THE AUDIENCE RELEVANCE PRINCIPLE

The writers of the New Testament addressed their letters to contemporary audiences in their day. On the flip side, the recipients of the letters would have understood that those letters were addressed to them. This is known as the audience relevance principle. Consider a modern day example of this principle. When missionaries write personal support letters to different churches, we all inherently recognize that those letters are only useful for the purpose of raising financial support while the missionaries who wrote those letters are still alive. On the flip side, those letters only have financial relevance for the churches that received them while the missionaries who wrote them are alive. This goes to show that the use of pronouns like “we” and “you” are understood to be referring to the writers and direct recipients of those letters.

If we, today, were to read a letter of support from Jim Eliot, a missionary killed by the Waodani Indians in Ecuador in 1956, we would not then raise money on Sunday to send to him personally since he is deceased. We use common sense in such circumstances. Yet, when it comes to reading the Bible, we tend to forget common sense when we read words like “we” and “you.” Because we enter the Scriptures with the presupposition that the words on the pages are written to us, we frequently fail to interpret the meaning of the texts correctly. It is interesting that when we read the portion of one of Paul’s letters to the Corinthians regarding financial support for the church in Jerusalem, we don’t take up an offering on Sunday to give Paul money to send to Jerusalem. Notice the pronouns in this passage:

1 Corinthians 16:1-3

“¹Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also. ²On the first day of every week each one of you is to put aside and save, as he may prosper, so that no collections be made when I come. ³When I arrive, whomever you may approve, I will send them with letters to carry your gift to Jerusalem.”

Yet, one passage earlier, when Paul talks about the coming of Christ and the resurrection, the “you” and the “we” words are usually thought to be directly written to us today:

1 Corinthians 15:51

“Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed.”

How is it possible that Paul can tell the Corinthians that “we” shall not all sleep if every one of them, including Paul, is now dead? The first thing to come to grips with when reading the New Testament is that the writers wrote actual letters to actual churches in the first century. This may seem an obvious thing to say, but you will soon see why it is important to bring the audience relevance principle to the forefront of your mind when studying the Scriptures.

THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS

This principle applies equally to the words of Jesus in the Gospels. Let’s take an audience relevance principle test drive. Read Matthew 10:16-23, keeping the audience relevance principle in mind:

Matthew 10:16-23

^“16Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves. ¹⁷But beware of men, for they will hand you over to the courts and scourge you in their synagogues; ¹⁸and you will even be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. ¹⁹But when they hand you over, do not worry about how or what you are to say; for it will be given you in that hour what you are to say. ²⁰For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you. ²¹Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; and children will rise up against parents and cause them to be put to death. ²²You will be hated by all because of My name, but it is the one who has endured to the end who will be saved. ²³But whenever they persecute you in one city, flee to the next; for truly I say to you, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes.”

In this passage, Jesus is talking to His twelve disciples. The things that He said would happen to them, in verses 17 and 18, did not happen until after His ascension. Since Jesus is telling His disciples about things that would happen to them, how is it possible that Jesus could say, “you will not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man comes” if we are still waiting for the Son of Man to come? This statement from Jesus makes it abundantly clear that He is not talking to us. Jesus explicitly tells them that He would come before they finished going through the cities of Israel. It is unmistakable that Jesus is teaching that He would come before all of them died because they would be going through the cities of Israel when the Son of Man would come.

Unfortunately, many people, blinded by a traditional view of the future coming of Christ, give the following interpretation of this text:

“These words cannot be understood in the sense which some have given to them as relating to the first mission, but embrace the whole course of their apostleship. But the difficulty lies in ascertaining what is meant by the coming of the Son of man … I look upon the consolation here given as addressed peculiarly to the apostles. Christ is said to come, when matters are desperate, and he grants relief. The commission which they received was almost boundless: it was to spread the doctrine of the Gospel through the whole world. Christ promises that he will come before they have travelled [sic] through the whole of Judea: that is, by the power of his Spirit, he will shed around his reign such luster, that the apostles will be enabled to discern that glory and majesty which they had hitherto been unable to discover” [William Pringle, trans., Calvin's Commentaries: Vol. XVI: Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, and Luke (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 457-58].

John Calvin, along with everyone else with the futurist presupposition, not knowing how to explain this statement of Christ to his apostles, come up with interpretations that force the text into a particular mold instead of taking the straightforward meaning of the text. Where does Jesus remotely imply, much less, state, that He would come over and over again when matters are desperate?

How many comings of Jesus are there?

Further, if we take Calvin’s correct understanding that the words of Jesus are “peculiarly to the apostles,” then this supposed promise to come over and over again could only apply to them anyway. What is striking here is that the phrase, “coming of the Son of Man,” as well as all other references to the coming of Christ in Scripture, is only interpreted in a similar way as Calvin by futurists in places that demand a first century coming of Christ. Interestingly, in texts that demand a first century coming of Christ, Jesus can come over and over again, but in texts that don’t contain an immediate time statement, He can only come again once. There is only one way to interpret this text honestly. The coming of the Son of Man occurred in the first century, before His apostles finished going through the cities of Israel.

Let’s continue our test drive:

Matthew 16:27-28

“²⁷“For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. ²⁸“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

So where are we now?

• Matthew 10:23 teaches that Jesus would come before his disciples finished going through the cities of Israel.
• Matthew 16:27-28 is talking about the same event (notice the exact same “Son of Man coming” language).
• The coming of Jesus in His kingdom would be the time when He would repay every man according to his deeds.
• There were some people standing there with Jesus that would still be alive at the coming of Jesus in His kingdom to reward every man according to his deeds.
• Unless some of those people standing there with Jesus are still alive today as you read this, then the coming of Jesus in His kingdom, in the glory of His father with His angels, to repay every man according to what he has done, has already happened.

Some people, in an attempt to square texts like these with the traditional view of the second coming of Jesus, state that the fulfillment of Matthew 16:27-28 is the transfiguration event in Matthew 17. There are many problems that arise with such an attempt, but when all is said and done, Matthew 25:31 makes that attempt impossible:

“But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne.”

Once again, we see the same “Son of Man coming” language as we did in Matthew 10:23. We also see the identical scenario as we did in Matthew 16:27-28. Here are the elements that are identical:

1.     Son of Man comes

2.     In glory

3.     With angels

4.     To repay every man according to his deeds = will sit on His glorious throne.

The teaching of Matthew 25:31 comes after the transfiguration event. How could Jesus teach the exact same thing about His coming in Matthew 25 if the fulfillment of His teaching about His coming had already happened at the transfiguration? Here we arrive at a dilemma for the traditional view of the future coming of Christ. If Jesus is talking about the same coming throughout all these passages, then the only coming of Christ in glory with His angels to sit on His glorious throne occurred within the lifetime of the people Jesus was talking to while He was on earth. This is a contradiction to the traditional future-coming-of-Christ view. If, however, one wants to argue that Jesus was speaking of different comings in these passages, then a multiple coming-of-Jesus view also contradicts the traditional view.

Many people think that a past coming of Christ view is heresy because it goes against the traditional understanding of Scripture on this matter. But what many people do not realize is that everyone goes against the traditional understanding of Scripture on this matter, depending on whether they take the multiple coming view or the past coming view. The fear of abandoning the traditional view is what keeps most people from embracing the clear teaching of Jesus that His coming occurred within the lifetime of the people He was talking to while He was alive on earth.

THE APOSTLES AND TIME REFERENCES

What about the apostles? Were they as clear as Jesus in teaching the impending coming of Jesus within the lifetime of the people He was talking to while He was on earth? Let’s take a look at just a few of the time texts that the apostles used. The audience relevance principle must be kept in mind as the Scriptures are read. Important words significant to audience relevance and time will be placed in italics:

1 Corinthians 10:11: “Now these things happened to them as an example, and they were written for our instruction, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.”

Philippians 4:5: “Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near.”

1 Thessalonians 5:23: “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

2 Thessalonians 1:6-7: “⁶For after all it is only just for God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, ⁷and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire…”

1 Timothy 6:13-14, 18-19: “¹³I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate, ¹⁴that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ … ¹⁸Instruct them [Timothy's church] to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, ¹⁹storing up for themselves the treasure of a good foundation for that which is about to come, so that they may take hold of that which is life indeed.”

Of course, Paul has already encouraged Timothy about the life to come in 4:8:

“…godliness is profitable for all things, since it holds promise for the present life and also for the life about to come.”

Following this paragraph is the whole chapter of 2 Timothy 3. When read with the audience relevance principle in mind, this text can be speaking of no other time period than when Paul and Timothy were alive. When verse 1 begins with the phrase, “But realize this,” remember that Paul is writing to Timothy. Therefore, this must be understood as, “But Timothy, realize this…” All brackets and italics have been added to clarify what is frequently ignored:

“¹But [Timothy,] realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. ²For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, ³unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, ⁴treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, ⁵holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; [Timothy,] Avoid such men as these. ⁶For among them are those who enter into households and captivate weak women weighed down with sins, led on by various impulses, ⁷always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ⁸Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men [who you will know, Timothy,] also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected in regard to the faith. ⁹But they will not make further progress; for their folly will be obvious to all, just as Jannes’s and Jambres’s folly was also. ¹⁰Now you [Timothy] followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance, ¹¹persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me [Paul] at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I [Paul] endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me [Paul]! ¹²Indeed, all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. ¹³But evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived. ¹⁴You [Timothy], however, continue in the things you [Timothy] have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you [Timothy] have learned them, ¹⁵and that from childhood you [Timothy] have known the sacred writings which are able to give you [Timothy] the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. ¹⁶All [Old Testament] Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; ¹⁷so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

It is abundantly clear that the last days that Paul is referring to are the days that Timothy was living in. And the difficult times were going to come upon Timothy. Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that the particular wicked men that Paul tells Timothy to avoid were going to arise during those difficult times that would come during the last days, in which Timothy was living. Since those were the last days when those particular wicked men would arise, then the days we are living in today are not the last days and we do not face the particular wicked men that Paul had in mind. This becomes resoundingly clear when we read the very next verse: “I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is about to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:1).

Paul was encouraging Timothy to endure in the faith during this difficult time that was going to come upon him and was instructing him to “preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction” (v. 2). How would Timothy be able to endure? By the assurance that the appearing of the Lord and His kingdom was about to come. And why was it important for Timothy to preach the word and to be ready in season and out of season? Because the appearing of the Lord and His kingdom was about to come. And Paul told Timothy what would happen to his church before the Lord came:

“³For the time will come when they [Timothy's church] will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, ⁴and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths. ⁵But you [Timothy], be sober in all things, endure hardship, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.”

If Paul is not telling Timothy that these difficult things would occur in his own lifetime, then what use is it for Paul to encourage Timothy by saying, “But you … ” Paul is contrasting how Timothy should live in a different way than those he is describing in those last days. The reason Timothy is told by Paul to be different than everyone else is because Timothy was to stand in stark contrast to those who would not endure sound doctrine and want their ears tickled. How does Timothy do this if the people Paul is talking about are not the people in Timothy’s life? The inescapable fact is that 2 Timothy 4:1 was fulfilled in Timothy’s generation just as much as every other verse surrounding it.

This is what it means to read the Bible using the audience relevance principle. First Peter 4 works the same way (italics added for emphasis):

“¹Therefore, since Christ has suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves also with the same purpose, because he who has suffered in the flesh has ceased from sin, ²so as to live the rest of the time in the flesh no longer for the lusts of men, but for the will of God. ³For the time already past is sufficient for you to have carried out the desire of the Gentiles, having pursued a course of sensuality, lusts, drunkenness, carousing, drinking parties and abominable idolatries. ⁴In all this, they are surprised that you do not run with them into the same excesses of dissipation, and they malign you; ⁵but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. ⁶For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God. ⁷The end of all things is near; therefore, be of sound judgment and sober spirit for the purpose of prayer.”

CONTACT US

What did Peter mean when he wrote, “The end of all things is near?” The Scriptures teach that the second coming of Christ already happened. How is that possible? What does all of this mean for us today? To pursue this further and find answers to your questions, contact Messiah Reformed Church in Fort Myers, Florida by visiting our website at messiahreformed.com.

Smash full preterism now! That is the title of a podcast series by Brian Simmons[1]. According to the description, the podcast is “for listeners looking for a Scriptural answer to full preterism.” Why are they looking for a Scriptural answer? Because they don’t have one. Why not? Because there isn’t one. But Simmons makes an attempt to find a Scriptural answer to give to people who are trying to find one.

Think about it: Why are people looking for a Biblical answer to full preterism? Because full preterism is convincing. And since people have been taught that they need professionals to help them understand the meaning of the Scriptures, in spite of the fact that the truth is clear and obvious, they look to the professionals for help because the Bible can’t possibly be that clear. So instead of believing what they themselves have seen with their own eyes, they look for the more difficult meaning that fits what they have believed all along. Enter Simmons.

He starts by refuting partial preterism, and might I add, does a superb job. He demonstrates from Matthew 24 and 1 Corinthians 15 that the resurrection happens in conjunction with the parousia. Therefore, if the parousia happened in 70 AD, then the resurrection happened in 70 AD. He quotes 1 Corinthians 15:51 to demonstrate that Paul expected the resurrection to occur in his lifetime. Paul was indeed including himself in the word, “we.” He expected to be in that number that would not sleep. Thus, the resurrection was expected to happen in the first century. The Partial preterists say the resurrection didn’t happen. Simmons states that full preterists “spiritualize” the resurrection and that both partial and full preterists place the parousia in 70 AD. Then he goes on to say that they’re both wrong because there was no physical resurrection in 70 AD. Thus, since there was no physical resurrection in 70 AD, then there was no parousia.

Yet Simmons never demonstrates that the resurrection is physical. He assumes it because his listeners who are looking for a Biblical answer to full preterism also assume it. After all, since the majority of Christians today believe in a physical resurrection, then it must be biblical. Majority determines truth, right?

Simmons makes a passing remark that in Matthew 24:3, the Greek word for “sign” always refers to something that is visible. He doesn’t elaborate on it, but gives the impression that Matthew 24 is about the resurrection, and therefore, the resurrection must be visible. But the focus of Matthew 24 is not the resurrection. Rather, the focus is the destruction of the Temple buildings that would be destroyed – a fairly visible event.

Simmons quickly moves on to state that the phrase “end of the age” is very important. Why? Apparently, it isn’t important because it’s referring to the end of the Old Covenant age which would come via the destruction of the Temple. According to Simmons, the phrase is important because Christ already defined it in Matthew 13: The parables of the mysteries of the kingdom. Let’s follow Simmons: In Jesus’ interpretation about seed sown among thorns, the word “world,” in verse 22, is the same word that the disciples used in Matthew 24:3. In Luke 8:14, Christ interprets “world” and “age” as “life.” According to Simmons, this is the period when people are saved by the seed being sown. Therefore, the parables are about the time since 70 AD and before: that is what “this age” is all about.

In response to Simmons, the first thing to note is that the parables are spoken to and about Israel. Jesus’ ministry on earth was to the house of Israel. Second, the distinction between Jew and Gentiles was dissolving under the ministry of apostles. Thus, there was no more focus on physical Jews receiving the Word with joy after the parousia because the distinction between Jew and Gentile was obliterated. Third, Simmons leads his listeners to believe that the parables are about everybody that will ever exist. Yet these parables are NOT about what would happen after the parousia. Simmons eisegetes much into these parables. The context of the parables is about seed going out during the age they were living in. They teach nothing about the age to come. It is not a good and necessary inference that the parables imply that seed will stop being sown after the end of the age.

The point is, Jesus is teaching what the kingdom of heaven would be like until the end of the age. Simmons attempts to make a whole case against preterism by producing an existential argument using a text that cannot substantiate his claim. Just because Simmons says that the continual spread of the Gospel today means we are still in that “present age” does not make it so. In other words, the continual spread of the Gospel today does not mean that we are still in that “present age.” All it means is that the Gospel continues to spread.

Fifth, Simmons is really grasping at straws by trying to make a case out of Luke’s use of the word “life” instead of “age” or “world.” Again, just because Luke 8:14 speaks of the worries and riches and pleasures of “this life” does not imply what Simmons wants it to imply about the “age to come.”

The same goes for Simmons’ interpretation of Galatians 1:4 concerning “the present evil age.” Simmons says, “The age is characterized by evil. It is evidential in nature. To say ‘this age’ ended is to overthrow the moral teachings of Jesus and to overthrow the Gospel.” How so? All of the arguments presented by Simmons completely ignore the Biblical framework of full preterism. He assumes a literal rendering of any Biblical text that helps him “prove” that all the prophecies have to be fulfilled in an evidential way. Anyone who comes to Simmons for professional help in defeating full preterism will be satisfied with his answers only if they are content with a framework that makes cartoons out of prophecies.

The Smash Preterism Now podcast states, “This podcast will be found essential to a right understanding of what Christ and His inspired apostles meant when they placed the parousia in a first-century context.” Simmons has yet to explain, in his podcast, what Christ and His inspired apostles meant. He assumes a physical resurrection and claims an evidential problem. Where is the evidential problem? Just because Simmons claims that the texts that he gave are about physical things does not make it so. He has proven nothing except that partial preterists are inconsistent. People who are “looking for” a Biblical answer to full preterism will be content with Simmons’ answer because they have the same unsupported presuppositions that he does.

Simmons presents four texts that contain conditional elements that full preterists use to demonstrate that the parousia happened in 70 AD. These texts are Matthew 10:23, Matthew 16:28, Matthew 23:39, and Matthew 24:34.

Each of these verses contains the Greek double negative – the strongest possible negative in the Greek language. The latter clause in each of these verses contains the untranslatable word, “an”, which renders the force conditional. This conditional particle makes the first part of these verses conditional upon the second part. According to Brian, the subjunctive verb in these verses makes the case that the condition stated may or may not take place. Thus, according to Simmons, Christ is saying that the first half of each verse will not take place unless the second half might or might not take place. The condition might take place. Then again, it might not take place. To state Simmons’ position clearly: Christ is just wasting his breath. Let’s take a look:

Matthew 10:23: “And whenever they may persecute you in this city, flee to the other, for verily I say to you, ye may not have completed the cities of Israel till the Son of Man may come.”

Simmons states that the interpretation of this text is a matter of Grammar. So in essence, Jesus is saying, “You might or might not finish going through the cities of Israel until the Son of Man might or might not come.” If this is the case, then Jesus isn’t a prophet at all. He isn’t stating anything that anybody couldn’t state. Anyone can say, “I might or might not finish eating this sandwich before I might or might not get indigestion.” This is the absurdity that Simmons’ argument amounts to. If Jesus can be a prophet by stating these types of prophecies, then I guess I’m a prophet too!

Matthew 16:28. Simmons conveniently leaves verse 27 out of his lecture so that his listeners who are looking for a Scriptural answer to full preterism will leap for joy. Here are both verses together:

²⁷`For, the Son of Man is about to come in the glory of his Father, with his messengers, and then he will reward each, according to his work. ²⁸Verily I say to you, there are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they may see the Son of Man coming in his reign.’

Simmons states that understanding verse 28 is a matter of Grammar. He also believes that Young translates verse 28 correctly, according to Grammar. Does Young translate verse 27 correctly, according to Grammar? There are no conditions in verse 27. The Greek word, mello, is correctly translated by Young as “about to.” Again, according Simmons, verse 28 means, “There are certain of those standing here who shall not taste of death till they might or might not see the Son of Man coming in his reign.” So once again, Jesus is essentially telling those standing there that they might or might not die before they see the coming of Christ. Taking Simmons’ line of reasoning, Jesus actually told us nothing about when His coming would happen. He simply played mind games to astonish a bunch of brainless followers.

In each of the verses that Simmons presents, we have a definite conditional clause. For Simmons, understanding their meaning is a question of Greek Grammar. The fulfillment of the statement is contingent on the fulfillment of the condition. And what is the condition according to Simmons? The condition of Christ’s coming is Jewish national repentance and their acceptance of Him as Messiah. What text does Simmons use to make his case? Acts 3:19-21, which teaches that the condition for Christ’s return is Israel’s repentance. And, according to Simmons, since Israel never repented, the parousia of Christ never happened.

Yet Simmons conveniently fails to read the rest of the passage. As it turns out, the number of believing men that day “came to be about five thousand” (4:4). Simmons believes in a literal interpretation of Scripture. Well, Peter was literally speaking to those men of Israel when he gave the condition: ¹⁹“Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; ²⁰and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you.”

Further, Simmons fails to read verses 22-23: ²²“Moses said, ‘THE LORD GOD WILL RAISE UP FOR YOU A PROPHET LIKE ME FROM YOUR BRETHREN; TO HIM YOU SHALL GIVE HEED to everything He says to you. ²³‘And it will be that every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.’” What Simmons fails to communicate is that Israel was repenting and turning to the Lord. But Simmons must believe that every physical Israelite alive on earth prior to the coming of Christ will repent in order to fulfill the condition stated by Peter. Yet, if this is true, then according to verses 22-23, the coming of Christ will never happen because “every soul that does not heed that prophet shall be utterly destroyed from among the people.” Who are “THE” people? Are they people of planet earth? Of course not. The context is Israel. So according to Peter, every soul that does not heed that prophet will be destroyed; yet Simmons appears to be arguing that every Jew must be saved in order to fulfill the condition for Christ’s return. If, on the other hand, Simmons will concede that every Jew doesn’t have to be saved, then he loses his proof text for an unfulfilled condition of Israel’s repentance. Acts 3-4 tells us that about five thousand men were saved. Prior to this, about three thousand Jewish souls were saved in Acts 2. So what’s the magic number? What number will Simmons give that fulfills the condition?

Simmons applies the condition of Israel’s repentance to all of the time texts that Jesus spoke and states that they all must be interpreted in light of that condition. Yet, not one of those time texts contains any hint of such a condition. He tries to demonstrate this condition of Israel’s repentance by using a series of Old Testament texts as examples of conditional prophecies.

Interestingly enough, Simmons is arguing the same way that Richard Pratt argues in, When Shall These Things Be?, even to the extent of using the same Scriptures. One must wonder if Simmons learned his arguments from Pratt’s chapter. Pratt’s arguments are dealt with in detail by Edward J. Hassertt in House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology. A Preterist Response to When Shall These Things Be?. Since this article is long enough, I encourage the reader of this article to read House Divided, especially Hassertt’s response to Pratt. Suffice it to say that the end result of Pratt’s and Simmons’ arguments is that there is no certainty about anything because nothing that God predicted will ever happen since everything is contingent upon conditions placed upon humanity. As it turns out, their theology is nothing more than Open Theism.

I came across something the other day that made me think of Closet Wilson.

Acts 17:11: “Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.”

Imagine that! The Bereans examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Closet Wilson told me that he was going to read my book like a Berean. For that I commend Closet Wilson. In fact, have you ever met anyone that told you not to be like the Bereans? Of course, Closet Wilson would actually have to read my arguments for full preterism in the second half of my book to be able to do that. But according to Closet Wilson, I haven’t given him a good reason that the creeds could possibly be wrong.

Apparently, it’s a good idea to examine the Scriptures to see if what Paul said was true, but it’s not a good idea to examine the Scriptures to see if what the creeds and tradition say is true. After all, the teaching of Paul, an apostle, should be tested by the Scriptures to see if what he was teaching was true, but the creeds, well, they must be true because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Then again, Closet Wilson tells me that the creeds were not inspired by the Holy Spirit, but Closet Wilson has to be given a good reason to examine the Scriptures to see if what the creeds say is true. So examining the Scriptures every day, to see if what an inspired apostle said was true, is noble in character, but do not dare examine the Scriptures to see if what the uninspired creeds or tradition say is true because that amounts to heresy.

According to Closet Wilson, if we have to examine the Scriptures about the creeds all the time, then we will never have any foundation to build on. Test Paul, that’s fine, but not the creeds.

Read what happened when the Bereans examined the Scriptures concerning Paul’s teaching in Acts 17:12:

“Therefore many of them believed, along with a number of prominent Greek women and men.”

When will Closet Wilson embrace full preterism? When he acts like a Berean and examines the Scriptures to see if what the creeds and history say is true.

We’ve all seen the creedal argument against full preterism. Most of us, including a lot of futurists, can see right through that argument. Many futurists who hear some of the statements made by Mathison, Gentry, Wilson, et al., find their comments to be disturbing. And indeed they are disturbing. But its time to introduce everyone to the rest of the Wilson family, futurists who make the claim that the creeds were not inspired and that Scripture is the ultimate authority, but for some reason can’t seem to recognize that they, too, believe the creeds are inspired by God.

I have been in a debate with a futurist, whom we will call Closet Wilson. Closet Wilson asked me to send him the manuscript of my soon-to-be-released book, Reading the Bible Through New Covenant Eyes. Closet Wilson has read up through the third chapter of the book. Let me give a brief history of my conversations with Closet Wilson as well as a summary of my book.

Closet Wilson and I have debating full preterism for about seven months now. Closet Wilson is an elder in the Presbyterian Church in America. Before Closet Wilson started reading my book, he, like Wilson and company, argued that going against the creeds is heresy. He told me that I would have to be able to prove from the Scriptures that they are wrong. Sounds great, right? Well, I have been given the “Hymenaeus and Philetus” charge, the “how can all the brilliant men throughout history have missed this” charge, the “you need to submit to your elders” charge, the “it’s arrogance to think you are right” charge, the “you’ve changed your doctrine again” charge, the “Satan is deceiving you” charge, the “you are ignoring the plain meaning of the text” charge, and other charges. With all these sidetracking charges, I was unable to get him to engage the Scriptures with me.

So I gave him my book. Reading the Bible Through New Covenant Eyes begins with a refutation of the creedalist argument. Chapters one through three deal with hermeneutics, reading the Bible in context by recognizing audience relevancy. Closet Wilson claims that he does not agree with Wilson and company that the creeds are inspired, or that we need to use them as a Table of Contents to the Bible to be able to understand what the Bible teaches. Here we agree. Closet Wilson also claims that he totally agrees with how I propose we read the Bible contextually. Great news.

Chapter four of my book begins the Biblical argument for full preterism using the first half of the book as the basis for interpretation. Closet Wilson has not yet begun to read chapter four. In our most recent conversation, Closet Wilson told me that I haven’t yet given him a reason to evaluate the Scriptural argument for full preterism. He stated that my challenge to consider the arguments in the rest of the book is the same as him asking me to submit to the creeds. In essence, Closet Wilson is demanding a reason to consider the possibility that the creeds might be wrong without allowing me the opportunity to demonstrate it from the Scriptures. So according to Closet Wilson, I have to prove that my interpretation of the Scriptures is correct, but I have to do so without the use of the Scriptures. I have to demonstrate some external, historical argument, as to why the creeds might be wrong before he’s willing to consider my exegetical argument.

But Closet Wilson would like to assure you that he does not believe that the creeds have authority over the Scriptures. He would also like to assure you that the creeds have the possibility of error. He would also like you to know that if you can demonstrate from the Scriptures where the creeds are wrong, he would gladly submit to the Scriptures. But, Closet Wilson needs you to give him a good reason why he should consider the Scriptures on the matter of full preterism when he knows that the creeds are right.

Have you met Closet Wilson?

In The Last Days According to Jesus, RC Sproul states the following: “The great weakness of full preterism—and what I regard to be its fatal flaw—is its treatment of the final resurrection. If full preterism is to gain wide credibility in our time, it must overcome this obstacle.”[i]

There is great irony in Sproul’s comment above. The irony is this: According to Scripture, it is the futurist treatment of the final resurrection that presents a fatal flaw for the traditional view. No matter what view of the resurrection may be held by full preterists, each and every one of them resolves the Biblical problem that futurists have. The fatal flaw of the futurist treatment of the final resurrection is quite easy to demonstrate, as you will see below.

Acts 26:22-23:

“²²To this day I have had the help that comes from God, and so I stand here testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come to pass: ²³that the Christ must suffer and that, by being the first to rise from the dead, he would proclaim light both to our people and to the Gentiles.”

In verse 23, Paul states that Christ was the first to rise from the dead. He affirms this in Colossians 1:18:

“[Christ] is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything.”

He affirms this same thing again in Revelation 1:5. Now, futurists argue that in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is teaching that believers will be resurrected after the pattern of Christ’s biological resurrection. The problem is that verses 20-23 state the following:

^“20But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. ²¹For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. ²²For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. ²³But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming.”

Paul affirms once again in 1 Corinthians 15 that Christ was the first to rise from the dead. And here he teaches that believers will be resurrected after the pattern of Christ’s resurrection. So futurists are correct to note that Paul taught that the resurrection of believers would follow the pattern of Christ’s resurrection, but the fatal flaw of the futurist treatment of what that pattern looks like contradicts Paul’s doctrine of the resurrection of Christ.

Paul taught consistently that Christ was the first to rise from the dead. Yet we know that Christ was not the first to rise biologically. Thus, the resurrection of Christ that Paul had in mind CANNOT be His biological resurrection. So how is it that Paul can teach that Christ was the first to rise from the dead and that believers would follow that pattern of Christ’s resurrection, and yet, it is argued, that the pattern to be followed is the biological resurrection of Christ?

Sproul’s comment that full preterism has a fatal flaw in its treatment of the final resurrection is rooted in tradition, not in the Scriptures. Therefore, if futurists are to continue to claim that Scripture is the ultimate authority for truth, then it is time they adhere to Sproul’s recognition that full preterism should gain wide credibility in our time because any full preterist treatment of the resurrection easily overcomes the obstacle and the fatal flaw that actually belongs to the futurists.