In this final post, Toussaint addresses other issues in preterism. The preterists say that “all these things” in Matthew 24:29 “refer to the non-bodily, non-personal coming of Christ through the Roman army in the first century” (The End Time Controversy, page 94).
Toussaint in a journal article disagrees: “The word ['coming' Gk. parousia] in the New Testament is always used of an actual presence. In 1 Corinthians 16:17; 2 Corinthians 7:6-7; 10:10; Philippians 1:26; 2:12; and 2 Thessalonians 2:9 parousia refers to a person’s bodily presence. In all the other cases parousia is used of the Lord’s presence at His second coming (1 Cor. 15:23; 1 Thess. 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thess. 2:1, 8; James 5:7-8; 2 Pet. 1:16; 3:4, 12: 1 John 2:28). Since the only occurrences parousia in the Gospels are in Matthew 24, it would seem that they too refer to a yet-future coming of Christ” (Stanley Toussaint, A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse, “Bibliotheca Sacra 161 /October-December 2004, 476.”
The prophecy of Christ in Matthew 24:29-31 and its parallel in Luke 21:25-28 is that at the Second Coming of Christ, Israel would be rescued from the horrors of the antichrist. Christ in Luke 21:28 said, “When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draws nigh.”
The preterists say these verses were fulfilled in A.D. 70. When was the nation of Israel rescued in A.D. 70? According the Josephus, the Jewish historian, Israel was not rescued; Israel was massacred. Josephus says that 1.1 million Jews were killed and 97,000 were taken captive during the destruction of Jerusalem.
Both Toussaint and Walvoord in their commentaries give the divergent views concerning the meaning of “generation” in Matthew 24:29. Both refer to the view that says Christ was in error when he made this statement because the present generation did not live to see the signs fulfilled. This was the view of M’Neile. This view attacks and denies the sinlessness of Christ.
Both mention the view that “generation” has the Jewish people of Israel in mind. This is the view of Arno C. Gaebelein. According to this view the nation of Israel will live to see the Second Coming of Christ when they see the signs of Matthew 24:4-31. Even though antichrist will seek to exterminate the nation of Israel, they will survive to see Christ’s return. “This is a legitimate interpretation since genea can mean ‘race, stock, or lineage’ (Toussaint, Behold the King, page 279).
Walvoord gives his preference for the view that takes “generation” in its normal sense of meaning a “period of thirty to one hundred years, and refers to the particular generation that will see the specific signs, that is, the signs of the great tribulation. In other words, the same generation that will experience the great tribulation will also witness the second coming of Christ” (Matthew: Thy Kingdom Come, page 193).
This is the view preferred by Toussaint also over the Jewish interpretation. “Although it is true that the Jewish race will continue until the end, the context does not support this view as well as the other. These words were spoken with the word ‘near’ in view (verse thirty-two). When the tree is tender and it puts forth leaves, then the summer is known to be near. Thus the first sign of the Son of Man’s coming indicate its proximity. It is so close that the generation that is alive when the first sign appears will live to see the coming of Christ” (Toussaint, Behold the King, pages 279-280).
What is your response to Toussaint’s handling of preterism? Where do you agree or disagree? Let me know what you think.
I would obviously disagree with Tossaint. To tie the verses in Matthew and Luke to the Jewish suffering in 70 A.D. is a far stretch from scripture and my mind even reality. As many times as the second coming is referred to in Scripture with no reference to a spiritual coming to Israel I just don’t see their conclusions. And again he comes back to his abandonment and others abandonment of the literal interpretation of Scripture.
Paul, you said it in one sentence.” And again he comes back to his abandonment and others abandonment of the literal interpretation of Scripture”. We cannot abandon the rules of hermeneutics. To have a clear interpretation of scripture is that scripture supports our interpretation. This is best done with a literal interpretation. The interpretation of Toussaint creates more questions than it answers.
I agree, every problem with the preterist view stems back to the failure to interpret the Scripture with literal interpretation. their views raise more questions regarding other passages; because they fail once to interpret Scripture properly they must fail again.
That is a very good point in was Israel rescued from the invasion? The answer is no. They were massacred. This would be another evidence against preterism. Also for Toussaint and Walvoord to say that Christ spoke in error would also be a very dangerous position. Jesus is Lord, He is God, and He can not lie.
David, I agree that Toussaint and Walvoord saying the Christ spoke in error is a very dangerous position. This brings to mind that false teaching is still alive and well today. People need to know what the Bible says, study it intently and pray for God’s guidance and direction.
I thought he did a good job of describing the preterist view and bringing up the weak points. I agree with Mr. Toussaint that the word coming can only mean a bodily coming of our Lord but disagree with his view of generation. If he holds at all to a view that Christ misspoke about the generation in Matt. 24:29, then I can not really trust Mr. Toussaint to have a correct view on any Scripture as he is intimating Christ sinned.
I agree with the fact that Jesus is coming. The terms of generation and coming and the definitions of each, we can debate and attempt to explain away certain things but the bottom line is that in our finite minds we are not going to be able to answer every question, dot every “I”, and cross every “T”. To say that we can is to put ourselves on the same level as God. By Faith accept it, by Grace be saved, and know that He is coming again to receive us unto Himself and be busy doing the work He has called us to do. Understand the Bible for what it is, the inerrant Word of God.
again words are defined by context. different passages with their context place that specific meaning for the word at that time; you cannot take that context for the word with its “meaning” and apply it to another area of scripture and claim the same meaning.
what a glorious day when christ returns.
That is some deep fishing to say the Roman Army’s tyranny was the Coming of Christ in a non-personal way. The argument continues on the use of the words “this generation” As far as Walvoord and Toussaint says Christ was in error they are both foolish men.
I feel that this post needed to stop when it was said, “Both refer to the view that says Christ was in error when he made this statement because the present generation did not live to see the signs fulfilled.” Wow, saying Christ was in error would mean He lied and therefore was not sinnless. If He was not sinnless, then He could not have been a Savior.
Preterism is a good example of how far people will go to prove their point. God is fallible in this view which leads to dangerous doctrinal beliefs. Preterism not only twists end times but also the omnipotence of God. If Jesus was wrong about one thing how can we trust anything He taught? Where does His infallibity end? And as you said John…how could He save anyone if He was not a sinless man? Being sinless would mean honesty integrity and trustworthiness. His character would allow nothing but these traits.
I am not quite sure yet how I feel about Toussaint’s handling of preterism. Preterism is new to me. From what I have read in the posts their views are allegorized and not based on the literal interpretation of the Scriptures. However the last paragraph of Toussaints interpretation of Matt. 24:32 makes sense to me, but I need to study on it at this point.
I agree that the statement about Christ making an error is truly wrong. To fit there view that have to say that what Christ said is He got it wrong. What? Christ knew what He was saying when He said it and when talking about the future He got it right every time He spoke of it. When we start talking Christ Words and saying they are false to fit our view then we need to check ourselves and truly get back to His word and study it a little more.
“Both refer to the view that says Christ was in error when he made this statement…” Now Christ was/in error? My response to Toussaint’s handling of preterism is that it is nonsense/makes no sense and is not supported by a clear valid literal grammatical interpretation of scripture.
God was wrong…hmm…that about sums up their view. If God erred than could it be possible that they (preterists) too are in error or are they above err? Do preterists contradict the infallible view of Scripture also 2 Tim. 3:16?
There will be a literal coming of Christ. So either you are a heretic in the full on preterist camp or you are an inconsistent partial preterist. May be Christ be honored and this view cease for its stupidity.