Archive for the ‘Preterism’ Category

Partial Preterist’s view of “Generation”

Posted: April 9, 2010 in Preterism
Tags: , , , , , ,
23

Stanley D. Touusaint discusses the four major views of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24-25. The first view is called the critical interpretation. This view does not even believe that Jesus taught this sermon but rather the early church produced the Olivet Discourse. This is a liberal view with no regard for inspiration.

Another view is the age-long fulfillment view which sees the prophecy as fulfilled through the inter-advent period. This is an amellinnial view.

Then there is premillennial posttribulationalism held to by men like Payne, Ladd, Wayne Grudem and dispensationalists Robert Gundry. But the view of our concern is what Touusaint calls the past fulfillment view which sees Matthew 24 already  fulfilled in A.D. 79

The past fulfillment view is the view of postmillinnialists J. Marcellus Kik. Important to Kik’s partial preterism is Matthew 24:34 about which he writes: “If the literal and well-defined meaning of this verse is accepted, it will be seen that this verse divides the chapter into two sections. Section One speaks of events which were to occur to the generation living at the time that Christ spoke these words. Section Two speaks of events to occur at the Second Coming of the Lord. Verse 34 is the division point of the two sections” (Matthew Twenty-four, An Exposition, page 9).

About Matthew 24:34, Thomas Ice writes, “The Bible verse most widely used by preterists in their attempt to establish their thesis concerning Bible prophecy is Matthew 24:34” (The End Time Controversy, page 90).

Partial preterists Gary DeMar draws attention to the single word in Matthew 24:34 that preterists must misinterpret to support their view. “Every time ‘this generation’ is used in the New Testament, it means, without exception, the generation to whom Jesus was speaking” (End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology, page 68).

Is this statement by DeMar biblically accurate? It is not! For example, the generation referred to in Hebrews 3:10 was the generation in the wilderness wanderings: “Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their hearts; and they have not known my ways.” The context of each use of “generation” must determine if the generation is contemporary or not. The context of “generation” in Hebrew 3:10 obviously is not contemporary.

Christ in Matthew 24:34 said the generation that sees all of the signs of 24:4-31 will not pass away. Did the generation of Christ’s day see fulfilled all of the signs predicted in A.D. 70 as the preterists insist? Did they see Matthew 24:29 fulfilled? Matthew 24:29 says, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.” Did Jesus’ generation see these signs? Not literally and that is the reason for allegorizing of J. Marcellus Kik and R. C. Sproul.

To hold to the preterist’s view that every sign given by Christ that preceded Matthew 24:34 was fulfilled in A.D.70 takes serious allegorizing. Kik’s interpretation of Matthew 24:29 is an example. “If the sun, moon, and stars refer to the Jewish nation and its prerogatives, then we have seen the fulfillment of this prophecy. The Jewish nation has been darkened and no longer shines for God. This has been true ever since the tribulation of those days….The Sun of Judaism has been darkened; as the moon it no longer reflects the Light of God; bright stars, as were the prophets, no longer shine in the Israel of the flesh” (Matthew Twenty-four, An Exposition, page 9).

Are these cosmic disturbances to be interpreted literally or must they be spiritualized? Were signs given in the Bible to be literally interpreted? The answer is found in Genesis 1:14 when God informed us as to why He created the sun, moon, and stars. “And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.” At least one of the purposes of the stellar heavens is for signs. Therefore, the signs in Matthew 24:29 must be interpreted literally and did not happen in A.D. 70.

If there was a literal darkness at the death of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 27:45 for three hours why can not there be a literal darkness at his second coming according to Matthew 24:29?

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). 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.

“Generation” means the Jewish People in the Tribulation

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).

“Generation” means the generation living at the Second Coming

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. 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” (pages 279-280).

Amillennialism and Revelation 20

Posted: March 26, 2010 in End Time Events, Preterism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
21

R. C. Sproul gives an overview of the millennial views. He formerly was amillennial but more recently has changed to preterism.This video series is based on his book The Last Days according to Jesus. Walvoord defines amillennialism in his introduction to Revelation 20: “The amillennial interpretation is essentially a denial that there will be a millennial reign of Christ after His second advent. It is amillennial or nonmillennial because it denies such a literal reign of Christ on earth” (The Revelation of Jesus Christ, page 284). Walvoord divides amillennialism into different subdivisions.

The Historic Augustinian form of Amillennialism

The impact of Augustine on eschatology is noted by Pentecost: “With the contribution of Augustine to theological thinking amillennialism came into prominence. While Origen laid the foundation in establishing the non-literal method of interpretation, it was Augustine who systematized the non-literal view of the millennium into what is now known as amillennialism” (Things To Come, page 381). Augustine’s false view of eschatology arose out of his false view of ecclesiology.

In Augustines’s The City of God, Augustine taught that the visible church was the Kingdom of God on earth. In addition to spiritualizing Israel into the church, Augustine spiritualized away the millennium into the inter-advent period between the two advents of Christ.

In reference to Revelation 20, Augustine believed that verses 1-6 were a recapitulation of the preceding chapters rather than a chronological sequence that follows the events of chapter 19. Augustine also interpreted the first resurrection of 20:4-6 as the new birth of believers in this age. He believed the 1000 year millennium would end around AD 650 (Oswald T. Allis, Prophecy and the Church, page 3).

Like Walvoord, Pentecost divides amillennialism into two camps. Augustinian amillennialism is held to by Roman Catholicism because they view the reign of Christ over the kingdom in His church on earth. This is the amillennialism of Berkhof.

The B. B. Warfield form of Amillennialism

B.B. Warfield believed the present reign of Christ is not over saints on earth as Augustine believed and later the Roman Catholic Church, but the present reign of Christ is over believers in heaven.

Amillennial problem with a literal 1000 years in Revelation 20

The number for the length of the millennium is stated six times in Revelation 20:1-7. Whether the amillennialists are in the Augustine or Warfield camp, they reject a literal interpretation of “a thousand years” (chilia ete) and allegorize the numbers to mean an undetermined, extended length of time between the two advents of Christ.

The first use of the definite time designation in Revelation 20 is used to describe the length of time Satan will be bound in the abyss. Robert Thomas answers the amillennialist’s interpretation of this 1000 year binding as not literal but a restriction of the influence of Satan today. “The account of 20:1-3 tells of a removal from the earth that keeps him from pursuing these activities any longer. The only way one could view Satan as bound before a time in the future would be to construe his binding as a restriction of his activity, not a cessation of it. Confinement to the abyss, however, requires a complete termination of his activity in the sphere of the earth. To date this has never happened. The uniform testimony of the NT is that Satan is not bound during the period between Christ’s two advents” (Revelation 8-22, page 404). Apparently Peter did not think the Devil was bound or restricted in his influence according to 1Peter 5:8 “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour.”

A typical argument for rejecting the 1000 years as literal is voiced by Vaughan: “I am not aware of any instance in which that particular duration (one thousand years) is used in Scripture literally. We are all familiar with the phrase, A thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday. One day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The application of the expressions is always vague, not strict: it denotes a period protracted, prolonged, but indefinite” (C. J. Vaughan, Lectures on the Revelation of John, page 215-216).

Thomas refutes this objection: “This view looks to 2 Pet. 3:8 for support, but 2 Pet. 3:8 along with Ps. 90:4 states the very opposite. ‘A thousand years’ in these two verses refers to a literal thousand years. To say that the period with man is only one day with God, does not deny that it is actually a thousand years with God too. The point is that time does not limit an eternal God, not that He is ignorant of what time means with man” (Revelation 8-22, page 407).

Had John wanted to describe the millennium as an indefinite period, he could have just done as he described the time of Satan’s release from the pit as an indefinite (micron chronon, “a little season”). But instead, John chose to a definite time designation.

Amillennialists say the numbers in Revelation are symbolic therefore the 1000 years in Revelation 20 must also be interpreted figuratively as a very long and indefinite period. Thomas makes this claim that “confirmation of a single number in Revelation as symbolic is impossible….If the writer wanted a very large symbolic number, why did he not use 144,000 (7:1 ff.; 14:1 ff.) 200,000 (9:16), “ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands of thousands” (5:11), or any incalculably large number (7:9)? The fact is that no number in Revelation is verifiably a symbolic number” (Revelation 8-22, page 408, 409).

Amillennial problem with this First Resurrection

The amillennialists interpret the first resurrection of Revelation 20:4-6 as a spiritual resurrection or the new birth experience. Dr. Bowman in his unpublished notes deals with two important words in Revelation 20 that disprove this view.

The first word is the verb “lived” (Gr. ezesan). In Revelation 20:4, the text says that tribulation believers were martyred for Christ at the first resurrection “lived” which is an ingressive aorist which means that they lived again. The verb is used of physical resurrection (Revelation 1:18; 2:8; 13:14; 20:5). These in Revelation 20:4 died for Jesus so they could not experience a spiritual resurrection because they were already saved before they came to life again.

The second important word is the noun “resurrection” (Gr. anastasis). The noun is used of both resurrections (cf. John 5:29). So, if one is physical the other must also be physical (cf. Revelation 20:4-6).

Amillennial problem with The Great White Throne

Dr. Bowman also in his unpublished notes for Advanced Eschatology refutes the amillennial belief in a general judgment. “Amillennialists believe the Great White Throne judgment (Revelation 20:11-15) is the same judgment of sheep and goats in Matthew 25:31-46. This judgment will be at the second advent (Floyd E. Hamilton—The Basis of Millennial Faith, pp. 70-85). It is very doubtful if ta ethne (the nations) in Matthew 25:31-46includes Jews. Hamiltion says the term is elastic enough to include Jews (Ibid, 80). But “my brethren” must be Jews as they are not in this judgment. Thus, “the nations” must be living Gentiles judged at the second advent (cf. ta ethne in Matthew 28:19; Romans 16:26; Revelation 14:8; 20:3). Ta ethne is never used of ‘the dead’ so the sheep and goat account cannot synchronize with the G.W.T. account (George N. H. Peters, The Theocratic Kingdom II, 372-84).

Stanley D. Toussaint on Preterism, Part 5

Posted: May 25, 2009 in End Time Events, Preterism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
16

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.

Stanley D. Toussaint on Preterism, Part 1

Posted: May 24, 2009 in End Time Events, Preterism
Tags: , , , , , ,
21

In this video, Sproul begins to lay his preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse by stating that the events predicted by Jesus were fulfilled in A. D. 70.

Stanley D. Toussaint discusses the four major views of the Olivet Discourse.

The first view is called the critical interpretation.

This view does not even believe that Jesus taught this sermon but rather the early church produced the Olivet Discourse. This is a liberal view with no regard for inspiration.

Another view is the age-long fulfillment view which sees the prophecy as fulfilled through the inter-advent period. This is an amellinnial view.

Then there is the premillennial post-tribulationalism held to by men like Payne, Ladd, and dispensationalists Robert Gundry.

But the view of our concern is what Toussaint calls the past fulfillment view or preterism which sees Matthew 24 already fulfilled in A.D. 70

The past fulfillment view is the view of postmillinnialists J. Marcellus Kik. Important to Kik’s partial preterism is Matthew 24:34 about which he writes: “If the literal and well-defined meaning of this verse is accepted, it will be seen that this verse divides the chapter into two sections. Section One speaks of events which were to occur to the generation living at the time that Christ spoke these words. Section Two speaks of events to occur at the Second Coming of the Lord. Verse 34 is the division point of the two sections” (Matthew Twenty-four, An Exposition, page 9).

About Matthew 24:34, Thomas Ice writes, “The Bible verse most widely used by preterists in their attempt to establish their thesis concerning Bible prophecy is Matthew 24:34” (The End Time Controversy, page 90). Partial preterists Gary DeMar draws attention to the single word in Matthew 24:34 that preterists must misinterpret to support their view. “Every time ‘this generation’ is used in the New Testament, it means, without exception, the generation to whom Jesus was speaking” (End Times Fiction: A Biblical Consideration of the Left Behind Theology, page 68).

Is this statement by DeMar biblically accurate? It is not! For example, the generation referred to in Hebrews 3:10 was the generation in the wilderness wanderings: “Wherefore I was grieved with that generation, and said, They do always err in their hearts; and they have not known my ways.” Context of each use of “generation” must determine if the generation is contemporary or not. The context of “generation” in Hebrew 3:10 obviously is not contemporary.

Christ in Matthew 24:34 said the generation that sees all of the signs of 24:4-31 will not pass away. Did the generation of Christ’s day see fulfilled all of the signs predicted in A.D. 70 as the preterists insist? Did they see Matthew 24:29 fulfilled? Matthew 24:29 says, “Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken.” Did Jesus’ generation see these signs? Not literally and that is the reason J. Marcellus Kik allegorizes these verses.

To hold to the preterist’s view that every sign given by Christ that preceded Matthew 24:34 was fulfilled in A.D.70 takes serious allegorizing. Kik’s interpretation of Matthew 24:29 is an example. “If the sun, moon, and stars refer to the Jewish nation and its prerogatives, then we have seen the fulfillment of this prophecy. The Jewish nation has been darkened and no longer shines for God. This has been true ever since the tribulation of those days….The Sun of Judaism has been darkened; as the moon it no longer reflects the Light of God; bright stars, as were the prophets, no longer shine in the Israel of the flesh” (Matthew Twenty-four, An Exposition, page 9).

Are these cosmic disturbances to be interpreted literally or must they be spiritualized? Were signs given in the Bible to be literally interpreted? The answer is found in Genesis 1:14 when God informed us as to why He created the sun, moon, and stars. “And God said, ‘Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years.’” At least one of the purposes of the stellar heavens is for signs. Therefore, the signs in Matthew 24:29 can be interpreted literally and did not happen in A.D. 70.

If there was a literal darkness at the death of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 27:45 for three hours why cannot there be a literal darkness at his second coming according to Matthew 24:29? Our next post will continue Stanley D. Toussaint’s evaluation of preterism.

Who are Partial Preterists? Part 4

Posted: May 22, 2009 in End Time Events, Preterism
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
12

 

Thomas Ice identifies several important partial preterists. Within Covenant theology men like Jay Adams and J. Marcellus Kik are partial preterists. Ice also identifies Greg L. Bahnsen, who is a Reformed and Reconstructionist preterist who was influential in producing other preterists like David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Kenneth Gentry.

Ice makes note that the growing popularity of partial preterism today is due in part to “R. C. Sproul’s conversion to partial preterism in the 1990s as expressed through his book The Last Days According to Jesus. In February 1990, Dr. Sproul sponsored a conference on preterism at his annual Ligonier Ministries national conference in Orlando, Florida. About 4,000 people attended, and this exposure did a lot for the spread of preterism, especially in the Reformed community. The speakers at the conference included Dr. Kenneth Gentry and Gary DeMar” (The End Times Controversy, page 62).

Sproul writes in his The Last Days According to Jesus: “While partial preterists acknowledge that in the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 there was a parousia or coming of Christ, they maintain that it was not the parousia. That is, the coming of Christ in A.D. 70 was a coming in judgment on the Jewish nation, indicating the end of the Jewish age and the fulfillment of a day of the Lord. Jesus really did come in judgment at this time, fulfilling his prophecy in the Olivet Discourse. But this was not the final or ultimate coming of Christ. The parousia, in its fullness, will extend far beyond the Jewish nation and will be universal in its scope and significance” (page158)

Partial preterists like Sproul consider full preterism heretical because it denies the future second advent of Christ and the physical resurrection of believers. It is interesting that extreme or full preterism calls themselves “consistent preterism” which is the actual case. Full preterists are consistent in having all prophecies fulfilled at AD 70. And yet partial preterists like Sproul considers “consistent preterists” heretical. Which is inconsistent?

 

What are the two kinds of Preterism? Part 3

Posted: May 21, 2009 in End Time Events, Preterism
Tags: , , , , , , ,
15

In our initial post on preterism, we defined preterism as a belief that all or most of the end time prophecies were fulfilled at AD 70. In our post today, we will examine the two kinds of preterism: Partial and Full Preterism.

Mild or Partial Preterism

Mild or partial preterism sees most of  prophecy fulfilled at AD 70 but not all. For example, partial preterism would see all of the signs of Matthew 24:4-26 fulfilled at AD 70 but the events predicted after 24:34 are still future. In other words, all the end time prophecy spoken by Jesus in the Olivet Discourse, except the second coming of  Jesus. Partial preterists take “generation” in verse 34 to refer to the first generation or the early church. So when Jesus said, “This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled” the partial preterists say the generation Christ was teaching had to see fulfilled the signs preceding that statement in AD 70.

One has to do some pretty clever allegorizing to have the sun darkened, the moon not giving light, and the powers of the heaven shaken fulfilled in AD 70 as 24: 29 predicted. A better interpretation of “generation” is the generation in the Tribulation who sees these signs will not pass away until they see Christ return in His glory. This is the interpretation that does not require allegorizing the cosmic signs 24:29.

Extreme or Full Preterism

Extreme or full preterism believes all prophecies were fulfilled at A.D. 70. Thomas Ice explains full prteristism.“This means there will never be a future second coming, for it already occurred in A.D. 70. Further, there will be no bodily resurrection of believers, which is said to have occurred in A.D. 70 in conjunction with the second coming….In fact, full preterists say we are not merely in the millennium, but we are now living in what we would call the eternal state or the new heavens and new earth of Revelation 21-22” (The End Times Controversy, page 23). The last time I checked this life is not heaven. If it is we are of all men most miserable.

In our next post we will identify and discuss some partial preterists like R. C. Sproul, Jay Adams, and David Chilton. You might be surprised at the attitude of the partial preterists about full preterists.

What is Preterism? Part 2

Posted: May 20, 2009 in End Time Events, Preterism
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
14

In this video, Sproul abandons the literal interpretation of Scripture in order to adopt preterism.

Preterist Kenneth Gentry defines preterism: “The term ‘preterism’ is based on the Latin preter, which means ‘past.’ Preterism refers to that understanding of certain eschatological passages which hold that they have already come to fulfillment” (He Shall Have Dominion: A Postmillennial Eschatology, page 159).

Preterists interpret most if not all, the prophecies of Matthew 24:1-34 as already fulfilled in AD 70, depending on whether the preterist is partial or extreme. The same is true for the prophecies of the Book of the Revelation. The Second Coming of Christ took place spiritually at AD 70. This is Kenneth Gentry’s view that he defends in his book Before Jerusalsem Fell. Ken Gentry describes his book and other preterist books at KennethGentry.com.

Thomas Ice gives two quotes from a preterist in a chapter in The End Times Controversy that help understand the thinking of preterists. Preterist David Chilton makes this point in two statements. “The Olivet Discourse is not about the second coming of Christ. It is a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70” (Paradise Restored: An Eschatology of Dominion, page 224). “The book of Revelation is not about the second coming of Christ. It is about the destruction of Israel and Christ’s victory over His enemies in the establishment of the New Covenant Temple” (The Days of Vengeance, page 43).

Preterists interpret Revelation 1:7  to refer to Christ’s spiritual coming in judgment on Israel in AD 70 when the verse says Christ will come back and every eye shall see him and all the kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him.” This verse can not be limited to the nation of Israel. At Thomas Ice’s website, raptureme.com, there is a helpful article by Tom Standberg on preterism.