BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)
Preterism and a Sledge Hammer
By Essh Geebor Mawkor
"Preterists say that this generation means that the generation he was talking to must see all these signs. Preterist are weak in faith, thus forced like atheists to come to odd conclusions."
I feel it necessary to begin this article with a brief definition of Preterism. This is the dictionary definition. They teach that Messiah has already returned, killed antichrist with the brightness of his coming, that the 7 seals were already opened way back in 70ad. Another words for 2000 years or so we have been in the new heavens and new earth. They are forced to spiritualize everything. I do not like to type to much chit chat, so let us just get right down to answering their verses. Then I will show many verses that prove Preterism to be wrong.
The problem they raise in this verse is that the gospel was preached to all the world, according to other verses. Messiah says that after it is preached in all the world, unto all nations, that the end would come. They pose the question, if it was already preached to all the world, then why did the end not come? The problem is, the verses they are using do not prove it was preached in all the world and unto all nations.
All the world can mean the known world, as will be proved out. However this verse also says unto all nations. Even if one wanted to stress that this was already fulfilled, does not mean the end should come right after it is preached to all the world. In this same chapter, Messiah says many things that must happen before the end is. It is not just one of these things, then the end comes, but rather all these things, then the end comes.
There will be false Christ that deceive many. How many claimed to be the Messiah and deceived many before 70ad? How many can you think of even to this day that claimed to be the Messiah and deceived many? Matriyah he is one I can think if, came out in 1980’s.
This has happened throughout history.
It can be argued, is this only about the disciples, or all believers?
This has happened throughout history.
This has probably happened in every generation since Adam.
However has the end happened?
As already said above, there is more that has to happen.
Has the abomination of desolation already taken place? Preterist will say yes, when the temple was destroyed. We must now take a look at Daniel.
Come in with a flood, prince of a covenant. Can they point out who this was in History, yes they will give you a name, however was he a prince or a king?
In verse 20 a ruler is destroyed not by anger or in battle. In this rulers estate a vile person takes the kingdom with peace. Can they point out who these rulers are. The first ruler only rules for a very short space. They claim that the antichrist is Nero Cesar. Which means the ruler that rules for a short space must be someone who ruled right before Nero, and must have only ruled for a short space.
Now the prince of the covenant is not Antichrist, he is someone totally different. The ruler in verse 21 is antichrist, the prince in verse 22 is a prince, not the ruler of the kingdom. Can they identify what prince made a covenant in the ruling of Nero?
In this article I will not be saying much for their beliefs, but rather the refuting thereof. Nero in Latin numeric equals 666. Throughout history there have been men in which their names equal 666, whether in Latin, Hebrew or Greek. Why would one think his name in Latin would be 666? Why not Greek or Hebrew? The church fathers thought it would be in Greek.
Look up Nero, at the end it says this.
This is very important that Nero committed suicide. In which we will go more into later.
Back to the Daniel 11:20-22. Who was the ruler before Nero, does he fit the bill of ruling for only a few days, raising taxes, destroyed not by battle or anger?
The emperor of Rome before Nero was Clauduis I.
As you can see Clauduis who was emperor before Nero, Ruled for 13 years, that by no means fits the bill of after a few days he will be destroyed. Nero does not fit the Antichrist in Daniel 11. Besides all this In Daniel 11 the son of perdition is the last king mentioned, does not say anyone will rule after him. Which fits the scenario of the bible. Because it is written that Messiah destroys the son of perdition when he returns, we will go more into this.
It is most clear that the abomination of desolation was not fulfilled in 70ad by Nero. After Nero the Romans emperor was
After Vespasian Titus.
The temple was destroyed in the ruling of Vespasian, he sent his son Titus to do that. This all plays a big part later on, in refuting preterism.
Back to Matt. 24.
Soon after the abomination of desolation this is the advice to Judea.
Which proves we should keep shabbot still.
Was 70ad the worst tribulation ever? What about Hitler? If 70ad was the fulfillment of all this, then why did a greater tribulation come after with Hitler?
Were the days shortened?
It is most clear in Matt. 24 that all these signs must first come before the end, not just the gospel preached to the world.
In verse 34 it says THIS generation. Preterist teach this means the generation he was speaking to, on the contrary it means the generation that sees all these things. He was the whole time speaking of a specific generation, a generation that would see all these things. The generation Jesus was speaking to did not see all these things in 70ad. If so then Nero must fit the evil king spoken about in the bible, among other things said about the son of perdition.
Let us now totally destroy the concept of Nero being antichrist. If this can be destroyed then all of preterism falls on its face. The reason they must hold so strong to Nero or Titus being the Antichrist is because of the warning given by Paul.
Paul warns us of people who would try to convince us that Messiah already returned. Why would this be a warning? I mean bid deal right? What if you believed Messiah already returned before he actually did, big deal right? This is what preterist say today, so what if we are wrong what harm is there that we believe Messiah already came, even if it is a lie. Paul seems to say it is very important. The reason why is, because if one believes Messiah already returned they will not be watching. Messiah says those who are not watching he will come on as a thief in the night, you do not want that. Also it leaves them open to follow the real antichrist.
4 major points about antichrist in these verses.
Let us show how Nero and other Romans Emperors do not fit this mold then move on showing more and more proofs. One could say there was a falling away before 70ad. Was the Son of Perdition revealed? Well did Nero sit in the temple of God making himself as God? The answer is no.
In which I use to list the Roman Emperors
I highlighted important parts we will be using through out this paper. Nero fails the below
The son of Perdition must be revealed.
He will sit in the temple of God making him self as God. Meaning he will make him self as God.
Messiah will kill him when he returns.
Nero was not the Son of Perdition revealed, He did not sit in the temple of God making himself God, and Messiah did not kill him, Nero killed himself before 70ad. In all honestly Titus is a better candidate for antichrist, however we will prove that incorrect as well. Titus at least was in Jerusalem during the destruction of the Temple, in which one could say maybe he was in the temple, and just maybe he made himself as God in the temple. Titus returned back to Rome to celebrate with his father. Titus was not killed by the coming of Messiah because he ruled all the way to 81ad. Rumor has it his brother killed him. Also when Titus destroyed Jerusalem he was not even Emperor, his father Vespasian still was. His Father sent his son Titus to destroy Jerusalem. So none of the rulers of Rome in this time frame of 70ad fir the first 4 points of Thess. 2. Let us prove it out more.
In the above verses we see a total of 3 rulers. If you want to read a little before verse 19 you can learn more about that ruler. I am most concerned with how he will not be found. Very import points to add to the previous four.
Nero, Vespasian, or Titus continue to not fit the mold. If Nero was the antichrist then the two rulers before him must fit the bible. The ruler right before Nero is supposed to have only ruled but for a few days, and be destroyed not in battle or anger. Though it does not say how Claudius I. Died, he did rule for 13 years, that hardly fits the mold of he will rule for a few days.
Then the ruler before this in verse 19, would have to be Caligula whom was murdered. However verse 19 says the ruler would not be found, Caligula was murdered and found.
What if the Antichrist was Titus or Vespasian even though they already fail because they ruled after 70ad. If one says it is Titus then the ruler in verse 20 has to be Vespasian, Vespasian ruled to long. Vespasian was not destroyed but handed the kingdom to his son Titus. No reason to even see if Vitellius fits verse 19, which he does not, because he was found and murdered.
If one says Vespasian is Antichrist then the ruler in verse 20 would have to be Vitellius. Vitellius does fit the mold of ruling for a short space. However he was murdered, so he clearly does not fit the mold of ‘destroyed not in anger or battle’. Verse 19 would then have to be Otho. Otho can somewhat fit into verse 19, however otho was not returning to his land from Islands. Otho was defeated in N Italy and killed himself. So clearly he was found, and was not returning to his land from the islands.
Titus - was wanted to be the next ruler it was handed to him by his father.
Vespasian – The people made Vespasian Emperor, which is clear he does not fit the above verse.
Nero – Well he did poison a boy so he was deceitful to get the kingdom. However they did give the honour of the kingdom to Nero.
Preterist surely cannot show a prince of a 7 year covenant who fits in the time frame of Nero and is overthrown by an army?
What small people did Nero become strong with?
Nero was at war with Jerusalem, he had Vespasian handle that war. Though Jerusalem is not really south of Rome, but east.
Did Nero with this other king talk lies together, and their plan not prosper, then later return to his own land and become wroth against the covenant and do exploits? I suppose someone could say Nero was against the covenant after all he was sending Vespasian at war with Jerusalem. However that is a far stretch. Even Titus would fit some of the verse, shoot even Hitler does, however none of them fit all the verses.
Again what south does Nero go to? Egypt?
Why would the ships of Greece area come against Nero of Rome?
If one says this happened in 70ad at the destruction of the temple, then Nero is out. Nero killed himself before the destruction of the temple, the temple was destroyed when Vespasian was Emperor. It was destroyed by Titus who Vespasian sent to fight that war with the Jews. Notice how it says they and not he, because it is the whole army. Now one would have to then say it was Vespasian or Titus who are the Antichrist. And only Titus would fit the bill, he was the one in Jerusalem destroying the temple. He is the only Emperor of Rome who could have been in the temple making himself as God.
Big problem is, he does not fit into the verses as I have been pointing out. He was not killed by Messiah he ruled well past 70ad, all the way to 81ad. The main person a Preterist will say was antichrist is Nero.
Nero was not in Jerusalem to do any of this. When Nero was Emperor he had Vespasian in Jerusalem.
What was the little help Jerusalem got when they were falling in the time of Nero?
Nero did not do this, neither did Titus. Nero did not prosper until the indignation was accomplished because he killed himself before 70ad. Titus never exulted himself above all gods etc.
It is most certain Nero would of followed in the foot steps of his Father as far as religion is concerned. Nero also loved woman, even killed one of his wives because he other woman asked him to.
Nero did not serve a new God that none of his father knew.
His god was not strange. Interesting to note in Hebrew the singular eloha is used for god here. Then it calls his god a they. He never caused his God to rule over many.
This did not happen to Nero either. Titus and Nero just do not fit into the mold of antichrist, and we are just getting started.
Nero nor Titus did such with tabernacles of their palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain.
Only like 3 years left after the daily sacrifice is taken away and the abomination that makes desolate set up. Titus was the one who destroyed the temple in 70ad, if that was the abomination that makes desolate and then the daily sacrifice did have to stop. Titus was not even Emperor until 79ad ruled until 81ad. So how does that fit into the 3 years are left?
Nero killed himself 2 years before the destruction of the temple. If Nero killed himself 2 years before these verses could of even taken place, how can he be the Antichrist?
There is more problems as well with saying Nero is Antichrist. Revelation which is said by most scholars to be written around 90ad, proves out more. Preterst have to try to go against all the scholars and say Revelation was written before 70ad. Because if Revelation was written in 90ad it destroys their whole theology.
Nero did not work any miracles. Nero did not gather kings of the east, or any kings of the whole known world. Nero did not gather them to Armageddon. Nero sent his own Vespasian to fight Jerusalem. Then when Vespasian became Emperor he sent his son Titus to fight Jerusalem. And no Vespasian nore Titus gather many kings from the east or anywhere to come against Jerusalem.
Nero, Vespasian nor Titus fit into these verses. Messiah comes to judge and make war. If Messiah and his army came from heaven, surely something in history would show such a great thing as this. He comes to smite the nations [plural] not nation. You see if Nero was the Antichrist Messiah would not be using Rome to beat Jerusalem, which I guess some preterist say.
Now if Nero was Antichrist what other nations beside Rome did Messiah come fight against, and what nations fought against Messiah? When did Messiah rule the nations with a rod of iron, surely not in 70ad. It says he will beat them, even the remnant that is left he kills. Yet Rome was not defeated because Vespasian takes the throne after Nero dies. The brother of Titus takes the throne after Titus.
It says that the false prophet and the beast are cast alive into the lake of fire. Nero killed himself, he was not cast alive into any fire. Titus was not cast alive into any fire either.
It is clear none of these verses I have thus far shown have come to pass.
Preterism uses verses that seem as if Messiah was supposed to come very soon. Let us look at those verses and see if they hold any water for their position.
Preterists say that this generation means the generation he was talking to must see all these signs. Preterist are weak in faith, thus forced like atheists to come to odd conclusions.
This generation is refer to the generation that sees all these things, not necessarily the one he was speaking to. This is easy to prove. Verily I say unto ‘you’ this generation…
Who is the you? Does not prophets speak in this manner ‘you’ for a future generation?
The prophet is speaking to Israel who will and do posses the land, that very generation possessed the land. He said you will posses, but as for you, suffer you to do, etc. Then it says I will raise unto you a prophet. From reading this you would think this prophet would of game in that generation.
As you can see in above Duet 18 was about the Messiah. Why then did Prophet Moshe talk to that nation as it they were the generation the prophet would be raised to? It is the way of the prophet to speak. Thus Messiah the prophet spoke in the same fashion, you, this generation.
I do not think I know all the verses preterist use, so I am going to go over the ones I know they use.
They will ask you the question: If the disciples were told by Jesus that if they endure to the end they will be saved, then should they not see the end? They will ask and Jesus says to them that they will be persecuted, and if so to flee to another city. He tells them that they will go over all the cities then the Son of man will come.
If you here their argument on this verse it might sound compelling, and you might think wow, I have no answer for this. Of course you have an answer, they twisted it to mean something it does not say. Read the verses again very slow and carefully. Do you see it?
Messiah says they will never run out of cities to run to. No matter how much they are persecuted they will have cities to run to. Messiah was not given them a countdown by saying once you run out of cities to run to then I will come. Rather if you read the verse carefully he says, you will not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of man will come.
When you are treated badly in one city, go to another city. I tell you the truth. You will not finish going to all the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes again.
Sometimes it helps reading a modern English bible. Messiah comforts with a positive not a negative. Explaining to them that you will never run out of cities to run to. One Messiah comes we will not be persecuted anymore.
This statement is said to all Christians not just his students. We will prove this out by the apostles teachings to the churches. They understood Messiah and what he said to them, and understood he was saying to all when he spoke.
That we do suffer for the sake of the kingdom of God, and that when Messiah comes we will have rest from the persecutions and tribulations.
That we are partakers of the sufferings of the Messiah, for his name we suffer. When he is revealed we will be glad, and the suffering stops. If Messiah was revealed in 70ad why has the suffering not stopped? After 70ad the sufferings continued on.
Let us examine the verse some more.
If you look at luke 9 and matt 10, they did what Messiah told them, they went from city to city and healed etc. And if they were persecuted they went to another city. If a preterist says that these verses teach he has to return in 70ad, not at all, they finished doing what he asked before Messiah even died.
The key word in verse 22 of Matt. 10 is HE. But HE that endures proves Messiah was speaking to all that would follow him, but just his disciples. Indeed he told his disciples to go out and heal preach etc. and in luke 9 read the whole chapter, they did that, and they told Messiah all about it when they got back from going from city to city. And the believers will continue to do the good work and they did and still do. To this day we still have places to run.
It is like when Moshe told the people God will rise up a prophet like me among YOU. Yet they did not get to live to see the Messiah. However they did get to live to see Yehoshua son of Nun, whom was a prophet like unto Moshe, if you read Joshua chapter 1.
This is similar to that. When the Son of Man comes, all followers will not longer be persecuted.
The Apostles did not flee when they were persecuted later on why not?
When persecution came the church fled, but the apostles did not. Messiah said when persecution comes flee to another city, why did the disciples not listen? Because they understood that statement was a general statement to all followers. The Apostles this time did not flee for they were in the will of God to not flee.
Preterist will ask you, who were the ones that did not taste of death, and are they still alive today, waiting for the Son of man of come. At first this questions might through you off, however think about it for a moment. It says SEE, not until he comes. They only have to see it, not that Messiah has to actually come. Another words if you have a vision of the Son of man coming in his kingdom, you seen it, yet it had not actually taken place yet, the event is yet future, even though you seen it in a vision.
John while in Patmos seen in a vision the coming of the Son of man, Revelation 14, 19, and so on.
The term ‘some’ in this verse can also mean certain, and can refer to one individual. Even though it is in the tis here is in the plural form it can still refer to one individual. Let us suppose it cannot refer to one individual, but most refer to more than one. That is not a problem either, do you think it was only John who seen a vision of the Son of man coming? So some of them did have visions and seen the Son of man coming in his kingdom before they died.
Preterists say that Jesus said NOW, thus the end of the word had to come in 70ad. However if you read on Messiah is not talking about the great day of judgment. What does ‘now’ mean? If they say now means 40 years, then we can just as easily say it means 2000 years.
The key here is verse 33. By his death NOW the prince of this world is cast out. He defeated sawtan at his death, not 70ad. This does not mean sawtan is no more, but that all through his death have total access to the same power, the price of this word was cast out. He no longer has power over them that are sanctified by the death of Messiah. The judgment that is come on the world, is that no more will God blink at ignorance but commands all men everywhere to repent.
Preterist teach the hour is come means 70ad. This has nothing to do with the coming of Messiah, this has to do with being raised from the dead and glorified.
The holy spirit was not yet given because Messiah was not yet glorified. This means the holy spirit power is given after Messiah is glorified. The holy spirit was given in acts 2, thus Messiah had to be glorified before that point in time. Which was some 40 days after his resurrection.
If they only would of read a few more verses above huh?
So there you have it folks, Messiah was glorified some time before acts 2:38.
They say the kingdom of God is not observed therefore it is not literal. And that it is within you therefore it is not literal. We must first read on before one says this.
If the preterist say the kingdom is not literal, that it is really not seen, then why does he go on to give clear cut signs that you will know when the time is. If it cannot be observed why gives indications to look for? If you read in context it is not observed because it is not over there that you must look for it, it comes as lighting, it will just all of a sudden be there. So you cannot observe it coming, it comes like lightning.
The kingdom is within you simple means that it is within your heart, mind, soul etc. Until the physical kingdom is here, you have it in your heart and mind. Furthermore Messiah says the kingdom of God is among you. Because it was in part, the people from heaven were right there walking the earth. We also are part of that kingdom, and our soul is in us, which is part of the kingdom. But the days come when all the kingdom will be on earth, and we will walk in it.
Preterist point out that the Gospel was preached to all the world, and thus the end must of happened. But wait was not Collosians written before 70ad? Then if they are going to use this as a proof text, the end should of happened before Col. Was written.
However even if the Gospel was preach in all the world which it was not, it does not mean the end should come. In Matt. 24 more signs were given that had to happen, not just one or two of the signs, but all must happen before the end would come.
The Gospel was however preached to the known world. But was not yet preached to all the world, like North American etc.
Col. 1:23 can also be read, which is being preached to every creature under heaven. The Gospel was clearly not preached to ever creature under heaven in the time Paul wrote.
Preterism maintains the last day means the end of the Old Jewish System and the bringing in of the new. The problem with this is he says he would raise him up at the last day, there is no proof of a resurrection of all the saints in 70ad. Not one believer in Messiah ever talked about it.
You would think at least one of the believers would of wrote of the resurrection if it happened in 70ad.
One top of this it says Who so ever will, I will raise up in the last day. If the Last day already happened and the resurrection already happened, then why did Messiah word it in such a way that who so ever will? If the promise no longer applies then if you believe you will not be raised up. So what happens to those who die now, they do not get resurrected according to Preterism. Yet it says the just and unjust would be raised in Daniel 12:2.
Preterism takes ‘for without’ to means outside of the city there are sinners. I thought all the wicked would be destroyed?
They are in the lack of fire, not right outside the city. Look at the verses again.
The without means without the tree of life. If they are without the tree of life, they cannot live forever, they must perish in the lake of fire the second death.
The unbelievers perish, they do not get everlasting life. It is most clear for without means they are without the tree of life, not they are outside the city. They are in the lake of fire, the second death.
They are not outside the city, they are in the lake of fire. Where is this lake of fire preterism, were is this tree of life and city?
The king of God was at hand, and it was among them, this however has nothing to do with the physical kingdom that comes in the last day, in which it says the Apostles rule over it on twelve thrones.
This verse has nothing to do with the last days, it has to do with judgment for what they did to the prophets. It is as if the preterist cannot distinguish things clearly.
Sawtan was bruised under their feet. Not in 70ad, but through at time. Paul was giving them the hope that they will overcome their trials, and it will be soon and not far off. This has nothing to do with the Great judgment of last days.
Paul was not talking of the last days, but rather of that church. Paul was giving them strength and blessing that they would soon stomp on satans head, meaning to get his influence away from them.
The Lord is at hand is not something that is going to happen soon, but rather is already happening. The Lord was already at hand working the great work in the people. This is not talking about the Day of the Lord is at hand, referring to the prophecies in Isa. Etc. No, rather it says the Lord is at hand, he is working right now.
These verses are clearly about the last days, and it does seem to speak of them in urgency, that it is coming soon. However this is not uncommon in the way of a prophet to speak.
Yet Messiah did not come until like 600 years later. Near, to be revealed is the way of the prophet to means some 600 years.
He says this to Israel and Judah.
This is very important because Israel was scattered. The remnant was never brought to Zion right away, they still have not been. Maybe one can say in Jesus days they were, however that is some 600 years off. So then the time here in the least would be 600 years.
NEAR, IT SHALL NOT BE FAR OFF, SHALL NOT TARRY = 600 years.
There is nothing uncommon about the prophets speaking of time in this fashion.
If one says Joel 2 happened way back in history, then it does not match up. Joel says that there has never been a people like this before and would not be a people like it afterwards. If someone says these people are who came back in Joels days, then it would be false, for the Romans came, in who the preterist say was the time Christ talked about in Matt. 24:21. If so then that would have been greater than the time of Joel, in which Joel could not say these people were greater than any, and that would ever be.
Joel uses the words of the day of YHVH comes, for it is close at hand. Now even if that happened in 70ad, which it did not, that is years and years before hand. So we see it is the way a prophet speaks, even though it is not going to happen right away.
Just read this chapter it is most clear this army did not come in Joel’s days. This is very similar to the locust type army mentioned in Rev.
If the Preterist say this happened in the days that God punished Jerusalem in the first temple destruction which they will. Then it is clear from their view there has to be more than one great day of judgement.
So if this happened at the first Temple destruction as they will surely teach. Then there must be two great days of the Lord.
Acts shows that the day Joel was talking about had not happened yet, not until the days of Messiah after his resurrection. So is there more than one great day of YHVH?
And if they say Joel’s great day happened at the first temple destruction, then why does acts quote it being fulfilled in the days of Messiah?
So it is most clear Prophets used this speak even though an even might be 600 years to come.
Now had not Peter as well given us a good sense of why prophets speak this way?
Concerning the end Peter informs us that it is very important to understand that one day is as 1000 years to God, and a 1000 years is as one day. Had not Peter spoken this to let us know keep on looking for the end, for the coming of God, for the heavens will pass away etc. Peter wanted us to understand do not worry though it be 1000 years to you, but small time passed with God, keep on looking he will come. This would not apply if he was about to come like only a few years for now. Peter wrote this only years before 70ad.
Peter says that there dwells righteousness, surely the earth right now does not fit into this righteousness.
Surely the wicked are still among the earth, so if all prophecy had been fulfilled why are the wicked still on the earth? Why are they not in the lake of fire?
In this parable Messiah talks about how he would return and punish those that wanted him killed. However it starts it off, by saying he went into a far country for a LONG TIME. Messiah was showing he would be gone a while, not just 40 years.
Messiah tells us to watch, and pray to know when the end time is. He says it is like unto the Son of man taking a FAR journey. It is most clear it would be a long time.
The Messiah tarries, for how long, for as long as he wants.
After a long time, not 40 years.
Ezekiel is a great proof against preterism. It speaks of a huge temple and city being built, gives the exact messurments and everything. Preterist are so bothered by the last chapters of Ezekiel they try to spiritual it all, LOL. Now if that is not funny I do not know what is. Many chapters of exact sizes to for it to not be literal? Teaching how to build it and how to sacrifice and it be not literal?
Well here is the verses that SLAPS then right UPSIDE their hard heads.
Never is this kind of speech used in the bible for something that is figurative. When God says for they may KEEP the LAWS thereof, it is most clear this is literal. God would not tell them to write it down that they may keep these laws, if the laws were not literal. The laws of how to sacrifice etc.
It is most clear this temple is literal, this is why the Jews have always known it was literal. The reason the Preterist are forced to say it is spiritual is because they cannot show no such temple in history. This temple was never built, not even to this day. However I have shown the verses that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is most literal.
If all prophecy is fulfilled why is there still time to us?
I am sure there is so much more to say on this topic, but for now I have shown enough, I might add to this article later. Hope you enjoyed shalom.
Yup going to have to add to this to show that the interpretation of Daniel 11 is incorrect, in which it seems they want to pen it on, Antiochus the Great and his succession after him. To be updated after we conclude the discussion.
Before we look at Daniel 11 as to if it was fulfilled you must take a look at another line of rulers of Syria area. Though Daniel 11 is clearly about the last king to rule, called son of perdition, right before the resurrection is to take place, Preterist want to say this line of rulers is what Daniel 11 is about. Let us examine them and see if they fit into the verses.
He was succeeded by his son, ANTIOCHUS I SOTER (281-61), who, through fear of the Parthians, transferred his residence to Antiochia.
Under Soter's son, ANTIOCHUS II THEOS (261-46), began the wars with the Ptolemies for the possession of Phoenicia and Palestine. The marriage of Antiochus II to Berenice, daughter of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, brought about a temporary cessation of the struggle; but on Ptolemy's death, Laodice, the first and disowned wife of Antiochus, was recalled and avenged herself by having Antiochus, Berenice, and their child put to death.
The son of Antiochus and Laodice, SELEUCUS II CALLINICUS (246-26), succeeded. To avenge the death of his sister and to assure his possession of Syria, King Ptolemy III Euergetes made a successful campaign against Seleucus, advancing victoriously as far as the Euphrates. The eastern provinces passed gradually into the hands of the Parthians, and portions of the western were lost to Attalus II of Pergamum. While in flight after a battle in which he had suffered defeat at the hands of Attalus, Seleucus was killed by a fall from his horse.
SELEUCUS III CERAUNUS (226-24), the elder son of Seleucus, succeeded, and on his assassination the younger son ANTIOCHUS III THE GREAT (224-187). To secure possession of Coele-Syria and Palestine this monarch began a war with Ptolemy V; although defeated at Raphia (217), the battle of Paneas (198) resulted in his favor, Palestine thenceforth belonging to the Syrian Empire. Interference in the affairs of the west led to a war with Rome. After the battle of Magnesia (189) the king had to accept harsh conditions and surrender his possessions in Asia Minor north of the Taurus. Antiochus was unable to conquer Parthia, which his father had lost. During an attempt to plunder a temple in Elam, he was slain by the natives.
He was succeeded by his elder son, SELEUCUS IV PHILOPATOR (187-75). Seleucus secured the return of his younger brother Antiochus, who lived as a hostage in Rome, by sending his own son Demetrius thither instead. Before Antiochus arrived home, Seleucus had been murdered by his minister Heliodorus; the former was thus able to take possession of the Throne, which really belonged to his nephew Demetrius.
ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES (175-64) was an ambitious prince, of a truly despotic nature and fond of display. Entanglements with Egypt gave him the occasion to make repeated successful inroads into that country, and in 168 he might have succeeded in securing possession of it, had not the Romans compelled him to withdraw (embassy of Popilius Laenas). His hostile measures against the Jews, whom he tried to hellenize by sheer force, resulted in the Machabean rising (see MACHABEES, THE). He died at Tabae in Persia, while on a campaign against the Parthians.
His son ANTIOCHUS V EUPATOR (164-62) was a minor, and simply a tool in the hands of the imperial administrator Lysias. Both were removed by the son of Seleucus IV, DEMETRIUS I SOTER (162-15), who had previously lived as a hostage at Rome. Alexander Balas, who claimed to be a son of Antiochus IV, rebelled in 151, and Demetrius fell in battle. His son Demetrius continued the war against Alexander Balas (150-45) in union with the Egyptian king Ptolemy VI. Conquered by the latter near Antiochia, Alexander fled to Arabia, and was there treacherously murdered.
The Preterist say-
The problem with this is, there was more than just these rulers mentioned in History. They answer this by saying that only the kings that were important to the Jews, thus it says only 4.
Another problem here is, why do they not make the connection with the next verses? It says four more kings, then the next verses say a kingdom will be broken and divided into four directions, why is this not the last four kings mentioned in verse 2? Then it would make perfect sense why it says there will be yet three kings in Persia, and the fourth will be richer than they all. Yet even futurist wish to say that these verses were already fulfilled, in the which I disagree.
The Preterist say that this king was Alexander the Great.
If I recall Alexander died at age 33, at the high of his ruling. Thus the Preterist say, this is why it says when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken. Alexander’s kingdom was broken and taken over by his Generals.
The verse however says divided toward the four winds. However it was divided as such according to Encyclopedia.com
There was a mutiny,
but it was put down. In 323, Alexander was planning a voyage by sea
around Arabia when he caught a fever and died at 33. After his death his
generals fell to quarreling about dividing the rule (see Diadochi ).
So it is more than just 4 Generals his kingdom was divided into.
Again why would Daniel start of telling us of 4 last kings, then talk of a Great kingdom that will be divided to four winds. This seems to match up very nicely, that fours winds that his kingdom separates to is the last four kings.
Preterist say the ones to be concerned with for this chapter is king of the north, Syria, and king of Egypt of the south.
In the following verse they are going to attribute six kings to the time line. However you can truly only get four.
King of the south they say is the king of Egypt. One of his princes they will say the ‘his’ here is Alexander the Great, the prince is SELEUCUS I NICATOR (312-281 B.C.) who becomes king of the North, Syria. The king of the south will be greater than the king of the North.
However some might say no this means that the prince will be strong above the king of the south, Egypt. How can they have such a disagreement? It has to be one or the other, who was greater than who? Was Egypt at the time greater, or was Syria greater?
The text shows the prince is the prince of the king of the south. They cannot have it be this way because if so they cannot show historically any prince of Egypt that made an alliance with the king of Egypt. See next verse.
So in this verse they say the Prince who becomes King of the North is SELEUCUS I NICATOR (312-281 B.C.)
King of the South - Ptolemy Lagus, however I think they mean to say (Ptolemy Soter) Ptolemy 1st , d. 284 BC – The reason is Ptolemy Soter is the son of Lagus, it is Ptolemy Soter that ruled over Egypt after Alexander’s fall.
Preterist teach this means (Ptolemy Philadelphus) , c.308-246 BC, king of ancient Egypt (285-246 BC), and ANTIOCHUS II THEOS (261-246) king of Syria.
What happened to the other King of the North ANTIOCHUS I SOTER (281-61)? Soter ruled for 20 years before Theos over Syria. The problem that comes up here is this, the verse starts off saying and in the end of years they shall join themselves together. Who is themselves? This is clearly referring back to the previous verse the Prince and the King of the South. They said the King of the South was Egypt, and the prince was Seleucus I, who is in the Diadochi after Alexander’s fall. If this is so then it is Seleucus that would be joining himself with Ptolemy Lagus of Egypt, also part of the Diadochi.
The verse would not say ‘they’ shall join ‘themselves’ together if it was not referring back to the last prince and king mentioned. The Preterist wish us to believe that all of a sudden it is supposed to refer to a whole new King and generation of Egypt (Ptolemy Philadelphus).
And for the North to skip the king Antiochus I Soter, who ruled 20 years. How can verse six be over 20 years later from verse 5? This does not go with context and linguistics.
Preterist want us to believe there is a 25 year span between verse 5 and 6. Look at the dates of Antiochus I Soter who ruled after SELEUCUS I NICATOR (312-281 B.C.) for 20 years. The next person to rule was Antiochus II Theos, he did not mary Berenice daughter of Ptolemy until the 5th year of his reign, thus 25 total years between verse 5 and 6. However it would have to be even more than 25 years because in verse 25 Seleucus is still called prince. He assumed the title king is 306bc.
Now let us do more math. If he became king in 306bc, and in verse 5 he is still known as Prince who later become King of Syria. Then we have to account for the difference of years from 306 to 281 which is 25 years. From 306 when he became king, this is if verse 5 was right at the ending of his prince hood and right at before 306 when he became king. If we can assume this, then you count from 305 which is the dating of verse 5 to 252 which is when Theos took Berenice as wife.
The total of years is 53. Preterist wish us to believe there is a gap of 53 years between verses 5 and 6. Yet they get made when futurist say there is gaps in the bible?
Again I wish to stress the context of verse 5 and 6.
It does seem as if the prince becomes king of the a Northern region and him and most likely his Father the king of the Southern become united together. The point I want to stress is, it is most clear it is the prince in verse 5 and the king of the south in verse 5 that are joined together in verse 6. Any person could see this is most clear.
This way you can do the math easily.
What they wish us to believe is verse 5 mentions a king and a prince, who are not related at all are both great. Then In the end of days means 53 years later after the king of the south Soter was replaced by Philadelphus, and the prince who became the king of the North Nicator was replaced by two people already, Antiochus I and Antiochus the II.
In which it says THEY will join themselves, which makes no sense. If this was the case verse 6 would start of saying, And in the end of years the King of the North and the King of the South joined themselves together…
The last part of verse 6 does clearly show a new set of rulers comes up. It is true that Bernice was killed by Antiocus Theos other wife Laodice.
She will not retain the arm, they will say this means that Bernice will be disowned because he takes Laodice back. As you can see above if you read the history you will see it is true that Bernice was disowned Laodice came back and killed her. That he will not stand, they will say this has to do with Laodice having him killed.
She shall be given up means what?
They are better off just saying, She will not retain means the power of Egypt she will not retain, she will be given up, means Antiochus will give her up and take Laodice back. He will not stand, meaning he will die.
Now what does it mean his arm will not stand, they could say this means the son of Bernice his son who was killed.
It would then be clear he that begat her, meaning the father of Bernice, he that brought her, meaning Philadelphus. Philadelphus did die, however why say he that begat her and her that brought her? Ptolemy Philadelphus is both father of Bernice and the one who brought her to Syria to Mary Antiochus II.
The verse however teaches us that the one who brought her and the one who begat her are two different persons. So Bernice, Philadelphus, and Antiochus II does not fit.
Unless they say no this means they that brought her meaning the soldiers of Philadelphus that were ordered to bring her to Syria. However what are the odds that the Father will not be there to give his wife over for Marriage?
Last part of the verse, who is he that strengthened her in these times? What is these times?
Preterist position here is out of a branch of her roots, means of her blood line, which would mean her brother in this case (Ptolemy Euergetes). This is what it says of this king at encyclopedia.com
Euegretes fits into this verse okay, because he did take and army against Syria and succeeded somewhat. But I can think of many people that can fit this verse, the problem is the rulers before would not fit the verse before this one. Just as I have shown thus far the people they say do not fit into the above verses.
According to Encyclopedias Euegretes does rule for 5 years longer than Seleucus II.
However there is nothing that says He brought captives, their gods, or their princes into Egypt.
It would make sense that the king of Egypt would return to his own land after winning a battle. Again it would be easy to find a king that fits these couple verses, however it would be very hard to find one where the previous rulers fit the other verses, and of course they do not, as I have shown.
Preterist will say the sons of Seleucus II, who are SELEUCUS III CERAUNUS (226-24), the elder son of Seleucus, succeeded, and on his assassination the younger son ANTIOCHUS III THE GREAT (224-187).
The problem with this is it says his sons were stirred up and assemble a multitude of great forces, and ONE shall certainly come and overflow. Antiochus III did not go into Egypt to win a battle until 217, which is 7 years after his brother died. So how could it says his sons will be stirred up and assembled a multitude. It was Antiochus the III who assembled the army 7 years after his brother was dead. So there is no sons assembling, but a son, and only he is the one who comes and overflows. The sons of Seleucus III and Antiochus the III do not fit into the picture.
It says he would overflow, and pass through, however Antiochus was defeated by Ptolemy IV in 217 in the Palestine lands. So Antiochus did not overflow and pass through, he went there and got beat up and returned home.
17 years years later Antiochus won a war and then peace was made by Cleopatra being given to him. By the way this would now be Ptolemy the V, so a new king. We see no change in the king of the south from verse 10 to 11. However if this is Antiochus then we know in 217 he lost a battle against Ptolemy IV and in 200 he won against Ptolemy the V. Then peace was made.
The Preterist teach in verse 10, Antiochus comes with his army, then here the king of the south Ptolemy IV is moved with anger because Antiochus came up to battle him. He takes a great multitude and defeats Antiochus, which would have to be the battle in 217bc, this is when Ptolemy IV won a battle against Antiochus.
Ptolemy after winning takes away his multitude and his heart is lifted up due to his victory against Antiochus.
Antiochus returns with a great multitude than he had before, and with much riches, this would have to be in the year 200bc in the ruling of the next king of Egypt which is Ptolemy V. Certain years would fit into the 17 year time frame.
Many did not stand up against Ptolemy V in these times.
It was only Antiochus and Philip the V, this hardly fits into the MANY stand up against Egypt. No one in Egypt during the ruling of Ptolemy V Epiphanes tried to establish this vision.
Right after this battle Antiochus wins, peace is made.
Though they could say verse 15 is also describing the war in 200 to 198bc before the peace was made.
Preterist teach that after Antiochus won the war in 200bce he did according to his own will in the lands he ruled, and in those lands none stood against him. They need to bring into these verses when Antiochus set out against Rome and lost.
Interference in the affairs of the west led to a war with Rome. After the battle of Magnesia (189) the king had to accept harsh conditions and surrender his possessions in Asia Minor north of the Taurus. Antiochus was unable to conquer Parthia, which his father had lost. During an attempt to plunder a temple in Elam, he was slain by the natives.
This is where they will say the peace came between Antiochus and Egypt, when he gave Egypt Cleopatra his daughter. They will say this is what is meant by ‘daughter of woman’. But she will not stand on his side, they will say she forgets her dad and cleaves to her husband.
They would then be forced to say that Egypt corrupted her daughter. However through this chapter is not the North the bad guy? It is the North that brings about the wicked king.
Though there is no real History of Antiochus going to Islands, Preterist will say that Islands here refers to costal places, maritimes. However after the peace Antiochus according to Catholic encyclopedia and others says, he had to give up to Rome and then lost against Parthia, then Died in Elam.
Pretertist might go as far as to say the prince in this verse is Rome. It is clear all of Rome is not going to be called a prince. They just do not know how this verse would fit into Antiochus the Greats life.
Antiochus did not go to return home, he went to Elam to get money from the temples. In doing this the locals killed him. So many verses the people they try to force into the verses does not work. This one really does not work.
So guess what ruler this has to be? SELEUCUS IV PHILOPATOR (187-75).
There is nothing I can see in the Encyclopedias that say Philopator was a raiser of taxes, though who knows, maybe he was. However he ruled for 12 years, this is by no means a few days. Preterist will try to claim this means few years, well come foolish ones might.
It says uvyamim achadim, and in few days. The root is Yom, and echad. Echad menas one, however in the context here in the plural and tense of ached, thus achadim, it implies very few. Yom means day, the word for year is shaneh, plural shnayim. Uvshnayim achadim, few years.
Either way even if they wish to translate it few years, 12 years is not achadim, this implies very few.
It says that this ruler would be destroyed not in anger or in battle. All history says that Philopator was murdered. Sense when do you murder someone if you are not angry?
Preterist teach this is the next ruler, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164). No doubt Antiochus IV was a very evil man, however just as the other did not fit into the verse, neither does he.
There is nothing in the Encyclopedias that say they did not want Epiphanes to rule, and nothing says he had to take it be peace and flatteries.
What do YOU think ?
It's obvious that this guy does not read much preterist literature or follow his own logic. To cite just a few examples. He says that while Matthew 24:14 could mean that the gospel only had to be preached to the then known world, the fact that Jesus said "to all the nations" means He had a larger world in mind, our world. In addition to verses like Colossians 1:6 and 23, there is Romans 16:26: "but now [in Paul's day] is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made know TO ALL THE NATIONS, leading to obedience." What "now is manifested"?: the gospel" (16:25). On the day of Pentecost, we read: "Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men, FROM EVERY NATION UNDER HEAVEN" (Acts 2:5). He admits the Bible says these things--he even quotes the verses--but he does not believe what it says. Now, who do you think has the "rock head"? He argues further: "In verse 34 [of Matthew 24] it says THIS generation. Preterist teach this means the generation he was speaking to, on the contrary it means the generation that sees all these things. He was the whole time speaking of a specific generation, a generation that would see all these things. The generation Jesus was speaking to did not see all these things in 70ad." Each and every time "this generation" is used in the gospels it means the generation to whom Jesus is speaking. Even Tommy Ice admits this. The only exception, of course, according to Ice, is Matthew 24:34. The near demonstrative "this" tells us that the generation Jesus has in mind is the one then living. If Jesus had a future generation in mind, He could have avoided all confusion by using the far demonstrative "that." Then there's the problematic Matthew 24:33: "even so YOU too, when YOU see all these things, recognize that He is near, right at the door." Notice what Essh says: "on the contrary it means the generation THAT SEES ALL THESE THINGS." Exactly! And what generation might that be? The generation to whom Jesus was speaking: "when YOU see all these things." It couldn't be any more clear. Again, if Jesus had a future generation in mind, He could have avoided all confusion by stating: "when THEY see all these things." These are enough to demonstrate that Essh does not like what the Bible says because it will disturb what he has held dear for so long. Welcome to the club, Essh. We've all been there!
it seems that our dispensational friends can't stop repeating their same old arguments that have been refuted and will continue to be refuted. i realize that it's hard to let go of the things that we've been taught in our churchs for so long, (i was a dispy for over 20 years) but what will it take for them to see that they are wrong, that they are waiting for something that has already taken place. it's just my opinion, but i think that Israel indeed will be attacked, and suffer tremendous loss of life and damage, but that's it, no battle of armageddon,etc etc will happen. i wonder how the futurists will explain this away; and they will try, after all if they can't, what will tim lahaye, hal lindsey, etc have to write about then.
In Matthew 23 (one chapter previous to Mtt.24's "this generation"), Jesus rips into the Pharisees throughout the entire chapter (go read it) "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!" Over and over again, He derides THEM for THEIR sins; and He ends His scathing diatribe with (vv.34-36)- "Therefore I am sending YOU prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them YOU will kill and crucify; others YOU will flog in YOUR synagogues and pursue from town to town. And so upon YOU will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom YOU murdered between the temple and the altar. I TELL YOU THE TRUTH, ALL THIS WILL COME UPON THIS GENERATION." I'm just wondering - What do YOU do with that? Or should I say "this"? Oh yeah I forgot, when it doesn't fit... force it with your sledgehammer right? There is another way, however, that is so much easier. :o) sincerely, blockhead JEGjr
Hey ease up, anybody would think that "context" means something ;) davo
The context is clear. The second person plural ("you") is used throughout Matthew 24. LaHaye and Ice claim that the audience changes at verse 9 where the "you" refers to future tribulation-Israel. Impossible. If Jesus had a future generation of Jews in mind, He could/should have used "thery." Jesus tells His disciples that it's THEIR generation that will see the signs: "Even so, when YOU see all THESE THINGS, YOU know that it is NEAR, right at the door." Jesus could not have been any more clear. If Jesus had a different generation in mind, He could have made that clear by saying the following: "Even so, when THEY see all THESE THINGS, THEY will know that it is NEAR, right at the door." Even "near" is defined for us: "right at the door." If Jesus had a FUTURE generation in mind, He could have made that clear by stating: "THAT generation will not pass away. . . ." Gary DeMar
One of the best examples of the problem with proof-texting I've seen in a long time.
I SPENT 30 YEARS IN A PENTECOSTAL CHURCH LISTENING TO THESE IDENTICAL ARGUMENTS, AND BECAME JUST AS VOCIFEROUS AT DEFENDING THE "TRUTHS OF DISPENSATIONALISM". AT BIBLE COLLEGE HOWEVER, IT WAS THE SON OF A FARMER FROM ALBERTA WHO SHUT THE MOUTHS OF ALL THAT COLLEGE'S PROFESSORS AND DOCTORS OF THEOLOGY....I WILL NEVER FORGET THE DAY THEY TOLD THIS STUDENT TO KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT, SIT DOWN AND NOT ASK ANY MORE QUESTIONS. SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS OF COMBINED KNOWLEDGE COULD NOT STAND AGAINST THE LOGIC OF HERMENEUTICAL PRETERISM. ONE OF THE PRIME KEYS OF "UNLOCKING" THE DEFINITIVE MEANINGS OF SCRIPTURE IS THE NECESSITY OF FOUNDATIONALIZING COVENANT THEOLOGY...AN ARTICLE OF FAITH THAT IS SPOKEN OF IN DISPENSATIONAL CIRCLES BUT SUPERCEDED BY THE DESIRE TO "GET OUT OF THIS LIFE" VIA A RAPTURE. WHILE I DO NOT WASTE MY TIME WATCHING SITCOMS ON THE TUBE, I DO ENJOY THE ANTICS OF DR. AND MRS. VAN IMPE WORK THEMSELVES INTO A DISPENSATIONAL LATHER OVER LIFE AND DEATH ISSUES SUCH AS "OUR PETS IN THE RAPTURE", AND YET ANOTHER DATE SETTING FOR THE SECOND COMING BETWEEN 2012-2019. PERSONALLY, IF PEOPLE WANT TO BELIEVE THIS NONSENSE, I WOULD NOT WASTE MY TIME TRYING TO CONVINCE THEM OTHERWISE. I FIND MORE OBJECTIVITY IN DEALING WITH THE JEHOVAHS' WITNESSES AND MORMONS THAT SHOW UP AT MY DOOR. I THANK GOD FOR DELIVERING ME FROM "DISPEN-SENSATIONALISM" !
Matthew 24 uses the word "world" only three (24:3,14,21) times, and in each one of those applications, it never repeats the same Greek word. 24:14 tells us the gospel will be preached in all the "world" (3625 Strongs conc.)..specifically the Roman Empire...... and for a witness unto ALL nations. Those nations contained within the sphere of Roman influence and the very ones who showed up at Pentecost in Acts 2:5. It's something that simply cannot be missed unless one has an agenda to fulfill. The author also makes mention of a great falling away. Maybe he ought to consider why attention is paid in Revelation to the 7 churches in Asia Minor....only 2 of them did not require Apostolic correction to remedy the problem of their "falling away".
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996