By Dr. Kelly Nelson Birks,
pastor of Messiah Reformed Church
Recently, A new work on the theological merits of the truth of
postmillennialism has recently been supplied for us by Mr. Keith A. Mathison. According to
Mr. Mathison's bio on the back of his new book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of
Hope", published by P&R, Mr. Mathison has received the degree of Master of Arts
in Theological Studies from Reformed Theological Seminary. It also tells us that he is the
author of another book entitled, "Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of
God," a book that I thoroughly enjoyed and find to be a very important work in the
area of helping to sustain those just entering into the truths of Five Point Calvinism.
Thank you Mr. Mathison for your excellent work.
This new work, boasts a title that I am very much in favor of.
"Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope." Postmillennialism is the final in a
list of millennial understandings that teaches us that the Bible proclaims that at the
coming (parousia) of the Lord Jesus Christ, with the corresponding resurrections and
judgements, that the inhabitants of the earth will experience the rule and reign of the
King of kings in a unique and forceful way. The other three millennial views
(Dispensational Premillennialism, Historic Premillennialism, and Amillennialism) are not
the subjects of this present review. Let it be understood from the beginning that the
author of this present review is thoroughly reformed in his theology, and quite secure in
his eschatological position as to what Mr. Mathison calls Full Preterism. Preterism, of
course, is understood as teaching that all which was prophesied to come to pass relative
to the final aspects of the bringing in of the Kingdom of God, has in fact already
transpired in the past just as Christ and the writers of the New Testament said they
would. This writer also holds firmly to a biblical postmillennialism, that believes as Mr.
Mathison does, that at Christ's coming or parousia, (Greek: an arrival with a
consequential presence) at the end of the "millennium", the church of Christ and
the world enters into the fullness of the rule of Christ and His church and that the new
heavens and the new earth, while be experienced in all of their eternal fullness and
splendor. The difference between this writer and Mr. Mathison, is that this writer views
the time and the nature of these events as occurring by AD 70, with Mathison placing the
Second coming and all it's attending events somewhere out in the yet-to-be future.
Actually, what is really on the line here as far as the truth of the present subject goes,
is nothing less than the final authority and full inspiration of the scriptures.
Since this review is about "Appendix Three" in Mathison's
book, we will not be dealing with any of the other subjects he treats in the area of the
superiority of the doctrine of postmillennialism. Mathison refers to his critique of Full
Preterism (as that Preterism that must be distinguished from partial preterism, which
holds that only certain events that were prophesied by Christ and the apostles to come to
pass did in fact do so in the first century) as: "...all eschatological events, such
as the Second Coming and the Last Judgement, took place by the time of the destruction of
Jerusalem in AD 70." (Pg. 235) We would concur with this. However, it is important
that we establish at the very beginning of this review that it is clear that Mr. Mathison
is engaged in proving his case against Full Preterism primarily through the means of
comparing the doctrine, not to the scriptures to see if it stands up to biblical scrutiny,
but rather to the creeds and confessions of the church as they have been enunciated over
the centuries. Let it be known that unlike all the primary doctrines of the church, the
divinity and humanity of Christ, the Trinity, the fundamentals of the doctrine of
justification by faith, all of which have historical counsels and serious study behind
them, that at no place within the history of the Christian church is there a synod or
church counsel that has gathered specifically in order to reach a conclusion and dogmatize
the doctrine of eschatology.
NOTE -- Even the Westminster Confession of Faith with its great
theologically penetrating and astute paragraphs on the primary doctrines of the faith,
failed in its presentation of eschatology. The fact of the matter remains that the subject
of the Second Coming of Christ was not even considered to be on the same levels of
importance that say the subjects of the predestination and adoption of the believer, and
the relationships between biblical and civil government. There is no chapter heading in
the WCF that discusses the subject of the Second Coming of Christ. It was simply
"assumed" to be a still future event at the time of the framing of the
Confession in 1647. Why is that? Baggage, Ladies and Gentlemen. Presuppositional baggage.
It is the assumption of a futurism that is brought to the exegetical table when it comes
to the subject of eschatology. The Bible teaches that the Second Coming of Christ was
certainly yet future to those to whom the New Testament was written, but it is no longer
future to us, as Christ made good on His promise to return to that generation that He
originally came to in the flesh. (Matt. 24: 34) It is important to remember that while the
Bible certainly was written "for us", it was not originally written "to
us."
The critique that Mr. Mathison presents in appendix form is fourteen
pages long. What is amazing to this writer is that in fourteen pages, outside of the five
passages of scripture that Mathison uses to support his view of partial preterism on page
242 ( a position, by the way, that is just a transitionary phase while coming into full
preterism), that he spends "zero time" exegeting scripture in order to
substantiate his own position in opposition to full preterism. But then, he gives four
pages of quotes from the creeds and historical statements of fallible men to try to
demonstrate how full preterism is supposed to be erroneous. The conclusion that one comes
to when faced with this type of "proof", is that the theologically conservative
full preterist is dependant upon scripture for what he believes, but the partial preterist
must of necessity be "humanistically dependant" by relying on the creeds and
councils of the church, which, as we have previously pointed out, never considered the
Second Coming of Christ as important as other theological issues for they never bothered
to dogmatize it as they did the other doctrines. Mathison does correctly identify the
touch stone of the issue as he admits on pages 237-238 that, "The primary strength of
full preterism, is the strong desire of its proponents to maintain the veracity of Jesus
and the apostles. They realize that if Jesus was a false prophet, then Christianity is a
false religion. They demand an interpretation of the Bible which takes the language of
imminence seriously, and strives for consistency." This is very astute. Mr. Mathison
"is not far from the kingdom." What is also quite alarming about the observation
that Mathison makes about full preterists, is that these very things, desiring to maintain
the veracity of the New Testament texts, the importance of not ignoring the imminency
passages, and rightly interpreting the Bible in a consistent manner, should be precisely
what all exegetes of the Bible strive for. I believe this type of biblical honesty and the
complement that he pays to full preterism in the process, is precisely what Mr. Mathison
would like to have for himself. However, as was pointed out earlier in our review,
presuppositional baggage seems to be the culprit when it comes to arriving at the correct
exegetical conclusions on the subject of eschatology. If the "timing" of the
Second Coming event can be established, then the understanding of the "nature"
of those Second Coming events will become clear to us as we "let God be true, and
every man a liar."
One of the more regrettable statements that Mathison makes regarding
full preterists in particular is his opinion that full preterists seem to him to be
actually hostile to the orthodox creeds of the historical church. Nothing could be further
from the truth. He says, "One of the most serious weaknesses of full preterism is the
almost hostile antagonism that some of its more vocal proponents express towards the more
orthodox creeds of Christianity." (Pg. 238) He then goes on to use two quotes from
Mr. Ed Stevens that are by no means "antagonistic" towards the creeds. All Mr.
Stevens points out in his comments is that those who seem to oppose full preterism use the
creeds as a form of authority when it speaks to futurism that is sometimes equal to, if
not greater than the authority of scripture itself. Mr. Stevens states: "Even if the
creeds were to clearly and definitively stand against the preterist view (which they
don't), it would not be an overwhelming problem since they have no real authority anyway.
They are no more authoritative than our best opinions today, but they are valued because
of their antiquity." (Pg. 238) How is this antagonistic? Granted, it is not as
pro-creedalistic as Mathison, Gentry or Sandlin, but neither is it anti-creeds. I sense an
attempt at manipulating the reader to fall into an antagonistic position against the full
preterist by the mere assertion made by Mr. Mathison. But without a doubt, some of the
most idolatrous methods of hermeneutical failure is yet to be brought out by some of
Mathison's foregoing statements. Note the way "mother church" is upheld as the
definer of what is and what isn't orthodox. The following comments from Andrew Sandlin
whom Mathison quotes, places the reader of sacred scripture at the mercy of fallible man
much in the same way the Roman Catholic follower is placed under the directive of the Pope
and Bishops of the Roman Church in order for them to understand what scripture means. It
means what the church says it means because fallible men have so deemed it to be so.
Listen carefully reader to Mr. Mathison's comments, and you can hear the wheels of
spiritual tyranny begin to turn the unsuspecting believer back towards Roman oppression.
"As Andrew Sandlin points out, 'Sola Scriptura means that the Bible in the context of
Christian orthodoxy, is the sole, ultimate touchstone for faith and practice.' " Did
you catch that? In other words, what the Bible means by what it says should be only
reached on the basis of what "Christian orthodoxy" says it means. While it is
true that we in orthodoxy do hold to certain universal biblical truths that have been
painstakingly gone over and systematized through the centuries, it should not mean
however, that our ultimate understanding of what scripture says should be placed upon the
altar of humanistic opinion that takes it cue from what a creed or ancient synod has said
that it means. This is especially true in the area of Eschatology. As we have pointed out,
futurism is an assumed conclusion, not an exegetical one. This writer in particular has
challenged Andrew Sandlin in an open letter to debate with him on the subject of biblical
eschatology. Mr. Sandlin has declined not only this writers offer, but the request to
publicly defend his positions with others of the full preterist camp as well. It is
entirely understandable why he and others outside of the full preterist camp refuse to do
this. If the fact of the poor exegesis that has been given in other writings against full
preterism is any example, then I too would not want to be caught in a public forum and be
out gunned. Because they refuse to engage us, the preterists win by default once again.
What is very encouraging to us is the amount of people which are not in leadership
positions, who are seeing the beauty of the scriptural teaching of full preterism and are
coming out of all the various forms of futurism, and into the full preterist camp. The
fresh wind of God's Holy Spirit is blowing through the church as the Lord reforms His
people once again, this time in the area of correcting it's forlorn eschatology.
Mr. Mathison goes on presenting his flawed understanding of his own
"Sola Creedala": "If we do not believe that God providentially guided the
church to establish a basic rule of faith (the creed), then there is no such thing as
Christian orthodoxy." (Pg. 239) There is no such thing as Christian orthodoxy if we
do not believe God has guided the church to establish the creeds?!?! If Calvin spins any
faster in his grave, his body is going to show up in China. So according to Mathison, the
scripture alone is insufficient when it comes to maintaining orthodoxy in the church. God
needs men who will tell us what to believe. Is that about right Mr. Mathison? I for one
would be shaking in my boots to write something that contradictory to the Bible. How
incredibly "lucky" the saints at Berea were that they just happened to hit on
the right doctrine that expressed the truth of Christ being the biblical Messiah.
"These were more noble that those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word of
God with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether these things
were so." (Acts 17: 11). Notice what the Holy Spirit instructs the believer to do in
order to come to the right biblical conclusion.
(1) "Receive the word of god with all readiness of mind." The
problem with those who are dependant upon a creed to tell them what the text of scripture
means by what it says, is that they are placing their trust in the fallible words of men
as they are enunciated in the creed in order to keep them on the right track. But what if
the creed is found to be flawed, as is most certainly the case when it comes to
eschatology? What if it is shown through good and proper grammatical, historical, and
comparative exegesis that the conclusions that a synod has reached are incorrect?
According to Mathison and Sandlin, you are to throw out the conclusions that are reached
in scripture, and stay with the text of the creed or confession. But by doing this, we put
ourselves in the same position the Scribes and Pharisees were in when Christ confronted
them about their adding to and altering the word of God in their day by interpreting the
Old Testament text according to the writings and opinions of the rabbi's..."...full
well ye have rejected the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition...Making
the word of God of none effect through your tradition which ye have delivered..."
(Mk. 7: 9&13) The Bereans had a ready mind. That means that they expected God to speak
to them as a result of serious searching of the scriptures.
(2) Next, the Bereans didn't give up on coming to the right conclusion
as to the meaning of scripture. It says they "Searched the scriptures daily."
They didn't give up. They could have used the established rabbinical authorities of their
day in order to come to the "traditional and orthodox" understanding of the
scriptures. If they had done that, they would have NOT concluded that Christ that Paul
preached to them was in fact the Jewish Messiah. Instead, as a result of rejecting that
which was biblically insufficient, they came to the conclusion of who Jesus of Nazareth
really was, and verse 12 says, "Therefore, many of them believed..." Faith came
as a result. Every where we look in the scriptures we are constantly told that the
scriptures are sufficient. That the man of God will come to perfection through them. (2
Tim. 3:16-17) That they alone are a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our paths (Ps.
119: 105) That it is the scriptures that cannot ever be broken (John. 10: 35). This is not
the place for a complete work on the teaching arm of the church as it born out from the
mouths of God's called and ordained pastor/ teachers. But what does the scripture say of
it's own perspicuity? Can the average believer understand it without the assistance of
those who place themselves above him in order for him to not "misunderstand" the
text? Does not even the Westminster Confession of Faith state as much? "The authority
of the holy scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, DEPENDETH NOT UPON
THE TESTIMONY OF ANY MAN OR CHURCH, BUT WHOLLY UPON GOD, (who is truth itself,) the author
thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the word of God." (WCF. 1:
4) The WCF goes on to instruct the reader that it is God the Holy Spirit that bears
witness within the heart of the believer that teaches the believer the truths that are
contained therein. "...yet not withstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the
infallible truth, and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy
Spirit, bearing witness by and with the word in our hearts." (WCF 1: 5) "All
things in scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those
things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so
clearly propounded and opened in some place of scripture or other, THAT NOT ONLY THE
LEARNED, BUT THE UNLEARNED, IN A DUE USE OF THE ORDINARY MEANS, MAY ATTAIN UNTO A
SUFFICIENT UNDERSTANDING OF THEM." (WCF. 1:7) Evidently, those of the futurist
non-preterist camp missed that in their historical catechizing of their faith when
studying opinions of the Westminster divines. "But the anointing which you have
received abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you; but as the same anointing
teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you,
ye shall abide in him." (1 John 2:27) The blessing from God is upon all those who
approach the text of scripture in the way that the original receptors of the book of
Revelation were told to approach it, "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear
the words of this prophecy, and keep those things that are written therein..." (Rev.
1:3) Read, hear, and keep what the Bible says, and the blessing will come to you.
With all of that in mind, consider what Mathison has to say
next..."Interpreting the scripture outside of the boundaries of creedal orthodoxy
does not lead merely to theological anarchy, and subjectivity, but to the complete
overthrow of Christianity itself." (Pg. 240) We would agree heartily in the truth of
these things when it comes to that which creedal orthodoxy has established through study
and comparative analysis. This has not been the case historically for issues of
eschatology. For the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ, it can safely be said that
eschatology is truly our final frontier. The creeds and historical councils have not done
the work in this field. It is NOW up to us to do so.
To continue on in the critique, Mathison points toward Dr. Kenneth
Gentry with the idea that full preterists eternalize time, saying that with the full
preterist understanding of scripture, we allow history and the fact of sin go on forever.
(Pg. 240) Precisely where in the Bible does it teach an end of this earth, and the ceasing
of sin as an expression within that earth? Not only do the scriptures teach that the earth
will abide forever (Eccl. 1:4, Ps. 78:69, Ps. 104: 5, Ps. 119:90, etc...) without ever
being destroyed (no matter how many Hal Lindsey type of summertime movie productions
Hollywood comes up with to the contrary), but unless you ignore all of the time statements
and the audience statements as to the time and nature of the "last days" events,
then you are doomed to come up with just such a scenario as has been produced by the
futurists. The fact of the matter remains that the futurist insists that every thing must
come to a final conclusion simply because of presupposition. There's that pesky word
again. This is the rose-colored-glasses approach to hermeneutics which always leads to
invalid conclusions. A final judgement that annihilates a world and brings about a world
with no sin in it whatsoever is simply just not found in scripture. But there is seemingly
no way for them to know this, because partial preterists refuse to engage us. And if they
don't, like Ed Stevens has quoted Gary North as saying, "we win by default.
" Mathison on Pg. 240, taking his cue from Gentry, says, "Does the Bible
really teach that God is going to allow rebellion against His sovereign authority (i.e.
sin) to continue forever? Full preterists have not answered this particular question
adequately." Please allow this writer to do so now. The fact of the matter is, that
unless you interpret the prophetic passages of scripture from a Jewish, apocalyptic,
historical, and cultural standpoint, you are doomed to conclude that this world with
sinful people in it are not going to be here after certain events transpire. The fact is
that no one knows how long God is going to tolerate sinful man in this earth, because THE
BIBLE DOES NOT SPEAK TO THIS SUBJECT. We are not saying that God will never deal with the
"sin problem" relative to its existence in the earth. All we are affirming is
what the scripture does speak to. And where God is silent on a subject, we too should also
be. Doesn't hearing answers like this make you want to know "how" and with what
scriptures we are able to arrive at such conclusions? The only way one can come to a
conclusion the opposite of this is to interpret the scriptures apart from their
apocalyptic and non-historical context. Case in point: Revelation 19-22, if not taken as
an apocalyptic scenario from the point of view of the way Christ and the other biblical
prophets spoke, will produce for the reader what can be seen as a kind of a wrap-up of
history at some yet future time. Unfortunately, we reach a false conclusion like that by
not paying attention to the book of Revelation as a whole. It will have to suffice at this
time to say that the book of Revelation announces from the beginning remarks that it is:
(1) To be interpreted as a book of "signs" (Rev. 1:1), (2) That it is entirely
about the destruction of the Old Covenant with the ceasing of the Levitical sacrificial
system, and the desolation of the nation of Israel. (Deut. 28: 44ff) In chapter 18 of
Revelation, we see Jerusalem being lamented over after it has been destroyed and reduced
to a heap of smoldering rubble by the Roman armies. In chapter 19, we see Christ return
(like He said he would at the end of the "great tribulation" AD 70 -- Matt. 24:
29-34) and establish His kingdom in full with His church, the bride, by His side. Chapter
20 details the final judgements with their results, and chapter 21 shows the state of the
church, His bride known as the New Jerusalem, that is spoken of in typological language.
Earlier, in chapter 20, Satan is thrown into the Lake of Fire where he is to this day.
The only thing I will say at this point because of the shortness of
space regarding the timing of the millennium, as Mathison chides us over it on Pg. 241,
(it is this writers opinion that the Chilia took place between AD 30 and 70) is the fact
that the book of Revelation specifically states that the CHILIA spoken of six times in
Rev. 20, must have of necessity occurred at the same time the rest of the events spoken to
in the book of Revelation occurred. Why do I say this with so much assurance? Notice Rev.
1:3..."Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and
keep those things which are WRITTEN THEREIN; FOR THE TIME IS AT HAND." The phrase,
"the time is at hand," is not code for two thousand years in the future. The
phrase, "at hand", meant something was as close to you as your hand. What was so
close to transpiring, that it was said to be "at hand"? The things that are
"written therein." One of those things that are written therein is the time of
the Chilia. But this is not all. After the events of chapters 20-22 are given to the
apostle John, the angel informs John as to when the things that he has just gotten through
showing him would take place. "And he said unto me,' These sayings are faithful and
true...' " what sayings? The saying that must of necessity include the events of the
Chilia as well as the resurrection of the dead and the subsequent judgements. The angel
goes on to say, " '...and the Lord God of the holy prophets sent his angel to show
unto his servants THE THINGS which must shortly be done.' " The things, including the
Chilia of chapter 20, must shortly be done. This idea is repeated continuously through to
the final chapter in verses, 7, 10, 12, 20. The plain fact of the matter is, that any kind
of a futurist view of the book of Revelation, even if the viewer only holds to a partial
futurism, literally destroys the internal factors of hermeneutic as the book of Revelation
tells us how to interpret it. To treat the events that are contained therein, any of them,
as yet future to us, is to ignore the very procedure by which the Holy Spirit has directed
us in interpreting the book. As we continue further into the appendix, we notice the Mr.
Mathison seems to have the same problem that a number of individuals who are not happy
with full preterism have. The idea that according to their understanding, full preterism
never seems to offer a "wrap-up report" at the end of the game. There doesn't
seem to be any "all important conclusion" to the earth -redemption scenario.
Well, the reason that it seems that way is because the Bible doesn't speak to the issue in
the way that the futurists present it. It's really that simple. Passages that futurists
point to that, to them, indicate very strongly about an "end" to all things and
the ushering in of a perfect, sinless, re-created spiritual/physical existence, do not
really teach what is being credited to them by the futurists. These conclusions are
arrived at simply because of the nature of a theological prejudice that is
"folded" into the mix that has been pointed before. The presuppositions that
there has to be an "end", absolutely dictate to the futurist his exegetical
(read, eisegetical) outcome. The glaring prejudices that guarantee a futurist conclusion
are forced into us from church, Bible studies, colleges and seminaries, radio teaching
ministries, and prophecy conferences. The power of this all prevailing belief is a
monument to it's idolatrous nature. We say, "idolatrous", because it is a
doctrine that is held up in place of the plain meaning of the scriptures that speak to the
time and nature of the true eschatological events. Mathison says: "Full preterists
often argue that such texts, as Matthew 13, Daniel 2, and Ezekiel 47 apply to the present
age. Edward Stevens, for example, believes that these texts picture ' the victorious
conquests of the kingdom over all cultures and nations. This is an ongoing process.' To
many, this may sound like postmillennialism, but there is one glaring difference: the
'ongoing process' never ends." Mathison next gives five examples from scripture to
supposedly "prove" his preceding point. That is, that all things do come to a
conclusion, and therefore, according to Mathison, everything must then come to an end. But
isn't he just assuming that because a goal is reached in God's eschatological plans, that
it must of necessity mean that God is now going to destroy everything and start over?
That's always been an amazing thing. The thought that postmillennialism teaches that
Christ keeps making the world and it's inhabitants better, more godly through regeneration
and righteous lawful living, gets it just where He wants it to be, then He returns and
destroys it all?!? Why not just destroy it all now, and start over?
To return to the subject of a prejudicial approach to the text of
scripture, it is an illegitimate transfer of meaning to bunch together the theory of the
Second Coming, the judgements and resurrections, all under the guise of the
misunderstanding of the phrase "the last days." The scriptures Mr. Mathison
gives do not, in fact teach what he is asserting that they teach. He first gives us Ezek.
47: 1-12...He states: "...pictures a small stream of water growing gradually until it
becomes a huge river. There is progress towards a goal (becoming a river, not an ocean),
and the goal is achieved." Again, I ask the reader, does this "goal
achieved" make it now necessary for all things relative to the earthly, human
existence, to now come to an end? No is the answer to that, since the rest of the Ezekiel
text teaches an ongoing progress of the healing nations. This ongoing healing also brings
out an implied understanding that sin is still in existence within the nations, otherwise
why would the healing need to go on or even be necessary? And why would God take the
"river" out of existence at the point when it is doing the most good?
Next, Mathison teaches us from Dan. 2: 25-24: "But the stone that
struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth...And in the days of
those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed...and
it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure
forever." When the text tells us that Christ destroys the kingdoms herein expressed
in the text, it is of course speaking of the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Grecian, and Roman
kingdoms that Christ brought an end to , thereby fulfilling the "times of the
gentiles"(Lk. 21: 24), during His initial, and parousia arrival in AD 70. The
question, however remains the same: How does what Mathison just said, make of necessity
the end of all present earthly existence mandatory. These texts do not teach such a thing.
It is forced into the conclusion by Mathison based upon his futurist presuppositions, not
his exegetical ones.
The next example that Mathison provides, is out of Matt. 13: 31-32. He
points out that the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which when it is full grown
becomes a tree. He is asserting that a goal, or conclusion is reached, and the goal being
reached now makes a destruction of this present planet, and an end to human life as it is
now, an absolute. How does he arrive at such an idea? Not from texts like the ones he is
using to support his theory So far, none of these texts, the reader must admit, states
anything like Mathison is asserting. If the tree reaches a point where it is no longer
useful, then why not just chop the tree down? Actually, the nations can still be in an
imperfect state and still be receiving great benefit from the "tree."
He uses the same line of reasoning with his quote from Matt. 13:33, the
leavening of the meal until all the lump was leavened, in his mind means there is nothing
more to do. So then does the cook throw out the lump of dough that is ready to be baked in
the oven? Of course not. He doesn't discard it, he makes bread out of it and feeds the
nations! So are we to do with the advancing leaven of the kingdom.
The last passage of Mathison's "proof" texts, is located in 1
Cor. 15: 25: "For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His
feet." The context of the text of 1 Cor. 15: 25 is sitting directly in the middle of
the events of what the biblical writers, not to mention Christ Himself, referred to as the
"parousia." The "arrival with a consequential presence." (Check any
Greek Lexicon) According to verse 23b, this putting down of all Christ's enemies happens
at His "coming" (parousia), which all of the gospel accounts and epistles place
happening during the lifetime of the generation of those who experienced Christ in the
flesh. (Matt. 10: 23, 16: 27-28, 24: 29-31, 26: 64. The "enemies" that Christ
puts down at His coming, are those in the spiritual realm. Principalities, authorities,
rulers in the heavenly realms, spiritual wickedness in high places. These
"enemies" were the real authorities over nations and people groups. Note Dan.
10: 10-21. Cross this with Christ's coming to judge the world in Rev. 11: 15-18, then
notice that as a result of Christ's coming in Rev. 11: 15-18, that Rev. 12: 7-12 has Satan
and all principalities, demonic authorities, and rulers in the heavenly realms, all cast
out from their positions of authority, and thrown to the earth. Note that 2 Cor. 4:4 says
that Satan was the god of "that" age (before the age changed to the present in
AD 70 -- see Matt. 13:40ff, "the end of 'this' present age"). Note the AION as
it appears throughout the gospels and epistles, and it will be plain that the writers as
well as Christ expected that the first century generation would see the end of the age
occur in their lifetime, and that along with it came the entrance in of the present age we
are now living in. The age of the new covenant. But, you must lay down your creedal
presuppositions, let God be true and every man a liar, and approach the scriptures with a
heart that is willing to be taught.
So far the biggest problem with the futurists is that they are just
arrogant enough to believe that all truth rests with them and their presuppositional
interpretation of scripture. That the only thing they can hope to do when being confronted
with the likes of a biblically well armed full preterist, is to give the holier-than-thou
excuse of "we don't debate heretics!" Chicken Little would be proud. Mathison
ends this section with the statement: "A battle of conquest that continues forever,
is not a victory. It is a stalemate." However, a statement like that assumes (again)
that the earth and its inhabitants will one day cease. Scripture teaches the
opposite...The earth will exist forever: "One generation and another generation
comes, but the earth abides forever." Eccl. 1:4 "...You who laid the foundations
of the earth, so that it should not be moved forever." Ps. 104:5 "...and He
built His sanctuary like the heights, like the earth which He has established
forever." Ps. 78: 69 "...Praise Him you heavens of heavens, and you waters above
the heavens ... He also established them forever and ever; He made a decree which shall
not pass away." Ps. 148: 4-6 "...The Earth will exist forever" ...
"The earth abides forever" ... "(it should) not be moved forever." ...
"the earth which He has established forever." That's a lot of
"forever's" isn't it?
QUESTION: When does "forever" not mean forever?
ANSWER: When a futurist sees it get in the way of his presuppositions!
How does one equate passages like these with futurist ideas like the
physical planet burning up and being destroyed, and the physical population being
terminated? 2 Pet. 3: 10ff certainly does not teach the end of the planet and terminating
of human/ physical life. The only way that can be arrived at, is to ignore the Greek
meaning of "stoichea" (elements), and the Hebraic meaning of the phrase
"heaven and earth." (Isa. 13:13, 51:16, 65:17, 66:22. Hag. 2:6,21-22. Heb.
12:26-28. 2 Pet. 3:6-13. Rev. 21:1. All references to the Heavens and the Earth as a
Hebraic phrase for the religio-political government of a people group, including the idea
of the expression for the Old Covenantal system of the Temple sacrificial system).
Why does there have to be this insistence on all things coming to an end
if the Bible does not teach such a thing? The Bible teaches that generations of people
will go on eternally while occupying this earth. Sound crazy? Check your "brain
wash" level, it's on high heat. How does the futurist deal with these passages...Eph.
3:21: "...to Him (God) be glory in the church by Jesus Christ to all generations,
forever and ever. Amen." At first read, it does seem to be simply communicating that
God will always be receiving glory in the church, through the Lord Jesus Christ forever.
But a close examination of the Greek text reveals something more. The reason God always
receives glory by Jesus Christ THROUGH the church, is because the church is made up of
those individuals who populate her into the "age of the ages." Revelation 21 has
the church, (the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ), upon the earth into the ages. With
it being populated with the people of nations constantly streaming into it in the earthly
future Rev. 21: 9, 10, 24. "EIS PAS TAS GENEAS TOU AIONOS TON AIONON."
Literally, "Into all the generations of the age, the ages." Here the idea in the
Greek is "all the families of man, into eternity." The Greek, TOU AION TON
AIONON, is often rendered elsewhere by the word "eternal", (See
"Englishman's Greek Concordance." pp. 19-20, Wigram, Zondervan edition,
thirteenth profiting-1981) Simply put, there must of necessity, be generations that are
alive on the earth in order for this passage to be fulfilled. It is ongoing fulfillment
that makes the existence of earthly peoples necessary. To simply say that the passage is
just saying that God will always receive glory from the church through Christ, is only
interpreting half of the passage. If all Paul wanted to communicate was that, then he
should have left off the phrase, TOU AIONOS TON AIONON. He ties "generations",
(earthly families) into that which goes on for eternity. Make no mistake, these earthly
families are ongoing as one physical generation leads to the next. Listen to the Conybeare
translation of this passage: "...even to all the generations from the age to the
ages." ASV: "unto all generations forever and ever." Adam Clark gives this
observation from his commentary on Ephesians: "Throughout all ages." 'Through
all succeeding generations -- while the race of human beings continues to exist on the
face of the earth.' " Notice the KJV's translation of this phrase TOU AIONOS TON
AIONON..."Unto Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus, throughout all ages, WORLD
WITHOUT END." Obviously, the 1611 people had no problem with the idea that the world
would go on without ending into the ages. In the time honored commentary of Jamison,
Fausset and Brown, in Vol. 3, David Brown comments on the passage before us.
"Eternity as the grand age is conceived as consisting of ages, these again consisting
of 'generations' ENDLESSLY SUCCEEDING ONE ANOTHER." Consider another passage that
speaks of the continuous cycling of generations on into the future. "And God said:
'This is the sign of the covenant, which I make between me and you, and every living
creature that is with you, FOR PERPETUAL GENERATIONS.' " Gen. 9:12.
"Perpetual" here is the Hebrew word, "OLAM." This is the word for
everlasting, evermore, ancient, always. If God wanted to communicate that something was
going to last forever in the Hebrew language, He would use the word, OLAM, like he did
here to Noah, saying that the covenant He was making with mankind regarding the sign of
the rainbow, etc...was to be, not for "generations" alone, but for generations
that go on everlastingly. The point being that God's covenant is made for generations that
are perpetual. The covenant is made perpetual because the generations are perpetual.
The thing that the futurists must cease from doing, is providing proof
texts for their arguments that do not mean what they say that they mean. What passages are
there that teach that one day, this planet will cease to exist, along with the present
generations of humans? We may be waiting for an answer for some time yet...
Finally, on PP 243-244, Mr. Mathison asks some direct questions, to
which we will now try to give direct answers to be followed up by some quick comments.
Mathison says: "Because full preterism claims to be a valid
Christian option, it is incumbent upon full preterists to answer some other important
questions." Pg. 243
Q.1..."If Christ arose in the same body that was crucified, (even
granting changes in it), where is that body now?"
Ans...The Bible teaches us that the nature of Christ's resurrection body
is that of a glorified physical earthly body that is able to exist in the spiritual/
earthly realms. We know this from the examples found in the gospel accounts that present
Christ as appearing and disappearing in front of witnesses as was the case involving the
two disciples on the Emmaus road. As they sat with Christ at the table, the text says that
as He broke bread, their eyes were opened, and He vanished from their sight. During the
forty day period that He was appearing to men on the earth after His resurrection, Paul
makes reference to the brethren of 500 that all saw Him at once. In other words, full
preterism teaches that Christ returned to the generation he originally appeared to in AD
70, and stayed after He arrived. This is in accordance with the meaning of the Greek
"parousia", that means, "an arrival with a consequential presence."
The nature of the word itself provides nothing of the meaning of the individual who
"parousia's" as leaving and coming back yet again. Rather, once Christ returned,
He remained in the spiritual realm on the earth, just like He did during the forty day
period when He was appearing and disappearing before witnesses. Christ is here in the
spiritual realm on the earth in His glorified physical / spiritual body. He is not seen at
present for the same reasons He chose to not be seen at various times during the forty day
period before His ascension when He was appearing to some, but not to others. His being
seated at the right hand of the father, was for the forty year transitional period between
AD 30 and 70, only until His enemies were made His footstool. That has now occurred, and 1
Cor. 15: 23-28 has been the spiritual norm ever since.
Q.2..."Did Christ shed His glorified body and thus cease to be
fully human? Or did His human nature cease to be a truly human nature by acquiring the
divine attribute of omnipresence?"
Ans...Is Mr. Mathison serious with a question like this? It sounds to me
like he is attempting to trap the full preterist into biting the bait on the hook so he
can declare us all heretics. At no time did Christ shed His human body and cease being
fully human or fully divine since the time of His resurrection, unto the present day. At
no point do we preterists deny the glorified spiritual body of the Lord Jesus Christ and
the eternal nature of it. At no time in the future will He ever shed His physical and
glorified state. It should be understood that Christ will always share in the attributes
of God the Father and God the Spirit. This includes the attribute of omnipresence.
Q.3..."If Christians receive their resurrected bodies at the point
of death, where do those resurrection bodies go? Do Christians go to be with Christ here
on earth, or do they go to heaven? Do Christians wander around with Christ in their
incorporeal resurrection bodies forever?"
Ans...This tactic is known in debate circles as a "reductio ad
absurdum." That is, the tactic of trying to reduce your opponents argument to the
most ridiculous level, thus disqualifying his arguments. Unfortunately, for Mathison, this
is now about to backfire on him. First, Paul taught the Corinthians that upon the point of
death, since the resurrection occurrence (which coincided with Christ's parousia in AD
70), believers did and do receive their immortal bodies that have been prepared for them.
(2 Cor. 5: 1-4) To ask the question, "where do these resurrection bodies go?" Is
to demonstrate a possible lack of common biblical knowledge as to the nature of eternal
life with Christ. I apologize for the simplicity of the foregoing answer, but the believer
goes to be with Christ. Wherever Christ is, there the believer will be found to be with
Him.
"Let not your heart be troubled...In my Fathers house are many
mansions...I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I
will come again and receive you unto myself,( notice also the time and audience nature of
this promise. Christ was planning on returning to those whom He spoke this to), that where
I am, there you will be also." (John. 14:1-4). Paul taught us that to be absent from
the (physically earthly body) was to be present with the Lord. (2 Cor. 5:8, Phillip.
1:23)...No, Mr. Mathison, Christians do not, "wander around with Christ in their
incorporeal resurrected bodies." Mathison paints the preterist position as an aimless
wandering with Christ, suggesting that Christ's rule now is somehow a pointless excursion.
This suggestion that Mr. Mathison is making is akin to blaspheming the present and future
nature of the life eternal. No one is wandering except those now who cannot supply a
strong case for their position (as all futurists cannot), and then refuse to engage those
of us in the full preterist position who can.
Mathison further suggests in his question, another incorrect conception
as to the nature of the believers resurrected body as is taught by the scriptures.
Mathison uses the phrase in the comment just quoted, "incorporeal resurrection
bodies." Full preterists DO NOT believe that our resurrected bodies that we receive
upon death are "incorporeal." They are spiritually superior to these earthly
bodies that we are now in that are designed for life on planet earth. The text of 1 Cor.
15: 35-49 couldn't be clearer unless one is blinded by the presupposition of futurism.
What is the resurrected body like? Well, Paul says, It's like a seed that goes into the
ground. The outer shell falls away into the dust so that what comes out of the ground is
not the same as what was placed into it. The believers body, like the seed in Paul's
analogy, contains within it the germ or sperm of life that gives birth to the new creation
that springs forth out of the ground. This is our spirit that has been redeemed by the
blood of Christ. The outer shell of the seed falls away into the dust never to see the
light of day again. The inner part of the seed which contains the life of the seed is what
springs forth in resurrection and is joined with the believers resurrection body which is
available upon the believers earthly death (2 Cor. 4:18 - 5:1-4). This new body which Paul
says is not the same body as that which was buried, or sown in the ground (1 Cor. 15: 37),
but is rather the spirit of the redeemed believer that is given literally, a new body.
Paul pressing the analogy of the believers resurrected body and what it's nature is, says,
"And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be...But God gives it a body
as He pleases, and to each seed it 's own body." (1 Cor. 15:37-38) No, Mr. Mathison,
Christians do not wander around without a body.
Q. 4...Next, Mathison asks questions involving the authority of the
creeds, and wants to know first if the creeds contain errors on other areas of doctrinal
authority. He assumes that our answer will be, "No, the creeds are not errant in the
areas of say the Trinity and the deity of Christ." Which then leads him to ask,
"Is it not possible for a merely human document to be inerrant as a matter of fact
without implying that it's authors are incapable of error? Is there not a difference
between claiming that someone 'did not err' and claiming that he 'cannot err.' "
Ans...What Mathison may be trying to get us to affirm is that if we
agree that the creeds are without error on these other points of doctrine, then how can
they suddenly be erroneous within the area of eschatology?
NOTE.. If the above interpretation of Mathison's question is correct,
then this is to assume that just because a fallible individual is correctly enunciating a
biblical doctrine in one place, are we to then assume that he is unlikely to make a
mistake about the meaning of a biblical doctrine in another? The fallacy of the logic is
obvious on its face.
He then backs up what he is trying to say by asking the question,
"Is there a difference between claiming that someone 'did not err' and claiming that
he 'cannot err.' " This is truly an amazing example of verbal slight of hand.
Mathison is trying to hold on to his emotional position of seeing the creeds as an
authority equal to the scriptures, but at the same time not wanting to admit that he
really does believe that the creeds are inerrant. Face it Mr. Mathison, you're a
"creedolatrist." You believe that the framers of the historical creeds and
confessions are THE GUIDE for interpreting the Bible. The words of men are your touchstone
for what is biblical truth. Do you deny this? Sandlin sure doesn't, and I must assume
because you quote him as saying as much that you agree with it.
Q. 5..."If the 'perfect' has come, and we now see face-to-face
rather than in a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:10, 12), why do we have to grow in our
understanding of doctrine?" Ans.. Several assumptions on Mr. Mathison's part need to
be corrected here. First, he assumes that the "perfect" that comes, and the
seeing face to face, is a reference by Paul to the Second Coming of Christ, or at least
the believer being in some sort of a completed state. We cannot develop it here, but
Paul's entire context in which these words are found is right in the middle of his
discussion to the Corinthians in regards to a comparison between partial revelation
(prophecy, tongues, words of knowledge), and complete, or perfect revelation (the canon of
scripture). The text of 1 Cor. 13: 8-12 is not dealing with the completed condition
believers find themselves in at the second coming, rather, it is Paul's explanation about
the ceasing and suspending of the revelational gifts of the Holy Spirit. We understand
that this is a debatable area of scripture. But since the aforementioned explanation can
be shown to have much exegetical merit, and commentary support, it leaves Mathison's
assertion found within his question in an unstable position.
Q.6..."Why did the coming of Christ in (AD) 70 lead to such rapid
doctrinal decay and confusion?" Ans.. Again presuppositions abound in this question.
It is assumed by Mathison that upon the return of Christ, the church will exist in a
perpetual state of doctrinal perfection. Funny thing, the Bible does not teach that when
Christ's "parousia" took place, that the result would be that no one in the body
of Christ would ever be involved in error, or misapplication of the scripture. And let it
be known that this writer personally objects to Mr. Mathison's assertion that as a result
of the return of Christ in AD 70, the church was lead into what he calls, "rapid
doctrinal decay and confusion." Mr. Mathison is very aware that the dissemination of
the NT scriptures was hardly on the level of what we have today with the average household
containing one or more complete copies of the Bible. The first, second, and third
centuries of the church were not flush with complete and correct manuscripts that were
available in abundance. This is the main reason, along with the fact of other competing
belief systems, as to why the doctrinal error and confusion were in existence in the early
years of the church. The fact that Mathison would blame the return of the Lord as being
the culprit in such a thing, is astounding at the least, and irresponsible at worst.
Q. 7...Mathison's final question poses a very serious question on the
pastoral level involving a hypothetical situation on the question of what to tell a person
that is dying with cancer that in this present age their is no longer any death. Or the
painful scenario about what to say to a little boy whose mother has left him, that God has
already wiped away every tear. This type of approach is typically taken by those who are
enemies of preterism when they have run themselves into a creedal wall with no other way
to look because "if the creeds don't say it, then it just ain't so!"
Plainly, Mathison, having run out of exegetical ammunition, must now
attempt to make his case against full preterism by appealing to the emotional level in man
to get him to turn away from full preterism. The mask is certainly off now. Again, with
Mathison's hypothetical situations that he poses, he is again revealing a real
misunderstanding of the preterist position in regards to these things, as well as
revealing a serious misunderstanding on his part as to the meaning of the passages he is
attempting to use. There go the exegetical abilities of those who place their hope in
"thus sayeth the creed." The passages that speak on "no more death",
and the fact that "God wipes away every tear", are within their own contexts
speaking of the spiritual nature of the kingdom, and not the physical.
First, the reason Mathison misinterprets these passages is because of
(1), his allegiance to the creeds as the primary interpreter of the Bible. And (2), the
primary place that the prejudicial, presupposition of futurism has in his life as they act
as a hermeneutical dictator. His belief that 1 Cor. 15:26, which says, "The last
enemy that will be destroyed is death", has to do with physical death, presupposes
his use of the texts in his emotional scenario. This passage, along with 1 Cor. 15: 54-56
is discussing the victory over death that has to do with the death that was passed onto
all mankind via Adam's federal headship. That death did not bring on physical death. The
death that sin brings separates man from fellowship with God. The context in both passages
only reads as physical death IF one prejudices one's self toward that.
Physical death is not a result of the fall of Adam. Adam was designed to
physically die according to Gen. 3:19, and 2:7. Because man was taken from the ground,
before the fall had occurred, then to the ground, or to dust he was always destined to
return. Compare this with the fact that Heb. 9: 27says that it is appointed for every man
(including Adam), once to die...Cross reference this with passages like Job. 14: 5, and
Ps. 139: 16, and you have a clear, contextual explanation as to why men die physically. So
goes another tradition that seems to be guiding the exegesis of the doctors of the church
as opposed to the teachings of scripture. Men suffer from physical death, brought on by
sickness or otherwise, by the eternal decree and providential actions of God. The same is
true within Rom. 8: 18-25. The "creature" or the "creation" that is
spoken of here is a reference to mankind, not physical, inanimate creation. This is and
has been easily provable. Lastly, the passage in Rev. 21: 4, "And God will wipe away
every tear from their eyes, ..." Is a passage that I'm sure Mr. Mathison would agree,
must be interpreted according to it's context. The fact of the matter is, that the
descriptions of what is going on in the 21st and 22nd chapters of Revelation, have
primarily to do with the spiritual facts of life in the church, the new Jerusalem, the
Bride of Christ. It all speaks of the finishing up of the Old Covenant system, and the
bringing in of the New Covenant in its fullness. This is our present experience NOW. The
phrase, "God will wipe away every tear from their (our) eyes," is a reference to
the fullness of personal relationship that each believer has with God. That He is
personally attending to our pains and sorrows. No more death! That is, no more separation
from God in the full spiritual realities of experiencing the present age. The fact of the
matter remains that what must be first of all seen as primary in this subject of
preterism, is answering the question: "When Christ and the writers of the New
Testament spoke of the timing of His return, when did they say that return would be? At
the end of the world, or at the end of their age?" Once that is established, all
these other considerations begin to take a correct exegetical shape in our studies. Our
presuppositions very much determine our world view. Time really does determine nature.
In Mathison's final page, which he titles, "Evaluation", he
tries to settle the all important issue of authority. Does the individual Christian have
the right to decide "what is or what is not orthodoxy?" Is this decision best
left up to those who are in positions of ecclesiastical authority? Should they be
primarily relying upon the historic creeds and synodical decisions of the church in order
to chart their course through the sea of biblical understanding? The biblical answer is
that while scripture points to the necessity of having the office of elder over the lives
of the local church corporate, it is equally relevant as expressed in holy writ, that the
individual saint does have the responsibility to be a Berean (Acts 17: 11-12). While not
all are called or should even dare to teach doctrine (Jam. 3: 1), yet for those who have
been, and have come under the qualifications for elder in a local assembly, the question
persists: "What is the primary authority in the church of Christ on the earth that is
inerrant and infallible?" If the scriptures are that, and it can be shown through
exegetical means that the traditions, creeds and decisions of synods have been and are
erroneous in this area of eschatology, then is the church to just ignore the biblical
facts out of fear of rocking the boat of what has come to be known as church tradition? Is
the issue really one of using the creeds and confessions as a means of interpreting
scripture? And if so, how do we know if the framers of the creeds and confessions were
rightly dividing the word of truth themselves, UNLESS we hold what they wrote up to the
white hot light of the scriptures, and test all things and hold fast to that which is
good? (1 Thess. 5: 21)
The responsibility for the direction of the church of Christ does not
only fall to the framers of the creeds. We also have the responsibility to our generation,
just as they did to theirs, to "Study to show (ourselves) approved of God, a worker
who does not need to be ashamed, (able to) rightly dividing the word of truth." (2
Tim. 2: 15)
When the best argument the partial-preterist comes up with against full
preterism, is to say that the church historically has always believed in a yet future to
them, physical, visible Second Coming of Christ, then they place the traditions of men as
superior to the word of God. Mr. Mathison, and all of the critics of full preterism need
to answer the phone. It's been ringing for some time now, issuing a challenge to those of
the "Third Coming "persuasion. And by the way, where does the inescapable
conclusion of the partial preterist believing in a yet "Third Coming" fall in
relationship to the creeds? The fact of the matter is that the preterists HAVE NOT added
to the creeds. The fact of the matter is, that the partial preterists HAVE added to the
creeds by postulating a still-yet-to-occur THIRD coming. A Full Preterist does not do such
a thing. We maintain along with the framers of the creeds and confessions that the Bible
teaches only ONE Second Coming. We simply understand the time and nature of the doctrine
of the Second Coming as being different than the creeds say, because we are arguing from
scripture itself, and not from the position of a historically passed on, presupposition.
The phone is ringing! Who will answer the call is anybody's guess.
Articles
