thee, and I will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritages.” Isa. 49:8

Here we see that “establishing the earth” means “to inherit the desolate cities” left without inhabitant by the captivity in Babylon.  However, passages describing the return of the captivity often telescope ahead to the coming of the Messiah, practically treating them as one and the same event. Isaiah thus continues (Isa. 51:4, 5):

v. 4, 5 - “Hearken unto me, my people; and give ear unto me, O my nation: for a law shall proceed from me, and I will make my judgment to rest for a light of the people. My righteousness is near; my salvation is gone forth, and mine arms shall judge the people; the isles shall wait upon me, and on mine arm shall they trust.”

Here we find plain reference to the gospel of Jesus Christ: the law that would bring light to the peoples; the salvation that would proceed from the Lord (cf. Isa. 2:1-4). Thus, the context is looking ahead to Christ following the return of the captivity, not back to the Exodus. The prophet continues:

v. 6 – “Lift up your eyes to the heavens, and look upon the earth beneath: for the heavens shall vanish away like smoke, and the earth shall wax old like a garment, and they that dwell therein shall die in like manner: but my salvation shall be forever, and my righteousness shall not be abolished.”

Although heaven and earth will pass away, God’s salvation in Christ will endure forever.  In the new heavens and earth, God’s people will rejoice forever in the salvation of the gospel and the reign of Christ over the nations, saving them from the hand of their enemies and oppressors. There is nothing in Isa. 51:13-16 that equates the Old Testament with the heavens and earth.

Matthew 5:17, 18

A last passage relied upon by John and many Preterists in support the idea of a covenantal heavens and earth is Matt. 5:17, 18:

“Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

When I first became a Preterist 32 years ago I thought this passage carried some mystical meaning teaching that the “heavens and earth” were equal to the law, and that these mystical heavens and earth had to pass at Christ’s second coming before the Old Testament law would end.  However, this is a complete misreading of the text. First, Jesus said he had come to fulfill the law during his first coming and earthly ministry, not his second coming. He did this when he died on the cross for men’s sins.  The law was a shadow; a shadow ends where the body begins. The body (substance) of the law is Christ and him crucified (Col. 2:17; Heb. 10:1). Therefore, the Old Testament ended at the cross, not A.D. 70. This is corroborated numerous places in scripture showing that that the law was no longer valid, including the abrogation of circumcision, the dietary restrictions, table fellowship with Gentiles, the animal sacrifices, the feasts, the priesthood, and the Sabbath days. Second, in saying “till heaven and earth pass” Jesus uses a figure of speech comparable to the modern saying something will not happen “until Hades freezes over.” Since Hades will never freeze over, the implication is that the contingency will never occur. In the present case, “one jot or tittle of the law will not fail until heaven and earth pass away,” which is the same as to say, the law will never fail to be fulfilled. This is clear from the parallel passage in Luke 16:17:

“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.”

Thus, Jesus is not making some mystical allusion to the Old Testament when he says “till the heavens and earth pass.” He evokes them parabolically as things abiding and unmovable, but which are easier to pass than for God’s law fail to be fulfilled. There is nothing to the covenantal heavens and earth model but error, Universalism, and more error. We urge Preterists to keep far away from it.

God’s Divinely Determined Timeline

Chapter ten of John’s book is entitled “God’s Divinely Determined Timeline.” John does an excellent job here laying out the case that all scripture focus eschatological fulfillment in the first century A.D. John begins his discussion with Daniel’s seventy prophetic weeks, and shows that this prophecy concludes, not with the end of the world, but the destruction of Jerusalem. However, I did not agree with John’s starting point for the seventy prophetic weeks. John places this at 457 B.C.  The prophecy states that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem until the Messiah there would be “seven weeks” and “three score and two weeks” or sixty-nine weeks total, which equals four hundred and eighty-three years (Dan. 9:24, 25). John correctly identifies the fulfillment of this part of the prophecy with Christ’s baptism and the beginning of his earthly ministry. However, by causing the starting point of the seventy prophetic weeks to begin in 457 B.C., John is forced to place Jesus’ baptism in A.D. 27, which would mean he was born in 4 B.C. and that he died in A.D. 30. Yet, Luke is absolutely clear that Jesus was on the threshold of his thirtieth birthday when baptized in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar (Luke 3:1). The 15th regnal year of Tiberius would have been the calendar year A.D. 29, making the date of Jesus’ birth 2 B.C.  So Finegan:

“Since Roman historians of the time (Tacitus, Suetonius,) generally date the first regnal year of a ruler from Jan 1 of the year following the date of accession (i.e., the accession-year system) we judge that Luke would do likewise. So Tiberius’s fifteenth factual year was from Aug 19, A.D. 28 to Aug 18, A.D. 29, but his fifteenth regnal year counted a Julian calendar years according to the accession-year system was Jan 1 to Dec 31, A.D. 29.”[8]

Thus, the correct starting point for Daniel’s seventy prophetic weeks is 454 B.C., placing Jesus’ death in the “midst” of the final week in A.D. 33, and not A.D. 30 as John has incorrectly supposes.  (See generally, Archbishop James Ussher’s Annals of the World at 454 B.C. for full corroboration and details). This is not a major failing in John’s work by any means, but because his scheme contradicts Luke, it is too obvious an error not to correct. 

This aside, John’s work in the balance of this chapter is superior. I was especially satisfied with John’s treatment of Daniel’s “Time of the End’ prophecy and his identification of the “taking away of the daily sacrifice” (Dan. 12:11) in reference to the cessation of the twice daily sacrifice for Caesar that the Jews stopped in A.D. 66. This is often confused with the cessation of the sacrifice in the final weeks of the Jewish war with Rome, which results only in bewilderment and confusion. The “setting up of abomination of desolation” 1290 days (Dan. 12:11) from stopping the sacrifice for Caesar brings us to the marshalling of Titus’ troops in Caesarea in the late winter/early spring of A.D. 70. The 1335 days that follow 45 days later (Dan. 12:12) is best understood as the point at which Titus’ legions appeared at Jerusalem on the day of Passover and the five month siege and investment of the city began. The prophecy, including the resurrection from Hades, culminates with the “scattering of the power of the holy people” (Dan. 12:7), which was marked the destruction of the city and end of the Jewish state.

In the following chapter, John does a superb job presenting the Preterist case, based upon the time restrictive passages in the gospels placing the eschaton in the lives of the first disciples. John then surveys what he calls “intensification of nearness language” in the epistles, showing that as it grew closer to the end of the generation, the language of nearness intensifies. The force and momentum of the book at this point becomes almost irresistible. But then out of nowhere John brings in his many comings/no second coming/never left material and the momentum runs into smack into a wall.

Many Comings/No Second Coming/Never Left

John argues that the terms “second coming” and “return” of Christ are “unscriptural” because there have been “many comings” of Jesus down through the ages.  According to John “Scripture clearly proves that the expressions of ‘second coming’ and ‘return’ of Christ are biblically and historically inappropriate.” “We’ve been hamstrung by ‘second coming’ and ‘return’ terminology for too long. Not only is this misleading and debilitating language non-scriptural and unscriptural, but it’s a non-event.”[9] John asserts “’Second coming’ and ‘Return’ terminology makes no textual, historical, logical, grammatical, or biblical sense…Neither expression is a valid scriptural term or concept.”[10]

We will look at John’s definition of a “coming” briefly, but let’s first note that the terms “second” and “return” are both used in the context of Christ’s “coming again” in wrath after “going away” to heaven to receive the throne and kingdom of his father David. In Luke 19:12-27, Jesus told a parable “because he was nigh to Jerusalem and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear” (v. 11). In verse twelve, Jesus specifically uses the term “return”: “A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and to return.” John admits this word is translated correctly and does refer to Jesus departure and coming again, but hides this admission in a footnote! Yes, in a footnote! Tsk, tsk, tsk. By definition the phrase “coming again” means to “return.” So, even if the term “return” did not occur in scripture, the concept plainly does. John’s attempts to persuade us against use of this term are totally unavailing. “Second” is also used in reference to Jesus departure and coming again:

 “But now once at the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: so Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Heb. 9:26-28

Here, the term “once” is applied to Christ’s first appearance: “once he hath appeared.” This is followed by the term “second” to describe his coming again”: “he shall appear a second time.” The term “appearance” is often used interchangeably with “coming” and “revelation” in the New Testament (I Cor. 1:7; I Tim. 6:14; II Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8; I Pet. 1:7, 13). Thus, “appear a second time” in Heb. 9:27 is equal to “come a second time” or “second coming.” Christ would appear a second time to save his persecuted church from their oppressors. Thus, despite John’s protestations to the contrary, the terms “return” and “second coming” are both perfectly scriptural in use and concept.

John’s objection to the term “second coming” stems from his material about the “many comings” of Jesus. John’s definition of a “coming” is:

“My working definition for ‘a coming of Jesus’ is this – It’s a personal and bodily intervention and/or manifestation of Jesus into the life of an individual, a group, a church, or a nation on this earth. There are many different types of comings for different purposes, and they occur at different times and places. Some are visible appearances; some are invisible interventions. Some are physical (seen, heard, felt); some are spiritual (an internal illumination or revelation); and some are combinations.”[11]

Needless to say, this definition is exceedingly broad and includes such things as a personal revelation or illumination. John argues further, that because “no man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (Jn. 1:18), therefore, all Old Testament theophanies or divine manifestations were Jesus. Thus, it was Jesus who appear to Abraham (Gen. 17:1, 2); It was Jesus who appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Ex. 3:2-5); Jesus was the rock Moses struck (a major misreading of I Cor. 10:6 here!); it was Jesus who appeared to Gideon (Jud. 6:11-26), etc.

The principle objection to John’s argument is its complete lack of relevancy. How does the fact it was Jesus who talked with Adam or appeared to Gideon help us understand eschatology or the nature of Christ’s coming in A.D. 66-70? The only comings that are helpful and relevant here are “day-of-the-Lord” type comings. There are many “days of the Lord” recorded in the Old Testament, in which the Lord came in wrath and judgment upon the world and its peoples. Understanding these is useful because that information can help us understand the day of the Lord predicted in the New Testament. One becomes the basis for understanding and interpreting the other. But whether it was Christ who appeared to Moses in the burning bush is irrelevant to a discussion about the nature of Christ’s coming against the Romans and Jews at the end of pre-Messianic age. John’s whole discussion here is therefore “off topic.” He is comparing apples with oranges. Both are fruit, but different kinds, and therefore cannot shed light on the topic.

Jesus always describes his second coming by the phrase “Son of man”: “Ye shall not have gone over all the cities of Israel before the Son of man be come” (Matt. 10:23); or “For the Son of man shall come” (Matt. 16:27), or “they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 24:31; cf. 26:64). This is highly relevant. The “Son of man” did not appear to Gideon in the Old Testament; the “Son of man” did not appear to Moses in the burning bush. Christ’s second coming applies ONLY to the Son of man. The Son of man appeared “once” to put away sins by the sacrifice of himself; the Son of man would appear a “second time” to save his people from their persecutors. Scripturally speaking, there are therefore only the two comings of the Son of man.

John’s “never left” material is equally without merit. John argues that because Jesus said he would be “with” the disciples until the end, or because he said where two or three are gathered in his name he would be in their midst, or because he is depicted as standing among the candlesticks (the churches) in Revelation, that therefore he never left. This is very poor reasoning. We all know that God is omnipresent and can be in many places in different forms all at the same time: God can be in heaven governing the universe at the same time that he appears in a burning bush to Moses, or condescends to be born to a virgin in Bethlehem. We all know this. The Psalmist wrote about it: “Whither shall I go from thy spirit? Or wither shall I flee from thy presence?” (Ps. 139:7). The fact that Christ would be “with” the disciples providentially, helping them by miracles and providentially guiding their work (Matt. 28:Mk. 16:20), or that his spirit and blessing is upon those that assemble in his name, does not detract from the fact that the Son of man “went away” to heaven to receive a kingdom and “to return” in wrath to vanquish his enemies. John’s material about the omnipresence of Christ is marvelously “off topic” and is completely unhelpful in understanding the eschatological coming of Christ. In my estimation, John’s many comings/never left material can only confuse and perplex readers, and spoils his book.

John’s Idealism in the Book of Revelation

Another area we will look at is John’s argument that Preterism should be wed with Idealism.  I should say at the outset that I believe Jesus governs the nations today and that he visits wrath upon them as his divine judgment determines. However, these visitations are not prophetic comings, which scripture foretells. We cannot say that a given war or world disaster today fulfills any prophecy of scripture. All prophetic comings of Christ have been fully and finally fulfilled.

I believe Christ still governs the nations this way because this is what scripture teaches (Psalm 2:8-12; 110; Dan. 7:27; Rev, 11:15). I believe this because Jesus is “the same yesterday, and today, and forever” (Heb. 13:8). We may therefore expect that as God visited the nations providentially in judgment in the Old Testament, he will continue to do so for all futurity (Rom. 15:4). I believe most Preterists would agree with these statements. John’s charge that the majority of Preterists deny Christ’s continuing involvement in history is without basis; there is no reason to wed “idealism” as a corrective to Preterism. That said, let’s look at John’s argument that Revelation requires we adopt some form of “idealism.”

 John affirms that all New Testament prophecies, including Revelation, are fulfilled in toto:

“There are no double fulfillments, double sense, partial fulfillments, near/far perspectives, or types and antitypes regarding the fulfillment of the plan of redemption and any end-time prophecy.”[12]

However, John believes that Rev. 10:10, 11 has a “plenior sensus,” which lends Revelation a “timeless relevance” and “universal application”:

“And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and ate it up: and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter. And he said unto me, Thou must prophesy again before many peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings.”

“Plenior sensus” is Latin for “fuller meaning.”

“The sensus plenior is that additional, deeper meaning, intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author, which is seen to exist in the words of a biblical text (or group of texts, or even a whole book), when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the understanding of revelation.”[13]

The most common examples of plenior sensus are prophecies, usually if not always Messianic, that have an immediate historical context, but whose language indicates a further application and fulfillment is intended or to be looked for. Isaiah’s prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ is a good example of a text that had an immediate historical fulfillment that gave it relevance to king Ahaz, but which was imbedded with a plenior sensus that looked ahead to Christ. The historical context of the prophecy was fulfilled in the defeat of Samaria and Damascus who allied together to capture Judah (Isa. 7:4-6). God gave a sign to Ahaz that a child that would be born in token that the conspiracy would fail: before the child was old enough to know good from evil, the two kings Ahaz feared would be destroyed (Isa. 7:14-16).  In its original context, the child that would be born was almost certainly the prophet Isaiah’s son by his wife, herself a prophetess (Isa. 7:14-16; 8:1-3, 8, 18). This short term historical fulfillment did not exhaust the prophecy’s intended meaning, however. The prophecy’s ultimate meaning-its plenior sensus-looked ahead to the birth of Christ (Matt. 1:23).

There are virtually dozens of prophecies like this. The plenior sensus of virtually all such prophecies were fulfilled in Christ. There are no prophecies of which there is a plenior sensus to be fulfilled today. Daniel’s 490 prophetic years, which terminated in A.D. 70, expressly state that all vision and prophecy would be “sealed up” once the 490 years were fulfilled (Dan. 9:24). Therefore, John’s plea that Revelation has a plenior sensus must be rejected. He cannot claim there are “no double fulfillments, double sense, partial fulfillments” and that the “contemporary and historical setting was Revelation’s one and only fulfillment”[14] (his words) and in the next breath argue for a plenior sensus in Revelation. All prophecies impressed with a plenior sensus have a specific event that they look to, and then are forever fulfilled. No body would claim that the prophecy of Christ’s virgin birth will be repeated, etc.  In reality, the vague “continuing relevance” or “universal application” that John urges is not a plenior sensus at all.  All scripture has this sort of continuing relevance and universal application, because it instructs and enlightens. This is affirmed by Paul in Romans: “For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope” (Rom. 15:4). Revelation is no different. John says “the historically defensible interpretation has the greatest authority.”[15] Thus, the historically defensible interpretation of Rev. 10:11 is the most authoritative. What is the historically defensible interpretation?  John would be released from confinement on Patmos and proclaim the reigning Christ to the world amidst much resistance. No “idealism” is involved at all. John’s Preterist-Idealist paradigm is built of straw and ends up offering nothing.

What Happened to Rome and Nero?

In John’s whole book I could not find a single reference to Nero Caesar or God’s wrath upon the Roman Empire. This inexplicable omission is a huge defect in John’s eschatology. Most Christians realize that the second coming is not a local event confined to Palestine. Christians in Thessalonica, Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappodicia, Asia, Rome, Corinth and many other places understood that events associated with the end time would impact them directly; many would suffer martyrdom and be called upon to lay down their lives in testimony of their faith in Christ. The persecution under Nero is among the leading themes of Revelation and the book of Daniel. Judgment upon Rome is the topic of Daniel chapters two and seven; it also figures prominently in Revelation. Yet, John does not so much as even mention it. This unbalanced approach, which focuses exclusively upon Jerusalem and ignores Rome, belies a fundamental shortcoming in John’s eschatology, and hurts the credibility of his scholarship.  How can some of the most momentous events in history have escaped John’s notice? John’s localized eschaton confined to Palestine is unscriptural and has led to many of the erroneous doctrines circulating among Preterists. If John wants to synthesize Preterism with something, I would recommend he synthesize it with some Roman history!

Conclusion

John’s book could have been a fantastic teaching tool, setting forth the Preterist interpretation of eschatology. Unfortunately, John tried to synthesize Preterism with other interpretative schools and ruined what could have been a great work. His arguments for the eternality of the world and cosmos, his “many comings/never left” material, and his mislabeled continuing relevance of Revelation (we say nothing of the complete silence about the persecution under Nero and Christ’s wrath upon the Roman world in the “year of four emperors – A.D. 69-70) combine to make this a work that that serious students of the bible need not take time to read. My hope is that John will rework the material, confining himself to arguing for Preterism. That would be a work that is truly blessed.


[1] For a full examination into Westcot and Hort’s Revised Version, which serves as the basis for the NIV, see Dean John W. Burgeon’s “The Revision Revised” (1883, 5th Edition published 1983 by A.G. Hobbs Publications, Fort Worth, TX).

[2] Noe, p. 123

[3] Noe, p. 111

[4] Noe, p. 419

[5] Noe, p. 184

[6] Noe, pp. 148, 149

[7] Noe, 151

[8] Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Hendrickson, 1998 ed.), p. 338.

[9] Noe, pp. 259, 261

[10] Noe, p. 280

[11] Noe, 252

[12] Noe, 209

[13] Raymond E. Brown, The Sensus Plenior of Sacred Scripture (Baltimore: St. Mary’s University, 1955), p. 92

[14] Noe, 354

[15] Noe, 209

 

To receive Kurt Simmons’ e-mail newsletter, The Sword & The Plow, click the Subscribe link:

SUBSCRIBE

 

All rights reserved.