You are here: Home / Eschatology

Why Preterism Seems Absurd… (part 2)

07/04/2012 51 Comments

By Cris Putnam
As presented in my previous post, the conflation of Mark 13, Matthew 24 and Luke 21 as a single teaching by Jesus is a popular misconception amongst scholars. Preterists typically presume higher critical source theories which demand that Matthew and Luke copied Mark and another document (never proven to exist) called Q. Classically the church positioned Matthew as the first gospel which is why it appears first in our Bibles. This finds support in the fact that Eusebius quotes the testimony of Papias who wrote that Matthew had collected Jesus oracles in Hebrew. As a tax collector, Matthew would have been trained in shorthand and able to record Jesus words with great accuracy and speed. Preterists seek to diminish the accuracy of Matthew’s Gospel because it strains their position. For instance, in the previous post we saw that JP Holding believes that Matthew is using hyperbole for dramatic effect in Mt. 24:21 and the text does not really mean what it actually says (only because its a huge problem for preterism). This is special pleading of the worst kind. There is no exegetical warrant not to take the text at face value. While asserting hyperbole might work for the apocalyptic genre, Matthew 24 is a teaching discourse. Jesus is answering a question, it is not apocalyptic literature. While Mark and Matthew certainly share material, Luke rather obviously represents a different teaching in response to a different question. First, let’s try to better understand the preterist’s position.

Some scholars believe that Matthew 24 and Luke 21 are the same discourse arranged differently by the evangelist authors Matthew and Luke. This sort of thinking explains why the parables are placed in varying contexts and why the Gospels have chronological differences. It explains what is known as the synoptic problem. Thus, it is appropriate to recoginize that there are layers of context in the Gospels. For instance, scholars explain the various iterations of Jesus’ sayings in this way:

It should not surprise us, therefore, to learn that many such sayings (without contexts) were available to the evangelists, and that it was the evangelists themselves, under their own guidance of the Spirit, who put the sayings in their present contexts. This is one of the reasons we often find the same saying or teaching in different contexts in the four gospels—and also why sayings with similar themes or the same subject matter are often grouped in a topical way.[1]

While acknowledging that this explains some instances of repeated material in the Gospels, it also seems fair to argue that because Jesus was a traveling preacher, he repeated his material in each location he visited. In other words, one would expect certain teachings to be repeated in different contexts. That being the case, one would also expect His sayings to be recorded by eyewitnesses in overlapping ways. The question we need to ask ourselves is, is this simply the authors Matthew and Luke molding the same teaching to his own particular context or are these two different teachings by Jesus. I believe careful exegesis reveals that the similarities between Luke 21 and Matthew 24 are superficial and simply reflect Jesus teaching a few of the same concepts (like the birth pains) in different contexts.

The text of Luke 21 and Matthew 24 are not simply different hearings of the same teaching rather they are answering two different questions using some overlapping material. This is evident from four lines of evidence. First, Matthew’s discourse was private to disciples on the Mount of Olives (Mt 24:3), whereas Luke’s was a public teaching at the temple (Lk 21:1). The two teachings are clearly set at different locations:

Matthew Luke
“As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately… ” (Mt 24:3a) “One day, as Jesus was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel…(Lk 20:1a) “Jesus looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the offering box,”(Lk 21:1)

 

Second, while the answers are very similar, Jesus is actually answering a different question in Luke and Matthew. In Luke, they are asking him about the destruction of the temple (Lk 21:7) but in Matthew they privately ask him about the end of the age and his return (Mt 24:3). Luke is public teaching concerning the destruction of the temple but Matthew is a private teaching about the end times. This is easily discerned by anyone willing to examine the text:

Matthew Luke
“As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?”(Mt 24:3) “As for these things that you see, the days will come when there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” And they asked him, “Teacher, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when these things are about to take place?”(Lk 21:6–7)

 

Third, Jesus makes them distinct temporally. This is where preterists tend to get confused but it’s really not too hard. In both Matthew and Luke, Jesus lists a series of birth pains (Mt 24:6-8 c.f. Lk 21:10-12). However, Matthew follows the list with “Then (after) they will deliver…” (v.9). Because this distinction is crucial exegetically let’s examine the passages in question in their original Greek and consult the Louw Nida Lexicon:

9 Τότε παραδώσουσιν ὑμᾶς εἰς θλῖψιν καὶ ἀποκτενοῦσιν ὑμᾶς, καὶ ἔσεσθε μισούμενοι ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἐθνῶν διὰ τὸ ὄνομά μου. (Mt 24:9, NA27)

67.47 τότε; κἀκεῖθενb: a point of time subsequent to another point of time—‘then.’[2]

However, Luke follows the birth pains with “But before all of this…” (v.12).

12 Πρὸ δὲ τούτων πάντων ἐπιβαλοῦσιν ἐφʼ ὑμᾶς τὰς χεῖρας αὐτῶν καὶ διώξουσιν, παραδιδόντες εἰς τὰς συναγωγὰς καὶ φυλακάς, ἀπαγομένους ἐπὶ βασιλεῖς καὶ ἡγεμόνας ἕνεκεν τοῦ ὀνόματός μου,”(Lk 21:12, NA27)

67.17 πρόb; πρίν or πρὶν ἤ; ἄχρι οὗa: a point of time prior to another point of time—‘before, previous.’[3]

Accordingly, the instructions in Luke are prior to the birth pains ( e.g. A.D. 70) directed to contemporary Christians in Jerusalem whereas Matthew’s instructions are for after the birth pains, arguably still future. The texts overlap but they are not the same!

Matthew Luke
“Then they will deliver you up to tribulation and put you to death, and you will be hated by all nations for my name’s sake.”(Mt 24:9) “But before all this they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, and you will be brought before kings and governors for my name’s sake.”(Lk 21:12)

 

Fourth, in Luke, the instruction is to flee Jerusalem when armies surround it (Lk 21:20) Yet, in Matthew and Mark, the instruction is to flee when the abomination of desolation takes place (Mt 24:15; Mk 13:14).

Matthew Luke
“So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),” (Mt 24:15) ““But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near.(Lk 21:20)

 

It seems that careful exegesis leads to the conclusion that Luke is not the private Olivet discourse concerning the Parousia rather a similar yet distinct public warning for first century Christians. It worked because Tertullian recorded that John and others escaped a few years prior to AD 70. Matthew 24, on the other hand, describes future events just prior to Jesus return. This accounts for preterism as well as futurism and reveals why preterist eschatology is ultimately mistaken. This supports my previous post and reveals why I think preterism as an explanation for Matthew 24 is absurd.

 

I will be posting more in this series later…

[1] Gordon D. Fee and Douglas K. Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1993), 132.

[2] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 634.

[3] Ibid, 630.

Filed Under Eschatology

Why Preterism Seems Absurd…

07/03/2012 21 Comments

By Cris Putnam
There are a good deal of sincere well meaning biblical scholars that place the majority of events described in Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation back in the first century. I am going to make this a running series that I will add to as time goes by. Each post will just add another nail in the coffin of what I believe to be an impossible interpretation.  It seems they fail to realize the distinction between Luke 21 and Matthew 24. Those passages are clearly speaking to distinct events and are even set in different locations.

Today’s reason is Jesus’ description of a great tribulation period, “For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.” (Mt 24:21) Because even partial preterists place the abomination of desolation mentioned just above this passage (Mt 24:15) in the first century, they must put this time back then as well. But was the Jerusalem war of AD 70 the worst tribulation in history? Worse than the two World Wars? Worse than the holocaust? To avoid the clear implications of this text, our preterist friend switches to Luke:

Certainly no one would minimize those later tribulations — but a couple of clues work against such an argument. First of all, note Luke’s “translation” of this verse:

Luke 21:24 And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.

Our proponent offers no comment at all on this verse, which clearly shows that Luke anticipated a fulfillment in terms of Jerusalem only — the final Diaspora, and the trodding down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles.

 

The Olivet Discourse: Preterist Exegesis

But this is not exegesis of the Matthew passage at all. One need not address the Luke passage because Luke 21 and Matthew 24 are clearly not the same teaching by Jesus. This reveals an over reliance on liberal scholarship. I suppose I need to establish this in detail with my next post. But for now, note that if  Matthew 24:15 occurred in AD 70 then the preterist necessarily holds that either the events of AD 70 have been unprecedented or the Bible is in error. The law of excluded middle applies. Matthew records Jesus as saying,  “such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now, no, and never will be.” Seriously folks! They would have us swallow that either the Romans sacking of Jerusalem was worse than World Wars I and II, the holocaust and the nuclear annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki …or perhaps that Jesus was mistaken? Now that’s absurd… 

It seems to me the preterist is mistaken.

Filed Under Eschatology Tagged With Eschatology, Preterism

Issues Etc & the Whitewashing of Protestant History

06/20/2012 21 Comments

By Cris D. Putnam
I just listened to a “back and forth” on Issues Etc. a Lutheran radio show that I generally like for its discussion of apologetics and theology. They had Dr. Thomas Ice on talking about “Rapture Theology” and then a follow up response by Dr Kim Riddlebarger Responding to Dr Thomas Ice’s Rapture Theology. While I identify as a progressive dispensationalist, I do not really want to debate the timing of the rapture rather the strawman representation of premillennialism and complete white washing of classic Lutheran eschatology displayed by the host of Issues Etc. and Riddlebarger. One of the major objections to dispensationalism was that it was relatively new development of the nineteenth century whereas the Amillennial view was the classic protestant view. This is a drastic oversimplification of the Lutheran and Reformed positions.

In truth, Historicism was a foundational interpretation of Protestantism and it is perplexing that it is so flippantly forgotten. They completely ignore the subversion of Biblical doctrine by the Roman Catholic Church and the fact that many early Fathers were Premillennial. Even worse, the host and Riddlebarger made sport of premillennialists for speculating on current events in Israel as prophetically significant while ignoring the Historicist view (see p1 p2 p3 ) of the reformed tradition’s tendency to do the same. In fact, far from demuring to speak to current events, classic Protestantism has affirmed that the Great Tribulation as an ongoing reality along with the judgements of the book of Revelation. In the recent past Protestants did not speculate about the identity of Antichrist, they claimed sure knowledge. It is in all of the creeds!

Despite political correctness and its nearly forgotten status in modern evangelicalism, almost all of the original protestant confessions affirm that the papacy is antichrist. For example, The Second Scotch Confession of AD 1580 states:

And theirfoir we abhorre and detest all contrare Religion and Doctrine; but chiefly all kynde of Papistrie in generall and particular headis, even as they ar now damned and confuted by the word of God and kirk of Scotland. But in special, we detest and refuse the usurped authoritie of that Romane Antichrist upon the scriptures of God, upon the Kirk, the civill Magistrate, and consciences of men.[1]

Similarly, The Westminster Confession of Faith does not mince words concerning the papacy:

There is no other head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ.Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof: but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.[2]

This statement was repeated virtually verbatim in the Baptist Confession of 1688, otherwise known as the Philadelphia Confession. It was the most generally accepted confession of the Regular or Calvinistic Baptists in England and in the American south. The Westminster confession is still widely used today.

While many modern Lutherans seek to distance themselves from it, The Book of Concord still contains the Smalcald Articles and the Treatise on the Primacy of the Pope. Accordingly, many orthodox Lutherans still affirm the veracity of those documents. However, in the 1860s the Iowa Synod refused to grant doctrinal status to the teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist. They listed this teaching under the category of “open questions.” The Iowa Synod later became part of the American Lutheran Church, and its teaching on the Antichrist persisted in the new union. Since 1930, the ALC taught that it is only a “historical judgment” that the Papacy is the Antichrist. In 1938, this view was officially sanctioned in the ALC “Sandusky Declaration.” It stated:

We accept the historical judgment of Luther in the Smalcald Articles…that the Pope is the Antichrist…because among all the antichristian manifestations in the history of the world and the Church that lie behind us in the past there is none that fits the description given in 2 Thess. 2 better than the Papacy…

The answer to the question whether in the future that is still before us, prior to the return of Christ, a special unfolding and a personal concentration of the antichristian power already present now, and thus a still more comprehensive fulfillment of 2 Thess. 2 may occur, we leave to the Lord and Ruler of Church and world history.[3]

In a sharp rebuttal, the Missouri Synod’s “Brief Statement” of 1932 renounced the teaching that the identification of the papacy as the Antichrist is only a historical judgment. It professed, “The prophecies of the Holy Scriptures concerning the Antichrist…have been fulfilled in the Pope of Rome and his dominion.” It subscribed, “to the statement of our Confessions that the Pope is ‘the very Antichrist.’” It argued that the doctrine of Antichrist is “not to be included in the number of open questions.”[4] However, their position has softened since.

In 1951, the Report of the Advisory Committee on Doctrine and Practice of the Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod stated:

Scripture does not teach that the Pope is the Antichrist. It teaches that there will be an Antichrist (prophecy). We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy. This is an historical judgment based on Scripture. The early Christians could not have identified the Antichrist as we do. If there were a clearly expressed teaching of Scripture, they must have been able to do so. Therefore the quotation from Lehre und Wehre [in 1904 by Dr. Stoeckhardt which identifies the Papacy as Antichrist] goes too far.[5]

This view was endorsed at the Missouri Synod Convention in Houston in 1953. Even so, many still struggle with their traditions. A Lutheran scholar, Charles Arand, wrote an article to help contemporary Lutheran’s deal with the cognitive dissonance they feel when they want to applaud the pope’s position against abortion and other moral issues. While he never denies the classic Lutheran position, he claims, “The identification of the papacy as the Antichrist in the Confessions takes place in an apocalyptic climate in which the Reformers also considered other candidates for the title of Antichrist, the most prominent of which were the Turks (Ap XV, 18).”[6] The text he refers to is this one: “For the kingdom of the Antichrist is a new kind of worship of God, devised by human authority in opposition to Christ, just as the kingdom of Mohammed has religious rites and works, through which it seeks to be justified before God.”[7]

Indeed, one could infer a Muslim antichrist from this one statement. But, in truth, his use of this reference is obfuscation because the very next sentences in Apology of the Augsburg Confession XV, 18 say:

It does not hold that people are freely justified by faith on account of Christ. So also the papacy will be a part of the kingdom of the Antichrist if it defends human rites as justifying. For they deprive Christ of his honor when they teach that we are not freely justified on account of Christ through faith but through such rites, and especially when they teach that such rites are not only useful for justification but even necessary.[8]

This issue of elevating their rites above the salvific power of the Gospel has never been recanted by the Church of Rome. He goes on to argue that as part of the “already but not yet” paradigm, the papacy was a manifestation of Antichrist during the time of the reformation but not necessarily the ultimate one. Nevertheless, this confession clearly says they will be a part of Antichrist’s kingdom. He maintains to be dogmatic that the papacy is the only antichrist precludes awareness and vigilance toward new manifestations, yet to relativize the confessions as only historical is equally an error.[9] So contrary to views expressed on the recent Issues Etc, dispensationlism did not amend their anemic modernized view rather hard-line Historicism.

 

It is a demonstrable historical fact that every notable protestant theologian of the 16 -19th century, regardless of denomination, believed and taught that the papacy was antichrist.

For a cogent Defense of premillennialism I recommend John MacArthur’s series here.


[1] The Second Scotch Confession in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III (Joseph Kreifels), 349.

[2] Morton H. Smith, Westminster Confession of Faith (Greenville SC: Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary Press, 1996), 2.

[3] “Statement on the Antichrist,” Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, last accessed January 18, 2011, http://www.wels.net/about-wels/doctrinal-statements/antichrist?page=0,1.

[4] Ibid.

[5]Ibid.

[6] Charles P. Arand, “Antichrist: The Lutheran Confessions on the Papacy,” Concordia Journal (October 2003), 402.

[7] Philip Melanchthon, Apology of the Augsburg Confession XV,18 in Robert Kolb, Timothy J. Wengert and Charles P. Arand, The Book of Concord : The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 225.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Charles P. Arand “Antichrist: The Lutheran Confessions on the Papacy,” 403.

Filed Under Apologetics, Eschatology Tagged With Amillennial, Eschatology, Premillennial

Petrus Romanus: Why Study the Prophecy of the Popes?

02/14/2012 6 Comments

“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter” (Proverbs 25:2).

We’ve gotten a lot of questions from our Christian friends asking why we would bother to study a questionable Catholic prophecy. When we began researching the prophecy, we started with a healthy dose of skepticism. In light of the Counter Reformation and the Vatican’s well-documented trail of forgeries, one might suspect the prophecy of the popes to be some sort of manipulation. As we initially delved into the scholarship on the subject, our worst suspicions seemed to be confirmed. Early on, the evidence that the pre-1590 prophecies were written after the fact was so convincing that we considered shelving the project. However, there were a few remarkable twentieth-century fulfillments like Benedict XV, assigned the motto Religio depopulate, that merited serious pause. There is well-documented history of the prophecy in the sixteenth century, so any fulfilled mottos after that time demand serious consideration.

 

Even more, as our research progressed, unresolved issues fell into place and yielded unexpected results. We have uncovered a wealth of source material seldom mentioned in the popular literature. At worst, we have a Jesuit hoax or some papal propaganda. If that is the case, then at the very least this work provides a platform to refute some errors in Catholic theology. We have no illusions of grandeur. We do not fancy ourselves as end-time prophets with special revelation. Even so, there is something remarkable about the fortune we have encountered in the research. We still question ourselves, “Is this prophecy really genuine? Are we being led astray?” We believe there is strong chance Rome is intentionally promoting the prophecy, even though it seems most Jesuits have called it a forgery. We have to wonder if it is disinformation. We would not put it past Rome to arrange events in accordance with a Catholic prophecy and in some cases they clearly have. Even so, some of the fulfillments are beyond human control. While we believe demons can make educated guesses and manipulate events to give the illusion of prophecy, only God can inspire real prophecy (Isaiah 46:9–10). In light of all of the forgery and occultism associated with Rome, why would the God of the Bible inspire such a prophecy? We offer three considerations.

 

First, let us offer a very simple rationale. God uses the most unlikely events to accomplish His sovereign purpose. He is uniquely capable of turning the tables in unexpected ways. Think of how God used Satan’s diabolic designs against Jesus. Satan played right into to the Father’s hands, ensured his own defeat and surrendered the atonement for sins of the world (1 John 2:2). The cosmic inquisition was ended when Satan, the cosmic grand inquisitor, defeated himself. It seems just that his earthly counterpart (“grand inquisitor”) meet a similar fate. Through the cross of Calvary, God effectively, “spoiled principalities and powers [Satan and demons], he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it” (Colossians 2:15). In the prophecy of the popes, Mystery Babylon and her Pontifex Maximi are similarly made a public horror as the City of Seven Hills is engulfed in flames. It is truly chilling to imagine.

 

Second, it seems from the Scriptures that God has a sense of irony that is second to none. Even a cursory reading of the Old Testament will yield God pouring out His emotions in the livid, sardonic tones of a jilted lover, “And they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto devils, after whom they have gone a whoring” (Le 17:7a); and “Go and cry unto the gods which ye have chosen; let them deliver you in the time of your tribulation” (Judges 10:14). Consider how the Prophet Elijah taunts the priests of Baal, “Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked” (1 Ki 18:27). However this is one of the places where the translators shielded the reader from an unsightly detail that is visible in the English Standard Version’s rendering of the Hebrew, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself…” (1 Kings 18:27a, ESV). The point is that God appreciates irony and often employs sarcasm. He also appreciates a clever riddle (Proverbs 25:2).

 

Third, God often uses the most unlikely people. From a Catholic perspective, we offer the words of Pope Benedict XIV: “The recipients of prophecy may be angels, devils, men, women, children, heathens, or gentiles; nor is it necessary that a man should be gifted with any particular disposition in order to receive the light of prophecy provided his intellect and senses be adapted for making manifest the things which God reveals to him. Though moral goodness is most profitable to a prophet, yet it is not necessary in order to obtain the gift of prophecy.”[i] While we are duly cautious to agree with a pope, it is helpful to recall Nebuchadnezzar’s dream from Daniel 2. God chose to reveal a prophecy spanning from 605 BC through the second coming of Christ to an arrogant narcissistic pagan king. Of course, it required God’s holy servant, Daniel, to interpret the dream. Similarly, God used Balaam, a sorcerer hired by Balak, a Moabite king, who was exceedingly fearful of the encroaching multitude of Israelites. Accordingly, the king sent for Balaam, a darkened wizard who now lives in prophetic infamy (2 Peter 2:15; Jude 11; Revelation 2:14). Despite Balaam’s incorrigible status, God used him to prophesy, “I see Him, but not now; I behold Him, but not near; A Star shall come out of Jacob; A Scepter shall rise out of Israel, And batter the brow of Moab, And destroy all the sons of tumult” (Numbers 24:17).

 

Ronald Allen, professor of Hebrew Scripture at Western Baptist Seminary writes, “In agreement with many in the early church and in early Judaism, we believe this text speaks unmistakably of the coming of the Messiah. That this prophecy should come from one who was unworthy makes it all the more dramatic and startling.”[ii] Thus, we see that God uses the most unlikely characters and situations to get His message across. This Pethorian prophecy was well over one thousand years before the birth of Christ and from a hostile source yet it is probably what led the Magi to Bethlehem. The nameless author of the allegedly lost La profezia used Balaam as an example as well, remarking that the gift of prophecy, “is essentially a free supernatural gift, in which God certifies the truth of His faith by communicating to different souls, sometimes even infidels like Balaam, in whom altered states have occurred inspiring them spontaneously to speak marvelously of the most sublime mystery of God.”[iii] If we conclude the prophecy of the popes is authentic prophecy, then it is so impossibly ironic and judiciously just that it must indeed be divine. So, we must decide where to draw the line between the authentic and the forged

 

To be continued next week.

Website for Petrus Romanus here: www.prophecyofthepopes.com

Limited time: Get a signed copy of Pandemonium’s Engine here for $10.00. Domestic orders only, first come first serve.

[i] Benedict XIV, Heroic Virtue III, 144:150.

[ii] Kenneth L. Barker, Expositorś Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition: Old Testament) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 216.

[iii] La profezia dei sommi pontefici, 1794, p. 15. Translation CD Putnam.

Filed Under Eschatology Tagged With Prophecy of the Popes, Romanism

Hal Lindsey Report on the Prophecy of the Popes

02/11/2012 9 Comments

In case you are wondering what I am up to writing about a strange Catholic prophecy this message from Hal Lindsey will explain quite a bit in a short period of time. I just finished the last chapter today and the book will be off to the printer soon. Lord willing this book will open some eyes to the errors of Romanism before it is too late.

Filed Under Eschatology
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »