Beyond the problems in reconciling the specifics of the prophecy itself, however, preterism has additional implications that make it unacceptable. These problems revolve around the larger implications for the relevance of the scriptures in the lives of believers. These problems will be discussed here.

It is important to remember that, according to the preterist position, the Second Coming occurred in A.D. 70. If this is, in fact, the case, then all of the judgments — of Israel, of Christians, and of the nations — have been fulfilled, as well. This means that all of the familiar parables: of the day and the hour, the faithful servant and the evil servant, the wise and foolish virgins, the parable of the talents, the judgment of the nations, the testing of believers works by fire, are in the past. In some cases, such as 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 2 Peter, and Revelation, the prophecies of entire books have been fulfilled and therefore have little or no practical consequences for believers' lives today.

This makes the New Testament a first-century faith, not a living faith for believers of all ages. And if these events are fulfilled, what is there left for us to look forward to? Where is our purifying hope? Will there be judgment beyond A.D. 70? Will there be rewards for the works of believers? Or were the judgments and rewards given in the first century? If there will be future judgment and rewards, where can they be found in scripture if preterism teaches that all of the end times prophecies have been fulfilled? How can the scriptures motivate us for today?

The more I study end times prophecy, the more amazed I become at how tightly the Second Coming of Christ and the Day of the Lord are woven throughout the fabric of the New Testament. Hardly a page goes by without an exhortation, warning, or promise based on this expectation. To suggest that all of the end-times prophecies have been fulfilled would leave the scriptures in tattered shreds. And yet, Paul said that all scripture is useful for edification for all Christians (2 Tim. 3:16). How can both be true?

Here are the key books that would be left in shreds by the preterist view:

• Matthew
• Mark
• Luke
• John
• Acts
• Romans
• 1 Corinthians
• Philippians
• Ephesians
• Hebrews
• 1 Thessalonians
• 2 Thessalonians
• 1 Peter
• 2 Peter
• 1 Timothy
• 2 Timothy
• James
• 1 John
• Jude
• Revelation

When Is the Final Judgment?

There is another inconsistency in the preterist view, as well. Like non-preterists, many preterists seem to expect a final day of judgment — indeed, a final day of history as we know it — but once we remove all of the relevant scriptures, where do we find it? If all of the eschatological events have been fulfilled, including the judgment of Israel, the rewards given to believers, and the judgment of the nations, what scriptures are left to point to this future day?

Repeatedly, preterists take issue with scholars of other positions who, they believe, are not using the natural reading of the text, stretching it beyond credulity. Let's apply the same test to preterism. Stepping back from the requirements to “prove” the preterist position, do we really believe that the emphasis that Jesus, Paul, and the other New Testament writers placed on “the end of the world” have been fulfilled? I think of the reference to 1 Cor. 3:11-15: “Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test each ones' work, of what sort it is.” Is the natural reading really that the judgment of all Christians occurred in A.D. 70? If so, what judgment awaits the rest of us? It simply has no satisfying meaning outside the end-times context.

As I discussed in Part II, one of the ways preterists get around this problem is by redefining “the end of the world” and “the last day” to mean the end of the Jewish age. However, this reminds me of the awkward definitions and re-analyses of the Greek given by pretribulationists. In each case, if they try hard enough, pretribulationist scholars can create a justification for interpreting certain verses in ways that support their position. But when they must do this over and over and over, the end result is a force-fit that belies the natural reading of the text. This is also the case with preterism. If one must force the interpretation of each individual end-times passage into a Jewish age context, it does tremendous violence to the natural reading of the scriptures.

For example, one of the pillars on which preterism stands is the redefining of “the end of the age” and “the end” as “the end of the Jewish Age.” And yet, Jesus never defined “the end” this way. It is true that He used the word “tribes” [phulai], but just because all of the tribes will mourn does not make this an exclusively Jewish phenomenon. Preterist scholar J. Stuart Russell says, “The restricted sense of the word ge [land] in the New Testament is common; and when connected, as it is here, with the word “tribes” [phulai], its limitation to the land of Israel is obvious.”

I disagree. If Jesus has not yet come, and this prophecy has not yet been fulfilled, when Jesus comes in the future, all of the tribes will still mourn! This will be particularly poignant in the modern land of Israel, which is zealously Zionist but still in denial about her Messiah. Furthermore, the tribes of Israel could not have imagined the Great Dispersion; nor could they have envisioned the formation of the Church, which was to spread the gospel throughout all the world. When Christ comes, all the tribes of Israel will mourn, but so will the tribes all over the world, including those living in the United States, in Europe, in Russia, and Africa. And when Jesus comes — with the gospel having been spread to the four corners of the earth — the mourning will not be exclusive to them.

Although Russell uses terms like “undeniably” and “obvious,” his point is not obvious at all. The substitution of “the end of the age” for “the end of the Jewish age” is a human interpretation that, once adopted, impacts nearly every page of the rest of the New Testament. This ought to be a red flag for anyone concerned about the integrity of scripture. The argument for redefining “the end of the world” to read “the Jewish age” requires the substitution of one meaning for another, with enormous ripples for all aspects of doctrine and a believer's life.

Furthermore, this redefinition is not consistent even within the text at hand. Matthew 24 opens because the disciples ask, “When will these things happen and when is the end of the age?” In other words, when is the end of the age for us? Throughout Matthew 24, Jesus was not talking to Old Testament Jews. He was talking to believers. He was talking to His future disciples who, not too long hence, would become the foundation of the New Testament Church. These disciples asked, When is the end of the world...for us? They did not say for unbelieving Israel. They said for us. They may not have realized that there was a distinction, but Jesus surely did.

Misplaced Emphasis

To this, preterists would likely cry “foul!” They would suggest that there is no way the first century hearers of this prophecy would have imagined that the fulfillment of this prophecy would occur not just centuries, but millennia, in the future. Thus, they would say, this is simply not an acceptable reading.

I believe that preterists place too much emphasis on the perspective of first-century hearers. How often has the fulfillment of a prophecy been farther removed than when the hearers expect? David was promised that his son would sit on the throne of Jerusalem forever. Does a son of David sit on the throne today? Did the Messiah come in the lifetimes of the Old Testament prophets who foretold Him? Even when the Messiah did come — hundreds of years later — did He come as the conquering King that Israel expected? No, He came as the suffering servant that caused so many Jews to reject Him and cry “Crucify Him!” before Pontius Pilate.

To suggest that a prophecy must be fulfilled within the lifetimes of the hearers, in the way that the hearers expect, simply because they expect it, is simply not reasonable.

The limits of the “first-century hearers” argument become even more evident when we consider that God Himself has said that much of end-times prophecy will be a mystery to all except those who witness its fulfillment (Dan. 12:4, 9). On page 36 of The Last Days According to Jesus, Sproul asks a critical and relevant question for preterists. He writes, “If this prophecy [Matthew 24] includes the prediction of Jerusalem's destruction, then the natural meaning of His words is that these things must take place before Jerusalem and the temple are destroyed.”

The flip side of this argument, however, is what if this prophecy does not include the prediction of Jerusalem's destruction? The word “if” requires there to be two possible answers, yet Sproul does not seem to consider this possibility. The disciples may have thought that the return of Christ and the end of the world would happen in their lifetimes, but they did not have perfect knowledge of the future. When they asked, “When will these things be fulfilled and when is the end of the age,” just because they may not have realized that there was a distinction between the destruction of the temple and the end of the age doesn't mean there wasn't one.

Enduring to the End

There is yet another question that must be asked regarding Matthew 24. If these prophecies are fulfilled, as preterists claim, what does Jesus mean by “he who endures to the end will be saved?” (Matt. 10:22, 24:13; Mark 13:13). The salvation in view here is clearly temporal — physical redemption out from the midst of the terrible suffering and persecution that will occur during the Great Tribulation.

If Matthew 24 was fulfilled in A.D. 70, what is the meaning of this promise? In the preterist view, the Second Coming of Christ and the rapture of the Church are spiritual and nonmaterial. Thus, if there is no physical salvation out of the Great Tribulation (by rapture), the promise that “he who endures to the end shall be saved” is no promise at all. Enduring to the end is its own salvation. If, by the grace of God, you weren't killed during this terrible time, congratulations — you made it.

Furthermore, the preterist view applies the judgment on Jerusalem as solely for rebellious Israel. If the Great Tribulation were only for the Jews, it does not make sense that Paul and Peter would repeatedly talk about this time period as relevant to the Church. Paul talks about watching for the Day of the Lord, preparing for the Day of the Lord, that our works will be declared on that Day. Peter talks about the intense period of testing that will precede the Coming of Christ and the Day of the Lord, that we should not be surprised by this fiery trial “as if some strange thing happened to you” (1 Peter 3:12). Often, the admonitions to holiness and obedience are framed in the context of this Day as the motivation for obedience.

This tribulation and testing is a critical part of Church doctrine that only makes sense in the context of purification for the Church in preparation for a future return of Christ. To suggest that we have already seen the fulfillment of verses like 1 Cor. 3:11-15, “Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire, and the fire will test each ones' work, of what sort it is,” as part of the destruction of Jerusalem in the first century, is truly a stretch.

Interpret the Unclear by the Clear

Preterists repeatedly mention the exegetical rule that one interprets the unclear passages by those that are clear. The only requirements for taking the A.D. 70 destruction of Jerusalem as a complete fulfillment of Matthew 24 are the time frame references such as “at hand” and “this generation.” As I discussed earlier, “this generation” refers to those who see the fulfillment of the prophecy, not the hearers of it; and the term “at hand” is not the clear and unambiguous reference to the first century that many scholars would like it to be. Sproul mentions the “either/or” approach as a poor basis for a proof-text. And yet, this is what the argument about imminence has become. It starts with the premise that these references must be first-century references. Therefore, A) either Jesus was lying or mistaken and His prophecies were not fulfilled; or B) Jesus was telling the truth and His prophecy did come true in the first century.

The flaw in this is the premise is in the belief that these time frame references must require first-century fulfillment. Preterists do not seem to consider that these references might be otherwise. That first-century hearers thought them to require a first-century fulfillment is not a good enough argument. This view must be backed up by scripture — clearly, consistently, and accurately — and it is not.

One of the arguments used by preterists is the reasonable and logical argument that, by all natural understanding, “at hand” and similar references require the prophecy to be fulfilled in a time period that would seem to the hearer to be “at hand.” I prefer to look at these references in God's time table, not my own. The Earth, at the least, is 10,000 years old (I believe it to be far older) and in this time frame, 2,000 years is at the very end of history. Perhaps not 11 o'clock, but 10 o'clock. If the earth is far older, in the billions of years, then it is but the blink of an eye.

To suggest that “at hand” must mean within a few years, when taken in God's eternal perspective, is simply forcing the definition. Especially in light of the fact that Jesus' observation about “this generation” is grounded, not in the first-century timetable, but in the fulfillment of the prophecy for which no timetable is given.

Furthermore, it must be considered that “the end” — in the sense of bringing an end to iniquity and setting up the permanent reign of Christ —may extend further back than simply the fall of man to include the entire question of the conquest of evil, which goes back to the rebellion of Lucifer. Again, in this context, 2,000 years is truly “at hand.”

And yet, preterist scholars continue to require these terms to insist that this prophecy must have been fulfilled in A.D. 70, even though the scriptural and historic record tell us that it is not. If these nebulous terms push us toward an interpretation that is not in perfect agreement with the scriptures, would it not make more sense to interpret the nebulous terms in light of what is certain (that the scriptures have not yet been literally fulfilled) than the other way around?

Conclusion

I appreciate Sproul's scholarship, both in The Last Days and in his other works. However, I respectfully suggest that this book contains logical inconsistencies that do not do a justice to an accurate interpretation. Whether or not Sproul agrees with all of the points of the preterists is difficult to tell. In certain cases, it is clear that he is uncomfortable with some of the more “extreme” consequences of this position. I don't blame him. On one hand, preterists defend the clear, natural reading of the text; but in repeated cases, the “clear natural reading” is not clear or natural at all. On one hand, preterism requires the Word of God to be inerrant; on the other, it requires a sloppy fulfillment of very specific prophecies.

In a sense, preterism is admirable in that it attempts to answer the challenges of modern day scholarship to the authority of the scriptures. But being well meaning, in itself, is not enough.

The impact of this “well-meaning” reminds me of the legacy of the pretrib movement, which came out of an attempt to take all of the scriptures literally after centuries of posttribulationism and amillennialism. Unfortunately, while its intentions were good, the movement's proof-texting wrenched the scriptures in an abominable fashion and created scriptural problems even deeper than the ones it was trying to correct. In my view, preterism has the same flaws. While trying to answer the challenges of modern scholarship, it plays fast and loose with prophetic fulfillment, removes the blessed and purifying hope, and has made the vast majority of the scriptures irrelevant to modern day believers.

Many believers, including Sproul himself, are disturbed by some of these issues and take what is called a “partial preterist” position. However, the break between full preterist and partial preterist is not convincing for me. It is like, I suppose, being “sort of pregnant.” I believe that either one sees the events of A.D. 70 as fulfilling the prophecies of Matthew 24 or one sees them as foreshadowing the complete fulfillment at the end of time. One cannot argue that some were completely fulfilled and others were not. Wording such as "then" and "immediately after" create the sense that this passage is a unified whole that can be understood only when taken in its entirety. The wording simply does not allow for partial fulfillment.

Moreover, the events of Matthew 24 cannot be separated from the rest of the book (not to mention the rest of the New Testament), which place Christ's return with the judgments, not just on Israel, but on all of the world for its wickedness and rebellion. This clearly did not happen in A.D. 70.

After analyzing this position, I am once again, and continually, thankful that the scriptures don't have to be this confusing, inconsistent, or difficult. God has given us a much better way. What I find most appealing about the prewrath view is that it is perfectly consistent, from one end of the scripture to the other. There are no holes. There are no deep scriptural problems. There are no nagging questions or scriptural re-interpretations. It fits together like a puzzle, creating a perfect picture that is not only consistent, but explains God's purposes. It answers more questions than it creates. To me, this is something that only God's truth can do.

Recommended reading on the rapture debate