WHAT IF FULFILLED ESCHATOLOGY IS PROVED FALSE?
BY Michael Krall
What if the teaching of fulfilled eschatology, also called full or hyper preterism is prove to be without biblical support? In this brief article we will examine six theological points that would prove to be true if full preterism is not. Then we will examine what that would mean both theologically and practically for the Christian.
Before we begin to examine these six things it would be to the profit of some to give a brief overview of what exactly fulfilled eschatology encompasses. What fulfilled eschatology believes is that Christ’s second coming was at the consumation of the Old Covenant not and the end of the world. Or in other words Christ is not going to come back to bring and end of the age which he died to establish (the New Covenant age) in order to bring about all the promises in the Scripture. This teaching says that all of the biblical prophecies concerning the second coming, resurrection and judgment were either completed at the consummation of the Old Covenant, which happened at the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.70, or are ongoing in their fulfillment. By ongoing in their fulfillment that means that such things as one’s individual judgement and individual resurrected spiritual body is still to happen when one leaves this world. Or the ongoing growth of Christ’s kingdom will have no end as stated in Isaiah 9:7 “of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end “ is an ongoing reality. Those holding to fulfilled eschatology take the time factors in the New Testament such as “there are some standing here that will not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom” in Matthew 16:28 to be literal. Or Matthew 24:34 “this generation will not pass till all these things be fulfilled.” They believe that audience relevance is most important in interpreting all Scripture.
Now that we have given this brief overview let us now look at the implications of such teaching.
The
first thing that would be
true if preterism proves false
is that the Old Covenant did not find its fulfillment at the destruction of
Jerusalem in A.D. 70. That would mean that either the amil position that it
ceased at the cross or the premil position that it is on hold would prove to be
true.
The
second thing that would prove to be true is that the resurrection would
not be past already and preterism would then fall in the category of the
Hymenaeus heresy.
Thirdly, if
preterism proves unbiblical then the last days spoken of in Scripture are not
the last days of the Old Covenant but it is the Christian age which is the last
days of human history.
Fourthly, the “age
to come” spoken of in the New Testament would not be the New Covenant age but
the eternal state.
The
fifth thing that is said if preterism proves false is that there most
definitely will be a time that God will destroy the earth and put an end to all
of life on earth as we know it.
The
final thing that proves true and the most obvious is that the blessed
hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior has not been realized.
Christ has not “appeared a second time without sin unto salvation” and judgment
day has not arrived meaning the Church is still waiting for this consummation
of their salvation.
Now
what does this say both doctrinally and by way of implication to us if these
things are true? We will deal with the first two points together since
preterists say that both the resurrection and the fulfilling of the Old
Covenant are connected.
If
the Old Covenant was not completely fulfilled at the destruction of Jerusalem then it most definitely is still in
force. Three texts in the New Testament will bear witness to the fact that the
Old Covenant summarized in the tables of stone were still in force. The first
is 2Cor 3 where Paul is talking about the tables of stone which was the
ministration of death in verse 9. Then in verse 11 he says “for if that which
is done away (literally in the Greek it is a present passive participle ‘being
done away’) was glorious, much more that which remaineth (present active
participle ‘is remaining’) is glorious.”
We see from this text that the tables of stone were being done away so
at the time of this writing they were not completely fulfilled.
The
next two text we will just quote with the tenses of the Greek and let the
reader see for themselves. Hebrews 8:13 “In that he saith A new covenant he
hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth (‘is decaying’) and waxeth old
(‘is waxing old’) is ready to vanish.” And Hebrews 10:9 “ Then said he, Lo, I
come to do they will, O God. He taketh away (‘is taking away’) the first, that
he may establish the second.”
Now
from these three verses we see that the Old Covenant law was not yet completely
done away. So the implication is that
the Christian is still under the law. There is no basis to say that the
law is completely fulfilled if one does not see that it was fulfilled sometime
after these verses were penned but “past already” which brings us to the
resurrection.
In
1Cor 15 Paul speaks of the resurrection and how at the resurrection “mortality has put on immortality” and
“death is swallowed up in victory.” Now
certainly this has not happened has it?
If it has not happened then according to Paul death’s sting which is
sin, and sin’s strength which is the law, is still in effect. If this is physical death, which obviously
still exists, and not spiritual sin-death, which was defeated for God’s elect,
then the law is still the strength of sin. Then we must ask the question “since
he is talking to Christians which law is the strength of sin the Old Covenant
law or the law of Christ which is the Christian’s law?” There is no other
possibility.
It
is important to keep in mind that Paul is addressing Christians in 1Cor 15 for
whom Christ is the first fruits of the resurrection. He is not such to the
reprobate for whom death will never be swallowed up in victory. Now if physical death is meant we must also ask the question “what has Christ been doing for 2000 years to defeat
physical death?” Verse 26 of 1Cor 15 reads “the last enemy being destroyed ( a
present passive indicative verb) is death.” Those that want to say the law is
completely fulfilled and past must deal with this resurrection passage for Paul
says at the resurrection death is swallowed up in victory and it was sin death
that was the result of the fall not physical death (that was merely a by
product of being kept from the tree of life Gen. 3:22).
What
else needs to be addressed is this fact: if the law has been fulfilled and
death has not been swallowed up in victory then death still reigns. And if it still
reigns what is the difference between the Old Covenant’s being a “ministration of death” and the New
Covenant’s being a “ministration of the Spirit?” Why was death not destroyed
when its ministration was fulfilled? Why does Christ need to come at the
consummation of the “ministration of
righteousness” in order to destroy death when its ministration was “taken away”
already. Why was not death destroyed when the age of its power was consumated?
In
addition, if the Old Covenant was consummated at the cross and national Israel
cut off at that point then the hope of Israel, which was the resurrection, Acts 26:6-9, ceases to be grounded in Old Testament promise as fulfilling
Israel’s hope. Christ’s resurrection was post cross so therefore after Israel would
be cut off. Therefore the promise of the resurrection of both Christ and those
whom he was the first fruits of ceases to be a fulfillment of Old Testament
prophecy. This is something foreign to Paul.
Those
interested in really looking into this need only look at Isa 25:6-9 the passage
that Paul quotes in 1Cor 15:54 “death is swallowed up in victory,” and see that
the death spoken of has been swallowed up in victory when the law, the
ministration of death, was removed (see
Isa 25:7-8a and compare to 2Cor 3:14-15).
It was most definitely future to Paul but it is “past already.”
It
would be worth interjecting a thought here. One of the first things some that
disagree with this doctrine do is call this the Hymenaeus heresy because we say
the resurrection is already past. This accusation has been used by
dispensationalists against amillenialists as well since all amillenialists say
the first resurrection of Revelation 20 is “past already.” Note that Paul does
not say which resurrection they were saying was past so if this is valid to
toss at a preterist it is as well valid
to toss at an amillenialist. This writer has had that thrown at him for the 20
years he was an amillenialist. Isn’t it ironic that in our experience it has
been amillenialists that have been
quick to throw that at those that believe in fulfilled eschatology when
they of all should know better.
The
third area is that of the last days not being the last days of the Old Covenant
but the whole of the Christian age. What does this tell us? It tells us very
simply that there is no biblical basis to say the revelatory gifts like
tongues, signs and wonders etc.. have ceased for they were for the “last days.”
Acts 2:17. This cannot be denied. There is no definitive time when one can say
the gifts ceased if we are still in the
last days. Some say at the completion of the canon. What does that mean? After
John wrote the last word of Revelation “Amen” did they instantly cease in all
the churches? Or was it at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 400 when the NT
canon was put together? There is no definitive answer.
The
fourth area is that of the “age to come.” Is that age the eternal state or the
New Covenant age? If the age to come is not the gospel age we live in then we have three ages and even possibly four.
The then present age (which according to Jesus in Luke 20:34 “the children of
this age“ - which was still under levitical law according to that passage), the
Christian age which would be the present age of the epistles and the age to
come. The problem with that scenario is that the gospel age would have to be
“this present evil age “ of Galatians
1:4 Did Jesus come then to deliver us
from the age he died to establish? If the present age the Christian age then
Jesus died to deliver us from an age that was not in effect yet till he
died?
Is
the Christian age the night time of Romans 13:12 “the night is far spent the
day is at hand?” Also in 1Cor 2 Paul
speaks of the “rulers of this age” who have “crucified the Lord of glory.” Are
we to believe that these people are rulers in the Christian age? Or when Paul said “the god of this age has
blinded the minds of them that believe not…” is Satan the god of the Christian
age? We would suspect that neither of these are acceptable descriptions
of the New Covenant age what Christ died to establish.
But
some might object and say that the age spoken of is the world system that is
coexistent with the New Covenant age.
By where in the Scripture do we find more than two ages mentioned? We
only have “this age” and the “age to
come.” In addition in 1John 2:15-17 we read there of the evil world system
that parallels the two ages. The word
in the Greek there is “kosmos” not “aeon.” It is never referred in Scripture as
a third age concurrent with the other two ages.
The
fifth area is that of the destruction of the physical earth. If this proves
true it would mean that God meant something else in Genesis 8:
21
after the flood where we read: “And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and
the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more
for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his
youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.”
To interpret this as meaning that merely is saying that he will not destroy the
earth in the same manner is to accuse God of using the sly tactics of Bill
Clinton in the meaning of “is.”
The
context will not allow for this to be saying God was merely pleased to not
destroy all living life in a certain manner. A parent would not tolerate that
kind of logic in one of their children
when caught doing something they said they would never do again.
The
sixth and most obvious conclusion drawn is that of the second coming of Christ
being yet future. What does this say to us if indeed this has not been
fulfilled?
To most Christians they see that the second
coming of Christ is when he finishes salvation only as far as our physical body
is concerned. No one denies that
Christ’s second coming is said to
complete salvation but “salvation of what?” is the question. Those not holding
to full preterism say it is the physical body that is waiting for redemption.
These are problems that one must be
willing to deal with.
To
start with it is not the salvation of the body that is said to be what is be
waited for but the salvation of the soul- 1Peter 1:9- “receiving the end of
your faith the salvation of your souls”, also look at Hebrews 10:39. Another thing that needs to be considered is
that if the physical body is in need of redemption that is implying that sin
resides in the physical flesh and blood, which smells of Gnosticism. Are we
willing to say that the actual flesh and blood body is evil? We must if we insist that Christ’s
finished work must include redemption of the physical flesh and blood body. (For those
that point to Romans 8:23 “redemption
of our body” we point them to our article entitled Manifestations
of the Son’s of God where this is dealt with in more detail.)
Another thing that needs to be consider is that we are said to be “saved by hope and hope that is seen is not hope” Rom 8:24. So when we are told that we wait “for the hope of righteousness by faith” Gal. 5:5 and that eternal life is a hope, Titus 1:2 , and that salvation is a hope 1Thes 5:8, and that the second coming is the “blessed hope” Titus 2:13, and that there is “one hope” Eph. 4:4, then none of this is realized but is merely a hope. You don’t hope for something you have. So if these things are a hope then we do not have justification by faith, eternal life nor salvation but they are merely things we wait for.
In
addition to Christ having not returned
is that he has not been seated on his throne in judgment. In Matthew 25:31 we
read that at that time “THEN he will sit on the throne of his glory…” Are we
ready for the implications of such a thing? One of the implications is that the
dispensationalism false notion that Christ is not reigning now is true.
So
what shall we say to these things? If preterism is proved false by the
Scriptures then we are still under the law; sin has its sting; death has
not been swallowed up in victory; the
gifts of the Spirit are still in force; the Christian age is the present evil
age; God plays around with words and has not kept his promise of Gen. 8:21;
salvation of our souls is not complete; Christ is not on his throne so he is
either not reigning or is an absent
king; and most of all he has been
proven a false prophet for he said that “some standing here will not taste death till they see the
son of man coming in his kingdom.”
There is no other possiblity.
Please direct your comments to Mike
Krall.