Doctrine of the Last Things (Part 6): The Preterist Interpretation Continued

Summary

The Preterist Interpretation Continued

I concluded last time by saying that despite the initial attractiveness of a preterist view of Christ’s Second Coming, I cannot at the end of the day accept it because it forces upon us an implausible division of Christ’s return spoken of by Paul and the coming of the Son of Man spoken of by Jesus. How might this be seen? Let me make three points.

1. It seems to me that, according to Jesus and according to Paul as well, the coming of the Son of Man predicted by Jesus is a visible coming to Earth. Notice that the verb “to come” is a perspectival word. What do I mean by that? I mean when somebody “comes,” that represents the situation of the speaker – somebody comes to you. If you want to describe how you go to them, you use the verb “go” instead – you don’t say “I come to them.” You say, “I go to them, and they come to me.” “Come” and “go” are perspectival words; rather like “here” and “there.” “Here” is where somebody comes; “there” is where somebody goes. To see how such words are used in the New Testament, look at Acts 1:11. This is a nice illustration, I think, of the perspectival nature of coming and going. Here the angels say to the disciples who are standing about having just witnessed Jesus’ ascension, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven.”

So when Jesus in Mark 13 talks to his disciples about the “coming” of the Son of Man, this is a description of his coming to Earth. It is where they will see him and experience him. The language of the coming of the Son of Man indicates that he is coming to the place where the observer is. What that means, then, is that Jesus’ coming to Earth is going to be visible and public, just as it is described. It is not going to be some sort of secret, invisible event; it is going to be observed. Look at Mark 13:26: “And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.” The people who are on Earth will see the Son of Man coming with great power and glory. Also, if you look at Mark 14 – the trial of Jesus – you have similar words. Mark 14:61-62:

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am; and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

Here Jesus says to the high priest, “You will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven” – just as he said in the Olivet Discourse. Notice that this coming is in sharp contrast to the false Messiahs that are predicted in the Olivet Discourse, where someone will say “Here is the Christ,” or “There is the Christ.” As Robert Gundry points out in his commentary on Mark, the distinction between the true coming of Christ and the coming of these false Messiahs will be in the public, visible, demonstrative nature of Christ’s real coming. These false Messiahs come in deceptive, private ways which are seen but by a few. But the coming of the Son of Man described by Jesus is an overpowering, public event that will be plainly evident to everyone.

Compare in this connection, Matthew’s version of the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24:24-27. There Jesus says,

For false Christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect. Lo, I have told you beforehand. So, if they say to you, ‘Lo, he is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; if they say, ‘Lo, he is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of man.

Christ’s coming is going to be a visible, overwhelming event that everyone will see; not something that takes place privately in the inner rooms or out in the desert, where these false Christs are.

Also look at Revelation 1:7 to see that this was the view of the early church as well: “Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, every one who pierced him; and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him.” So Christ’s coming is a public event that will be witnessed by all people.

If that is right, then the coming of the Son of Man that is predicted by Jesus is not some invisible, secret thing that took place in AD 70 that nobody on Earth saw. It will be the public, visible, overwhelming advent of the Son of Man to Earth that will be experienced by everyone.

2. The Son of Man doesn’t have to wait around until AD 70 in order to be enthroned. Remember on this view with the coming of the Son of Man and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 Christ is enthroned in his Kingdom as the Son of Man. But what happened in between AD 30 (or 33) and AD 70? For some forty years did the Son of Man have to wait around in order to be enthroned? That seems preposterous. Jesus rose triumphant and glorified from the grave and ascended into heaven to the right hand of the Father. He doesn’t have to wait to assume his Kingdom. He assumes his Kingdom with his resurrection and ascension into heaven. Look at what Paul has to say about this in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 in his discourse on the resurrection of Jesus. Keep in mind that 1 Corinthians was written by Paul around AD 55. That is before the supposed coming of the Son of Man in AD 70. So Paul’s perspective is one of looking forward to that event. It hasn’t occurred yet in AD 55 when Paul wrote this letter. Referring to the resurrection, Paul says,

But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

So in AD 55, Christ is already on his throne. He is reigning as the Son of Man, but will deliver the Kingdom over to the Father when he comes again. Paul continues,

The last enemy to be destroyed is death. “For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection under him,” it is plain that he is excepted who put all things under him.

So according to Paul, God has already put all things under Christ’s dominion. But obviously that excludes God himself. God put all things under his feet; but that doesn’t mean that God is under his feet. God is the one who put all things under Christ’s feet. Paul proceeds,

When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.

Christ will deliver the Kingdom to God the Father and himself be subject to God the Father when Christ’s return is finally accomplished.

So on this view, it seems to me, Christ doesn’t have to wait around until AD 70 to be enthroned in his Kingdom. He is the risen and ascended King already when Paul writes in AD 55.

Compare this to Hebrews 2:7-9, a very similar reflection. The writer begins by quoting from the Old Testament,

“Thou didst make him for a little while lower than the angels,
thou hast crowned him with glory and honor,
putting everything in subjection under his feet.”

Now in putting everything in subjection to him, he left nothing outside his control. As it is, we do not yet see everything in subjection to him. But we see Jesus, who for a little while was made lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor because of the suffering of death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for every one.

So I am not persuaded that what Jesus describes in the Olivet Discourse is the presentation of the Son of Man in the throne room of heaven when he is then crowned and receives his Kingdom. It seems to me much more evident that what is described is the coming of the Son of Man as King and Conqueror – the glorious return of Christ to the Earth as the risen and conquering Lord.

3. The real Achilles Heel of the Preterist view is once again the resurrection of the dead. Paul, in his letters, looks forward to the parousia. Remember, all of his letters were written prior to AD 70. Paul was martyred somewhere in the mid-AD 60s. His Thessalonian correspondence, where he describes at length the appearing and coming of the Son of Man, was some of the earliest material in the New Testament, being written around AD 51 from Corinth to the church in Thessalonica. Paul looks forward to the parousia of Christ and the resurrection of the dead at his return. Now obviously the resurrection of the dead didn’t occur in AD 70. What the preterist is therefore forced to say is that what Paul is looking forward to and describing as the coming of the Son of Man is not the event that took place in AD 70 but rather an event that will occur at the end of history when Christ comes back once again and the dead are raised. I remember at a conference at which N. T. Wright was speaking, someone asked him, “If you believe that the coming of the Son of Man occurred in AD 70, what about the resurrection of the dead? Do you think that that is already passed?” And Wright responded, “Of course not! I think Christ will come again at the end of the age, and then the dead will be raised.” So you see, you wind up doing exactly what the Rapture folks had to do. You have to postulate that Paul isn’t talking about the same event that Jesus is talking about in the Olivet Discourse, despite the commonality of vocabulary and the connections between the two. The preterist has to say that what Paul is talking about in Thessalonians and his other correspondence is this end-time event, not the event that Jesus predicted in the Olivet Discourse. That seems to me to be extremely ad hoc and implausible. It seems to me that the natural understanding of Paul’s teaching is that he and Jesus were talking about the same event, when Christ will return as the Son of Man, the dead will be raised, the angels will gather the elect from the four corners of the Earth, and they will welcome Christ back to Earth to establish his Kingdom visibly.

So, again, with all the best will in the world, at the end of the day I just don’t buy Preterism. It would be nice if it were true because it would solve the problem of the delay of the parousia so adroitly. But it seems to me that this interpretation is implausible.

Next time we meet, we’ll continue our discussion of the return of Christ.^[1]