BOOKS: BIBLICAL STUDIES (1500BC-AD70) / EARLY CHRISTIAN PRETERISM (AD50-1000) / FREE ONLINE BOOKS (AD1000-2008)
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to
that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'.
Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking
the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only
Herod's Temple in Jerusalem
fell. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old
Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of
Christianity as seen in the New Testament.
AD70 Dispensationalism: According to that view, AD70 was the end of 'this age' and the start of the 'age to come'. Those who lived before AD70 could only 'see in part' and such, lacking the resurrection and redemptive blessings which supposedly came only when Herod's Temple in Jerusalem fell. Accordingly, AD70 was not only the end of Old Testament Judaism, but it was also the end of the revelation of Christianity as seen in the New Testament.
material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views,
but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond
the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The
classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built
upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and
the convictions of
the website curator (a
former full preterist pastor). The HyP
theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70
(end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors
through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up
to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written.
Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between
Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and
THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
"Full preterist" material is being archived for balanced representation of all preterist views, but is classified under the theological term hyper (as in beyond the acceptable range of tolerable doctrines) at this website. The classification of all full preterism as Hyper Preterism (HyP) is built upon well over a decade of intense research at PreteristArchive.com, and the convictions of the website curator (a former full preterist pastor). The HyP theology of final resurrection and consummation in the fall of Jerusalem, with its dispensational line in AD70 (end of old age, start of new age), has never been known among authors through nearly 20 centuries of Christianity leading up to 1845, when the earliest known full preterist book was written. Even though there may be many secondary points of agreement between Historical/Modern Preterism and Hyper Preterism, their premises are undeniably and fundamentally different.
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MATERIAL HAS BEEN CLASSIFIED AS "HYPER PRETERIST"
SOME DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES OF SYSTEMATIZED HYPER PRETERISM
It is important to keep in mind that many ideas and doctrines full preterism appeals to - such as the complete end of the Old Covenant world in AD70 - are by no means distinctive to that view. Many non HyPs believe this as well, so one need not embrace the Hyper Preterist system in order to endorse this view. Following are exceptional doctrines which, so far as I've seen, are only taught by adherents of Hyper Preterism.:
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY STANDARD FULL PRETERISM
DISTINCTIVE DOCTRINES TAUGHT BY VARIOUS FORMS
An Answer to Toussaint's 'Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse'
By Brian Forgy
This article is written in response to "A Critique of the Preterist View of the Olivet Discourse" by Dr. Stanley Toussaint. His article is written in response to what Thomas Ice calls " moderate preterism, " which is the partial preterist view held by most Reconstructionists. He also takes into account some of the full or consistent preterist approach. I will only be responding to the arguments made by Toussaint according to my view of the scriptures in this case. I will not be defending either Gentry or DeMarr whom Toussaint bases much of his argumentation on.
Toussaint on Matthew 23:39
I must here differ greatly with Dr. Toussaints argument. He makes a strong case on the surface that his argument is true, but it falls under scrutiny. I agree with Toussaint that the verse refers to the repentance of Israel, but in what sense? Lets examine the argument. Dr. Toussaint begins by comparing this statement to Psalm 118:26, a Psalm in which another grand eschatological pronouncement is made,
" The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner, " (Psalm 118:22)
What is the eschatological meaning of this verse? Mr. Toussaint cannot divorce his argument from the whole context to create a theory, and this verse is also related to the eschatological hope of Israel. Lets look at the significance of this. Well, lets begin with the first usage of it in Matthew 21:42. In verses 33 43 of Matthew 21, Jesus is speaking a parable to the Pharisees in which he relates basically the same things as he does in Matthew 23 concerning the slaying of the prophets, and apostles. Jesus ends with a question in verse 40 asking what shall the Lord do with these men. The Jews reply by pronouncing their own doom in that the Lord will slay them. Then, Jesus relates the words of Psalm 118:22 and then pronounces the changing hands of the kingdom in verses 42,43. This is amazing that Christ relates this to the doom of the Jews.
It is used again in Mark 12:1-12 in the same way, but this time the Lord himself pronounces the doom of the Jews, and also includes Psalm 118:23 in which David said " This is the Lords doing and it is marvelous in our eyes. " This is interesting that the Lord uses these words and David also in the context of the destruction of Jerusalem, because Dr. Toussaint says that Christ would not call the destruction of Jerusalem a blessed coming of the Messiah. Yet, in Davids and the Lords eyes it is a marvelous thing. Yes, marvelous is not the same as being blessed, but David relates this idea in a Psalm of thanksgiving and rejoice. I will discuss why this is in a moment. First, I want to look at Dr. Toussaints usage of Zechariah 12:10. Here Dr. Toussaint errs on several counts. He claims that AD 70 cannot be the coming in which Israel will say it is blessed because he sees a contradiction between blessed and mourning. This distinction does not stand in the light of scripture for several reasons.
Zechariah 14:1-5 We find a paradox in this section being that the Lord brings the nations against Jerusalem to take the city, rifle houses, and ravish the women. Yet, in verse 3 the Lord fights against these nations He Himself brought against them. Why? Well, this is very interesting and it is explained in this way. Israel or Jerusalem is being spoken of in a split sense. Going back to chapter 13 of Zechariah we find in verse 8 that two parts of the land are cut off, but a third remains. This is after the crucifixion of Christ where the Shepherd has been struck. Thus we have a remnant, and the rest are cast off (vs. 9). So we come to chapter 14 where we see that the city is taken and many go into captivity, yet the Lord defends on the residue (remnant) of verse2. This is very important and answers Toussaints fallacy. Paul uses this exact idea in Romans 11:7 in which he distinguishes between two parts of Israel; he says Israel and the elect! Yet, in this same discussion Paul declares not all of Israel is of Israel in the idea of election (Romans 9:6,27) only a remnant are. So, does this hold up in the olivet discourse? It sure does. We find that in verses 1-15 that the city is destroyed, and in verses 16, 22, and 31 the elect are spared and protected. We find the non- elect part of Israel going into captivity as Zechariah said (Luke 21:24). The distinction is maintained! This explains how the coming is both blessed and mournful when you distinguish between Israel elected who see in it a blessed coming of their Lord, and Israel cut off who mourn. Paul told Timothy to keep the commandment, not until he dies, is resurrected etc, but until the coming of the Lord in which His blessedness is shown forth (1 Timothy 2:14,15). Timothy would live to see the blessed coming of the Lord, while on the other hand all the tribes of the land and those that pierced him would mourn (Rev. 1:7). Did you read that? Despite Toussaints objections Israel would mourn at Christs coming! And this is quoted in Revelation directly directly from Zechariah 12:10!
2. As for his repentance of Israel in Zechariah 13:1 being against my view, it should be noticed that this is spoken in the context of the death of Christ in verses 6 and 7. Yet, when this fountain was opened, only the remnant found salvation (v.8), and that was fulfilled long ago, not in a future blessed coming (Hebrews 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19; Revelation 1:5). The fountain is spoken of in Revelation 21:6 in a manner that it would be opened very soon, and is the same water in John 4:10-14. It is not a fountain to be opened in the future, but was opened in the past
Acts 4:11 He we find that through this rejected stone that has become the head of the corner, that salvation is offered to Israel (Acts 4:10,12). This is a problem for Mr. Toussaints dispensationalism because this should not be happening if in fact their parenthesis theory is correct here. We also see that our analogy holds true once again. In Matthew 21 etc, we see that the stone will fall on Israel and crush it, while here in acts they can fall on it and be broken! To them that are elected His coming in 70 AD is a blessed thing, to the disobedient, they will mourn.
Toussaint and the Great Tribulation
Here Dr. Toussaint admits rightly that the language, " great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning until now, nor ever shall be, " does not rule out the preterist position because of statements that are similar in 2 Kings 18:5, 1 Kings 3:12 and 2 Kings 23:25. His objection is upon the basis of " all flesh " in verse 22 is too limited when applied to the Jews in Judea. His objections are based upon his idea of how the word is used in other verses. He cites one proof text that is very relevant to the situation, lets look at it.
Luke 3:6 This is the most important " all flesh " text in our current study, and it is devastating to Toussaints objection. Johns mission is stated in this verse that it included all flesh seeing the salvation of God. Yet, Johns mission in the idea of " flesh " is stated in Malachi 4:5,6 in that he should turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, lest THE LORD COME AND SMITE THE LAND WITH A CURSE. Here, the idea of flesh seems very isolated to the Jews and their land. Johns mission to " all flesh " must be considered in light of the OT prophecies concerning Johns mission, this is proper biblical interpretation, and it lays bare Toussaints objection.
John here in Luke is speaking of " all flesh " in relation to the wrath about to come (Greek Mello is rightfully rendered in its principal meaning of imminence) in verse 7. It was a time in which the axe is laid at the root of the tree (v. 9). This is an imminent judgement, not one 2000 years away from Johns day, and has a direct reference to the destruction of Jerusalem. The trees that now bring forth good fruit stand, and the unproductive ones are hewn down. We are once again seeing a contrast between disobedient and elect Israel, and this is exactly how Christ is using the term " flesh " in Matthew 24:22. If the days are not shortened " no flesh " should be saved. The days are shortened for the sake of the elect so that their flesh is saved. This relates back to Zechariah 13 where we learned that only one-third (the elect) are saved. This is what Christ meant by " no flesh, " despite Mr. Toussaints objections.
I do not really see Dr. Toussaints point of quoting Geldenhuys objection to the redemption drawing nigh at the destruction of Jerusalem because of the deaths of some of the apostles before 70 AD, and tribulation occurring after 70 AD. This is an absolutely weak argument for two reasons.
Beyond this, Geldenhuys objections seem to be rooted in the exact argumentation that Toussaint had previously said was not an effective method against the preterist view, in that there have been greater tribulations (physically) since 70 AD, therefore 70 AD was not the great tribulation. Toussaint had already shown why this sort of reasoning was weak, but then goes against this and gives an argument from another man that seems to be based on the rejected principle.
Mr. Toussaint and the Abomination of Desolation
Mr. Toussaint makes a serious 'typological' error in his assessment of the preterist view of the abomination of desolation. His first problem is that he looks at the 70 AD destruction of Jerusalem as a type of the ultimate fulfillment of the end of the world. This being so, he must have a correspondence of the abomination in 70 AD to that of the end time abomination. He rejects the preterist view of Matthew 24:15 because he cannot get an exact correspondence in AD 70 to Antiochus, while not realizing that his view demands one also. Why is this? Well, Mr. Toussaint feels the strength of the preterist view to the point that he must accept it as a partial, or type fulfillment of the end. He takes no objection to the preterist view of the wars, false messiahs, famines, and earthquakes in AD 70. He only sees it as a type. This puts him in a predicament because according to verses 6 and 8 these signs are prerequisites to " the end. " The one who endures to " the end " shall be saved (v.13). " The end " would take place after the gospel is preached in all the world, he must admit that this happened at least in type in AD 70 (Matt. 24:14; Romans 10:18; Colossians 1:23). This " end " has its beginning in verse 15 with the abomination, and to break the AD 70 type fulfillment here is to destroy the progressive purpose of the events. With this fact, his argument goes out the window, because at least a type of the abomination must have happened in AD 70.
Beyond this however, Mr. Toussaint cannot make an exact type/antitype scenario out of the other such situations in Matthew 24 and the parallel passages. His reasoning would require an actual flood out of verses 37-39, yet that would conflict with the fire of Lot in Luke 17:28,29. Which will it be, fire or water? The mode of action is not the point here. It is the spiritual significance. The same is true of the abomination. DeMar gave four very applicable meanings or possibilities that Toussaint points out. Toussaint makes his objection on the basis of exact correspondence, but exact correspondence is not the nature of type fulfillment. Did Jesus make an exact type fulfillment of Passover? Was he a literal lamb? In type he was the lamb, but he was not a lamb in actuality, nor was his blood applied to houses, or was his sacrifice given on an altar, and we did not literally eat his flesh. Mr. Toussaint makes impossibility out of all typology by using this objection. That seems most unnatural to me.
He also objects because it would make impossibility out of the fleeing of Matthew 24:16-20. Matthew is a synoptic with Luke 21 on the olivet discourse. Mr. Toussaints objection loses its footing on scriptural and historical grounds here. First off there is a rule of hermeneutics that says interpret the obscure verses in light of the clear ones. If Mr. Toussaint has a problem with Matthew 24:16-20, he should go to the parallel chapters to see if there is a clearer verse on the subject. Luke 21:20-21 is very clear on this objection of Toussaints. It says the Christians were to flee when Jerusalem was surrounded with armies. Eusebius gives us the historical fulfillment of this when he tells us the Christians in 70 AD heeded this warning of the Lord and fled to Pella in the mountains (Ecclesiastical History 3, pg.5). See how easy interpretation is when you follow the hermenutical rules?
Mr. Toussaint and This Generation
Mr. Toussaint loses the meaning of " this generation " because he overlooks the consistent Preterist view that sees no split in subject in Matthew 24. He mentions Mounces difficulty with the partial Preterist interpretation based upon the Porous passages in Matthew 24, but fails to mention the full preterist interpretation that clears this up.
Toussaint makes his objection on " all these things " s being the difficulty in interpretation. What is Toussaints remedy to this problem? Well, he sees it as "these things" will begin to take place in that generation (70 AD) then living and be consummated at the Second Advent. This view has a problem with the parallel Luke 21:22, which shows that " this generation " is not concerned with the beginning of these things, but the fulfillment. Mr. Toussaint makes his assertion upon " take place " in Luke 21:32; Matthew 24:34; and Mark 13:30. This is in the aroist subjunctive, which is simple undefined action with an uncertainty only because the action has not yet taken place. It rejects the multiple fulfillment idea in that it does not support continuous or repeated action. Thus the verbs reject Toussaints remedy view and his number 2 most likely candidate view of multiple fulfillment. Luke 21:22 rejects Toussaints idea and if its not true in Luke, its not true in Matthew 24.
Mr. Toussaint next attempts to justify a future rebuilt temple based upon Haggai 2:3,9. This simply will not do. I agree the temple being destroyed in AD 70 was a presage to a rebuilt temple, but not how Toussaint sees it. The temple as a building was a symbol for that present time which while still standing prevented the way into the true holy of holies being disclosed (Hebrews 9:8-10). In the meantime God was building the greater temple which consisted of Jews and Gentiles as the church which is called the commonwealth of Israel (Eph. 2:21). Then in AD 70 the outer tabernacle (temple) was destroyed and the way into the holy of holies was disclosed, and the new temple of greater glory of Ephesians was fully established as Gods true temple.
Next, Dr. Toussaint comes along with his hiatus in Daniel 9. As Dr. Toussaint, I shall not enter into a full explanation as to why it is fully fulfilled; this sort of thing can be found at www.preteristarchive.com. I will just give one fact that militates heavily against his gap theory. Daniel 9:24 makes it clear that the 70 weeks are a determined length of time. To insert a gap would make it a determined length of 490 years of undetermined length. The dipensationalist has turned the determined 490 years into a span of more than 2500 years, and this makes the language of Daniel 9:24 as being determined absurd.
He next tries to reduce the force of the second person plural by using Matthew 23:35. He contradicts himself here and misses the point. He admits earlier that Matthew 23:26 is a reference to Christs contemporaries. So, why make 23:35 any different? Toussaint isolates this verse from the context and thereby misses the Lords point. The Lord says, " you murdered " in the sense that the blood of all the martyrs was upon their hands, this is the whole import of Matthew 23:31-36. Notice in verse 35 the Lord mentions the martyrs in A to Z sense. From Able to Zechariah, meaning all the blood was to fall upon that generation. He was not referring to a past generation by using you; he was giving the guilt of it to that generation.
Here Mr. Toussaint tries the traditional " transfiguration " approach to Matthew 16:28. There are several problems with this approach. He gives 2 Peter 1:16-18, which does not support his cause. Matthew 16:28 is a coming, while 2 Peter 1:16-18 makes an assurance of a coming, but is not a coming itself. The main problem is that Matthew 16:27,28 are not separate subjects. Verse 27 contains the word Mello in the Greek, which would render the phrase as " the Son of Man is about to come, " not going to come. Weymouth renders it as " For the Son of Man is soon to come. " Christ then continues with a clause he always uses to address his previous subject. He says, "verily." Out of the 96 times this is used in the NT, it is never used to change subjects, but to strengthen the previous subject. So, the gist is that in verse 27 Christ defines his coming, while in verse 28 he gives a loose time reference, that the coming of verse 27 would happen before all those standing there died. For Mr. Toussaint to apply the transfiguration to this text would require all of verse 27 to have happened at the transfiguration. Beyond this, Mr. Toussaint has a problem with the parallels again. Mark 9:1 which is the parallel to Matthew 16:28, but it declares that when the action occurs of the kingdom coming, it is a completed action. If Mr. Toussaint wishes to use the transfiguration explanation he must declare the coming of the kingdom was complete, and not merely a taster as he suggests. This is necessitated by the kingdom being spoken of in Mark 9:1 as " has come " in the perfect participle. The fact though is that Matthew 16:28 is identical in language to 24:30, and we should thus seek our fulfillment in AD 70 and not in the transfiguration. Luke 21:31 further puts the coming of the kingdom in this AD 70 context, thus it is only natural to connect Matthew 16:27,28 to AD 70.
As for Matthew 26:64 Mr. Toussaint makes no argument, so we shall conclude here. We have answered all of his objections, but we agree with him that the moderate Preterists are in error. Though we must say the full preterist view easily survives his critique.
I agree that there are a lot of arguments from silence in Toussaint's piece.
04 Apr 2004
I agree with Dr. Toussaint.
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996