Seventy weeks have been determined for your people and your holy city, to shut up the transgression, to seal up sin, to cover over iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophet, and to anoint the Most Holy Place. (Dan. 9:24)

So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the Prince, there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and trench, even in times of distress. (Dan. 9:25)

Then after the sixty-two weeks the Anointed One will be cut off and nothing shall remain to Him [or, "but not for Himself"]. And the people of a coming prince[or, "of [the] coming Prince“] will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will be with the flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined. (Dan. 9:26)

And He will confirm a covenant with the many for one week, and in the middle of the week he will cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and on a wing [or, "overspreading"] of abominations will come a desolator, even until the end. And that which was decreed shall pour out on the desolator. (Dan. 9:27)

Summary Chronology of the Seventy Weeks (dates approximate):

First Seven Weeks Begin: In 538 BC, Cyrus issued his decree to rebuild the temple and the city.

First Seven Weeks End/Sixty-Two Weeks Begin: In 445 BC, Nehemiah rebuilt Jerusalem.

Sixty-Two Weeks End/Last Week Begins: In AD 28, Messiah was anointed at His baptism. From thence, He confirmed the new covenant with His church. In AD 30, He was “cut off” (crucified).

Middle of the Last Week: In perhaps AD 66, God gave fleshly Israel up to reprobation so that there no longer remained a “sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 10:26-27). At that time, the Zealots (“a desolator”) began terrorizing Jerusalem and spreading abominations and desolations throughout the city.

Last Week Ends: In AD 70, “the end” came. The people of Messiah destroyed the city and the sanctuary, along with the Zealots, in the flood of war. At that time, the following blessings were consummated for God’s people: Transgression was shut up. Sin was sealed up. Iniquity was covered over. Everlasting righteousness was brought in. “Vision and prophet” (the revelatory gifts) were sealed up. The heavenly “Most Holy Place” (the church) was anointed.

Exposition:

When Daniel received the prophecy of the “seventy weeks,” the people of Israel including Daniel himself were in captivity in Babylon. Jeremiah had prophesied that after seventy years of captivity were completed, God would destroy Babylon and restore the people of Israel to Jerusalem (Jer. 25:11, 12; 29:10-14). Daniel understood that he was living in the last hour of that seventy-year Babylonian captivity (Dan. 9:2-3). The end of Israel’s seventy-year Babylonian captivity was to be the beginning of the “seventy weeks.”

VERSE 25: The fulfillment of the first “seven weeks” were God’s answer to Daniel’s prayer for his people and for his holy city (Dan. 9:16-19). It was in less than a year after Daniel received the prophecy of the “seventy weeks,” in about 538 BC, that the first “seven weeks” began. After the kingdom of Babylon fell in 538 BC, the Persian king Cyrus issued “the word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” (2 Chron. 36:22-23; Ezra 1:1-4; Isa. 44:24,26,28; 45:13; Dan. 9:25; Josephus, Antiquities, xi, 6, 12). Thousands of Israelites immediately packed their belongings and began the journey back to Judea.

The first “seven weeks” lasted about ninety years and ended with the rebuilding of Jerusalem by Nehemiah in about 445 BC (Neh. 2:5; 6:15). The “times of distress” during which the city was rebuilt are related in Neh. 1:3 – 6:13. Because the city had no walls and no gates, the people were constantly being mocked, demoralized, threatened, accused, deceived, and terrorized by their enemies (Neh. 2:19; 4:1-3, 7-8, 11-12, 14, 16-23; 6:1-13). Because of these things, the people were in “great distress” and “reproach” (Neh. 1:2-4; 2:3, 13, 17). Those times of anxiety ended with the completion of Jerusalem’s walls and gates in about 445 BC.

The “sixty-two weeks” were from the completed rebuilding of Jerusalem by Nehemiah until the first appearing of the “Anointed One” (“Messiah”), “the Prince” (“the Ruler,” “the Leader”). The “sixty-two weeks” ended at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, when God “anointed” Him with the Holy Spirit and power in about AD 28 (Lk. 3:22-23; Acts 10:38). The “sixty-two weeks” covered the intertestimal centuries from Nehemiah/Malachi to the anointing of Jesus. It was a period of roughly 470 years.

VERSES 26 & 27: The last “week” was from Christ’s first appearing at His baptism to His Second Appearing at the destruction of “the city and the sanctuary” in AD 70. It was from the anointing of Messiah the Prince to the anointing of the Most Holy Place from out of heaven. The last “week” lasted about 42 years. It was the period of time in which Christ the Ruler, through His earthly ministry and through the Holy Spirit, confirmed the new covenant with “the many”:

For I say that Christ has become a servant to the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God to confirm the promises given to the fathers. (Rom. 15:8)

Because the last “week” began with the baptism of Christ, the “covenant” that was confirmed during that week can be none other than the new covenant. There was no other covenant that began to be confirmed at the beginning of Christ’s ministry.

Within that “week” of Messianic covenant-confirmation, Messiah was “cut off.” He was rejected by the leaders of the people and put to death outside the city in about AD 30.

“And in the middle of the week,” He caused “sacrifice and offering to cease” (Dan. 9:26). Here are three possible ways of interpreting what this means:

1. For those who put their trust in the blood of Christ, there was “no longer any offering for sin” (Heb. 10:18). For believers, Christ’s sacrifice ended the need for animal sacrifices. If this is the meaning, then the cutting off of the Messiah and the cessation of “sacrifice and offering” are virtually synonymous, and both took place in the “middle” of the “week.”

2. The Messianic cessation of “sacrifice and offering” could refer to God’s giving up of fleshly Israel to reprobation. After the nation had thoroughly rejected the blood of the new covenant, Israel became apostate, and there no longer remained a “sacrifice for sins” (Heb. 10:26-27). In this interpretation, the cessation of “sacrifice and offering” refers to a national, spiritual catastrophe. This approach, I think, is in harmony with the symbol of the “middle” of the week (a “broken” time of tragedy). Also, if the cessation of sacrifice is God’s reprobation of the apostates, then the “abominations” in the next phrase are the direct and immediate result of that national reprobation. (This interpretation is the one I prefer.)

3. The Messianic cessation of “sacrifice and offering” might be taken in a strictly literal sense. As a consequence of the offering-ceasing sacrifice of the Messiah (Heb. 10:18), and of the national cessation of “sacrifice for sins” due to Israel’s apostasy (Heb. 10:26), Jerusalem became flooded with abominations and wars, until the daily animal sacrifices literally ended in about August of AD 70, very shortly before the city and the sanctuary were destroyed in August-September (Josephus, Wars, vi, 94).

In the time of Israel’s apostasy, in about AD 66, a “desolator” came “on a wing of abominations.” The “desolator” filled the Holy City with abominations, and desolated it with the flood of war until “the end.” “The end” was when God poured out His wrath on the “the desolator,” when the people of a coming prince (or “of the coming Prince”) completely destroyed the city and the sanctuary, along with the desolator.

“On a wing of abominations“: The word “wing” could be a reference to the temple (a wing or pinnacle of the temple). If this is the meaning, then the phrase could mean that the “abomination of desolations” (Septuagint) issued forth from the temple of God and filled the city. This agrees with the history of the times:

In about AD 67, the Zealots captured the temple and made it their fortress and their “shop of tyranny” (Josephus, Wars, iv, 151). From God’s house they terrorized the people and spread abominations and desolations throughout Jerusalem until the city was utterly consumed in the “flood” of war in AD 70.

Or the word “wing” might simply be a metaphorical reference to the “overshadowing” or “overspreading” (KJV) of abominations throughout the city. Compare Isa. 8:7-8, which uses both the metaphors of a flood (Dan. 9:26) and of overshadowing “wings” (Dan. 9:27):

Now therefore, behold, the Lord brings up upon them the waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria, and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his channels, and go over all his banks. And he shall pass through Judah; he shall overflow and go over, he shall reach even to the neck; and the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth of Your land, O Immanuel. (Isa. 8:7-8)

“The desolator“: The desolator, as we have seen, filled the city with abominations, desolations, and war until the end, when God poured out His wrath on the desolator in the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. History tells us that the Jewish reprobates in Jerusalem, from about AD 66 to 70, filled the temple and the city with abominations and desolations during their continual wars. Their beastly desecrations of the holy places and their slaughters of the people did not cease until “the end,” when Titus and his legions leveled the city, along with the reprobates.

Let us look for a moment at the wording of Dan. 9:26:

. . . The Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. . . . (Dan. 9:26)

In this verse, the destruction of “the city and the sanctuary” in AD 70 immediately followed the cutting off of the Messiah in AD 30. We should infer from this that the destruction of Jerusalem was the direct consequence of the cutting off of Messiah the Prince.

This means that the desolators who were destroyed in the city were themselves guilty of crucifying Christ (See Rev. 1:7). Jesus confirmed this teaching in Matt. 21:37-45; 22:7. The chief priests and the Pharisees murdered (“cut off”) the Messiah, and because of that crime, God brought those murderers to a “wretched end” when He sent “His armies” and destroyed the City and the Sanctuary, in fulfillment of Daniel’s “seventy weeks.”

“The people of a coming prince“: Here are three ways of interpreting what this might mean:

1. The Roman armies of Caesar (Vespasian or Titus): If this is the meaning, then this reference to Caesar the “prince” is a parenthetical statement between two statements about Messiah the Prince. (This, incidentally, was John Calvin’s interpretation of “the people of the coming prince.”)

2. The Roman armies of Christ: The Romans could have been designated the people / armies of Messiah the Prince because they were sent by His decree and for His purpose. (Compare Matt. 22:7.)

3. The followers of Christ: Christians destroyed the city and the sanctuary through their faith (Matt. 21:21; Mk. 11:23; Rev. 8:8), through their prayers (Lk. 18:7), and through their God-given judgment on the Last Day (Zech. 14:5; I Thess. 4:14; Jude 1:14-15; Rev. 17:14; 18:20). Believers were the Lord’s invading army (I Cor. 14:21-22). The “angels” (messengers) who poured out the wrath of God upon apostate Israel in the book of Revelation were Christians (Compare Rev. 21:9 and 22:9; KJV, NASB). The term “coming Prince” may be a reference to Christ’s Second Coming after His having been “cut off” (This third interpretation is the one I prefer).

Some preterists have proposed that the Jews were “the people of the coming Prince,” because the Jews were Christ’s people, and it was the Jews themselves who destroyed Jerusalem. In my opinion, that interpretation conflicts with the history of the event. Though the reprobate Jews did bring Jerusalem to ruin and desolation, they did not “destroy the city and the sanctuary.” It was the hands of the Romans that brought upon the Jews that final stroke, against the will of the rebels within the city (Lk. 19:43-44).

VERSE 24: In the end of the “seventy weeks,” seven things were fulfilled concerning Daniel’s “people” and concerning his “holy city”:

1. The destruction of the city and the sanctuary

And then:

2. The shutting up of the transgression
3. The sealing up of sin
4. The covering over of iniquity
5. The bringing in of everlasting righteousness
6. The sealing up of vision and prophet
7. The anointing of the Most Holy Place

These six blessings were all in process of being fulfilled during the last “week,” the “week” of Messianic covenant-confirmation. These blessings were not finally fulfilled for Daniel’s “people” and for his “holy city” before AD 70. Daniel’s “people” (i.e., “all Israel,” the elect, the living and the dead, including Daniel himself) were not finally freed from sin (“the body of death”) until the Parousia:

And thus all Israel will be saved; just as it is written, The Deliverer will come from Zion, He will remove ungodliness from Jacob. (Rom. 11:26)

“Transgression”/”sin” was not “finished” for the “holy city” until after the abominations came to an end in the city in AD 70. Only after Jerusalem was destroyed did God cleanse Jerusalem of all her sins and make her “new”:

And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. . . . and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life. (Rev. 21:2, 7)

The “wages” of sin is Death (condemnation and alienation with God). But when Death was destroyed in the kingdom of God in AD 70, sin was “shut up” and forever “sealed.” Death no longer issues forth from the sins of God’s children, because the power of His Cross swept away the Ministry of Condemnation and Death (the Law) in AD 70, robbing sin of its power, and robbing Death of its sting. Through the work of the Son, Death is nullified and Sin is defeated. In the new heavens and new earth, the sins of all God’s holy ones, living and dead, are “covered over,” buried in the depths of the sea (Micah 7:19), forever forgotten, and hidden from the eyes of God:

. . . The former troubles are forgotten, and because they are hid from mine eyes. For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind. (Isa. 65:16-17; cf. Deut. 32:43)

The advent of the new heavens and the new earth in AD 70 also marked the consummation of the advent of “eternal righteousness”:

But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. (2 Peter 3:13; cf. Rom. 4:23-24; Gal. 5:5)

For we through the Spirit, by faith, are waiting for the hope of righteousness. (Gal. 5:5)

Also at that time (AD 70), “vision and prophet” were sealed up (brought to an end). This is parallel to I Cor. 13:8-10, where God said that when “that which is perfect” came (i.e., the perfected Most Holy Place), then prophecy, tongues, and knowledge (i.e., revelatory gifts) would be abolished. This happened when all things were fulfilled, when the sinful city and the hand-made sanctuary fell, and when the sinless City and the God-made Sanctuary came down from out of heaven in AD 70 (Lk. 21:22; I Peter 4:7).

Finally, it was through the anointing of the Holy Spirit that the whole city of Jerusalem was made new and became “the Tabernacle of God,” when the worldly Holy Place fell in 70 (Heb. 9:1, 8). Under the old covenant, every article of God’s tabernacle was consecrated by the anointing of oil (Ex. 30:25-30; 40:9; Lev. 8:10, 12). In the same way, in the Last Days, God taught His elect ones the truth of His gospel through the anointing of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 1:21,22; I Jn. 2:20,27), until all of them had come to know Him (Jn. 6:39). Then came “the end” (Dan. 9:26), when the Body of Christ, all His holy ones, the living and the dead, were raised up to become His anointed (God-taught) “Most Holy Place” in the new covenant world (Jn. 6:44-45; Eph. 2:21-22; Heb. 8:11-13; Rev. 21:3).

Weeks of Years?

The “seventy weeks” covered a period of roughly 600 years, from about 538 BC to AD 70, from the fall of Babylon to the fall of “Babylon” (Jerusalem). But perhaps the most common view among preteristic interpreters is that the “seventy weeks” ended around AD 35, or so. Many say at the martyrdom of Stephen. This is because they see a need to interpret the “seventy weeks” as being literally seventy “weeks of years” (490 years). Putting the fulfillment in AD 70 makes it impossible to make the seventy weeks fulfilled in a literal 490 years. Here are four reasons why I disagree with the AD 35 view:

1. If the “seventy weeks” were fulfilled in about AD 35, then the Parousia and the destruction of “the city and the sanctuary” are reduced to a supplemental appendix or an addendum to Gabriel’s prophecy of the “seventy weeks.” The Parousia becomes a subordinate episode in the prophecy, an event that took place some 35 years after the time that was determined for Israel and the Holy City. It seems to me that to relegate the Parousia to such secondary status is strangely out of step with the spirit of the prophets.

2. Gabriel’s prophecy begins with this statement: “Seventy weeks are determined for your people and for your holy city. . . ” (Dan. 9:24). And then the prophecy ends with the destruction of the holy city. It is reasonable to infer from the words of the prophecy that the shattering of the power of Daniel’s “people” (Dan. 9:24; 12:7) and the complete destruction of Daniel’s “holy city” (Dan. 9:24-26) were both included in the things that were “determined” for Daniel’s “people” and for his “holy city” within the “seventy weeks.”

3. The six blessings of Dan. 9:24, which all took place in the end of the “seventy weeks,” were consummated in AD 70, in the destruction of “the city and the sanctuary,” not in AD 35.

4. If the destruction of Jerusalem falls outside of the seventy weeks, then we are forced to “hopscotch” through verses 26 and 27. The first part of verse 26 is within the “seventy weeks,” but then the second part of verse 26 is some 35 years after the fulfillment of the “seventy weeks.” And then the first part of verse 27 is within the “seventy weeks,” and then the second part of verse 27 is some 35 years after the fulfillment of the “seventy weeks.”

Therefore, the “seventy weeks” were consummated in Christ’s Parousia in AD 70. This being the case, we have two more reasons why the “weeks” could not have been a literal 490 years:

1. There were more than 3 ½ years (or even 7 years) between the cutting off of the Messiah and the destruction of the city and the sanctuary. That makes the last week at least 40 years long.

(Some preterists have proposed a “gap” in or before the last “week,” between the cutting off of the Messiah and the wars that led to the destruction of Jerusalem. This was Max King’s position in his 1971 book The Spirit of Prophecy. In my opinion that “solution” is an attempt to force fit the “weeks” into the mold of a literal 490 years.)

2. Because the “seventy weeks” were consummated in the Parousia, the “seventy weeks” could not have been a literal chronology. If they were, it would have become possible to calculate the years to the Parousia. Since no man could know the times or the seasons or the day or the hour, not even the Son of Man (Matt. 24:36; Acts 1:7), the “seventy weeks” had to have been meant symbolically.

In using the symbolic word “weeks,” the angel Gabriel was being intentionally indefinite as to the time that would reach unto the Parousia. “Seventy weeks” (or “seventy sevens”) is no more literal than “seventy times seven” in Matt. 18:22. It signified the “completion” or “fullness” of redemption that would come at the Parousia, at the destruction of the earthly city and sanctuary.

The Preterist Paradox

To the prophet Daniel, the prophecy of the “seventy weeks” might have sounded contradictory. Gabriel first told him (in verse 24) that at the end of “seventy weeks,” the transgression would be finished, an end would be made of sins, atonement would be made for iniquity, everlasting righteousness would be brought in, and the Most Holy Place would be anointed. But then when Gabriel came to the end of the prophecy, he said that the Messiah would be killed and that the city and the sanctuary would be defiled, desolated, and destroyed in the flood of war. Gabriel offered no further explanation.

How could the devastating ending of the “weeks” in verses 26 and 27 be compatible with the joyful ending of the “weeks” in verse 24? How could the “seventy weeks” be consummated in both the destruction of the temple (Dan. 9:26) and in the anointing of the temple? (Dan. 9:24). Or how could the resurrection of the dead and glorification of the saints be fulfilled when the power of the holy people is shattered? (Dan. 12:1-3,7)

This paradox is the heart of the preterist interpretation of Bible prophecy. It is what the futurists and the Jews have missed for centuries upon centuries: The destruction of (earthly) Jerusalem signified the advent of (heavenly) Jerusalem. The destruction of the (earthly) Most Holy Place meant the consummated anointing of the (heavenly) Most Holy Place. The (spiritual) sons of the kingdom inherited the kingdom when the (fleshly, unbelieving) sons of the kingdom were cast out of the kingdom (Matt. 8:12; 13:38, 43). This is the preterist key that unlocks the meaning of the “seventy weeks,” and of Zechariah 14, and a host of other prophecies of the Last Days.

David Green

My Response to Dr. Kenneth Talbot’s Interview on Covenant Radio

At the beginning of the interview William Hill asked Dr. Talbot:

“How would you respond to the objection that says, okay, we are appealing to the historical analysis of this particular doctrine that has been explained for us for the last 2,000 years, and by doing so we are denying sola Scriptura. What would be your response to that particular argument?”

MY RESPONSE:

The question was invalid. I don’t know of any preterist who would say that “appealing to” an “historical analysis” is tantamount to “denying sola Scriptura.” So far as I know, no preterist of Reformed background has any problem with “appealing to” historical interpretations of the church.

The problem is in assuming that futurism is biblical in the absence of biblical proof, and then anathematizing professing believers based on that extra-biblical assumption. That is an implicit and practical denial of sola Scriptura.

Case in point: In his book, When Shall These Things Be? Keith Mathison admits that the eschatological time statements in Scripture are a “difficult problem” because they seem to contradict the creeds. He admits that the time statements in Scripture have “perplexed commentators for centuries” (WSTTB, 178, 201, 204). Yet later Mathison says that creedal futurism is “nonnegotiable” (354) and that preterists follow “a much different religion” than Christianity (213).

So then . . . what is Mathison’s SURE authority (his sola-Scriptura PROOF) for saying that futurism is nonnegotiable and that preterists are therefore false brothers? Since his sure authority is NOT the Scriptures, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, his authority is nothing other than historic (post-apostolic) Mother Church (i.e., the creeds) alone —emphasis on “alone.” It is to this extent that the implicit battle cry of Reformed anti-preterists is, ironically, not sola Scriptura, but solum symbolum (by creed alone).

***

Dr. Talbot portrayed preterists as using a “straw man,” saying that we “misrepresent” anti-preterists by saying that they “believe that the creeds are the supreme authority.”

MY RESPONSE:

I am not aware of any preterist who considers himself Reformed who has said that anti-preterists “believe that the creeds are the supreme authority.” What I personally have said is that when it comes to their reaction to preterism, anti-preterists unwittingly, implicitly and practically put the creeds on a par with, and even above, Scripture, as we just saw in the case of Keith Mathison.

***

William Hill noted that “hyper-preterists” often say that the only argument anti-preterists have is “2,000 years of church history!” So he asked Dr. Talbot to present some of the scriptural problems with “hyper-preterism.” Dr. Talbot took more than 20 minutes to respond to the question. Here is the number of Bible verses he used:

Zero (0).

Dr. Talbot’s answer was essentially that he has no “desire” to use Scripture to respond to “hyper-preterism” because “hyper-preterism” is incompatible with orthodox Christianity.

MY RESPONSE:

Fortunately Athanasius did not take that approach in the face of Arianism. If he had, we might all be Arians today.

***

Dr. Talbot said that “hyper-preterism” and Calvinism are incompatible.

MY RESPONSE:

TOTAL DEPRAVITY: God brought the old covenant world to its end because it is impossible for man to become justified through an act of faithful obedience to God.

UNCONDITIONAL ELECTION: God sovereignly chose and created a spiritual nation from within the old covenant nation that embodied man’s impotent “righteousness.”

LIMITED ATONEMENT: God had mercy on the spiritual nation that He created, but He sovereignly hardened the old covenant nation.

IRRESISTIBLE GRACE: This was accomplished sovereignly by God’s Spirit, despite the sinfulness, ignorance and weakness of every man who was chosen.

PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS: God’s New Covenant nation –the Church– is permanent and eternal. Therefore, so are her children.

***

Dr. Talbot said that “hyper-preterism” and Reformed theology are incompatible.

MY RESPONSE:

Preterism confirms Reformed Theology and makes it stronger from its root. Here’s why:

If we are 100%, finally justified today (as per Reformed theology), then it’s because the Parousia has already happened. According to the Scriptures, justification (i.e., the reckoning of faith to God’s people as righteousness) is not complete or consummated until the Parousia. Romans 4:23-24a cannot be interpreted any other way:

“Now not for [Abraham’s] sake only was it written, that [faith] was reckoned to him [as righteousness], but for our sake also, to whom [faith] is about to be reckoned [as righteousness, in the Parousia].”

The Bible teaches an eschatological, “already-but-not-yet” dimension of justification. In the same manner, if the outworking of Christ’s atonement is already 100% accomplished for us today (as per Reformed theology), then it’s because He has already appeared a second time in the consummation of the eschaton from out of the Holiest of Holies (Lev. 16; Heb. 9:28). Therefore preterism is what makes Reformed theology, at its heart, consistently Scriptural. It brings Reformed theology to the realization of its logical/scriptural conclusions.

David Green

My Response to William Hill and Dr. J. V. Fesko

In my response to Gentry’s interview on Covenant Radio, I said that the post-apostolic church never taught “forensic justification by faith alone” until about the year 1500. Here is the quote:

“As for the argument that the church couldn’t have been wrong about eschatology for about 2,00 years (or more accurately, about 1,800 years), Gentry is yet again using a Roman Catholic argument. How could the Reformers have been correct about ‘forensic justification by faith alone’ when the post-apostolic church NEVER taught that doctrine until about the year 1500? According to Gentry’s fallacious reasoning, Reformed Theology must be an unbiblical and damnable heresy. Gentry’s argument (‘Hyper-preterism’ is new in church history. Therefore it is false.) brings the Reformation down like a house of cards. ‘Forensic justification by faith alone’ was just as ‘new’ in the 1500’s as ‘hyper-preterism’ was ‘new’ in the 1800’s.”

William Hill of Covenant Radio (the gentleman who interviewed Gentry) has responded to this statement by means of his recent interview with Dr. J. V. Fesko. After reading the above quote aloud to Dr. Fesko, William Hill continued, referring to me:

” . . . Then he goes on to make another silly comment. But how would you respond to that statement? Apparently according to this particular person, who has authored a book and calls himself a Bible student [incredulous laughter], makes the claim, with no supporting argument, just flat out states that the church never taught the doctrine of forensic justification by faith alone in the post-apostolic era. How would you respond to such a comment?”

Dr. Fesko responded to William Hill by saying that there were “expressions” of the doctrine of “forensic justification by faith alone” before the Reformation, but that those expressions were “unrefined,” “undefined” and imprecise. He said that when the pre-Reformation theologians spoke of the doctrine, their statements were “perhaps not the clearest that we would hope for, or perhaps at times confuse things.” At the end of the interview, William Hill and Dr. Fesko agreed that it is unthinkable that there was “no concept” of “forensic justification by faith alone” before the Reformation.

MY RESPONSE TO WILLIAM HILL AND DR. FESKO:

It’s not William Hill’s fault, but he misunderstood my statement, because he lacked its context. My statement was an unqualified, shorthand summary of what I wrote in House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology (which I’m assuming that William Hill has not read). In that book, on pages 45-49, I argue, with documentation from Alister E. McGrath (Iustitia Dei), that before the Reformation, justification was never thought of as being strictly or only a “forensic declaration.” It was never defined before the Reformation as being merely or simply “a legal declaration of God.”

As I wrote: Before the Reformation, justification was not simply forensic. “It was an all-encompassing and progressive change both in a man’s status and in his nature. . . . [J]ustification encompassed the entire Christian life, from initial justification at the time of baptism to the perfection of justification in the end of the world. . . . [J]ustification was the gradual restoration of every aspect of man to God’s original created order. [The pre-Reformation fathers] conflated ‘regeneration’ and ’sanctification’ into a processive and nature-changing concept of ‘justification.’ What we today would call ‘regeneration, progressive sanctification, and consummated sanctification,’ [the pre-Reformation fathers] simply called ‘justification.’”

It was not until the 1500’s that “justification” became strictly a change in a man’s status before God, and NOT a change in a man’s nature. It was not until the 1500’s that “justification” became strictly a “legal declaration” and NOT a process. This alteration in the doctrine of justification was “a genuine theological novum” (Alister E. McGrath, Iustitia Dei, pages 184, 186-187). In regard to this change, there were no “forerunners of the Reformation” (ibid., 185). As McGrath sums it up: It was thus in the Reformation that “a fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before” (ibid., 184, 186).

I also wrote in House Divided (page 48) that the truth about justification was expressed before the Reformation, but only in “bits and pieces” –just as “hyper-preterism” was expressed throughout church history, but only in “bits and pieces.” Dr. Fesko said it well: Before the Reformation, the expressions of the biblical view of justification were “unrefined,” “undefined,” imprecise, not clear, and confusing. I agree. It was only in the Reformation that the baggage of Augustine was shed from justification, and it was no longer thought of as being a nature-changing process. It became instead, purely the legal declaration that we are granted through “faith alone.” This understanding of justification never existed in the post-apostolic church until the 1500’s.

Therefore, Gentry’s argument (”Hyper-preterism” is new in church history. Therefore it is false.) brings the Reformation down like a house of cards, because the Reformation understanding of justification was just as “new” in the 1500’s as “hyper-preterism” was “new” in the 1800’s.

David Green

On September 16, 2009, Kenneth Gentry and Kenneth Talbot were interviewed by William Hill on Covenant Radio. This is my response to Gentry’s part in the interview.

In the beginning, Mr. Hill asked Gentry to give “a basic definition” of “hyper-preterism.”

Gentry began his response by saying that the definition of “hyper-preterism” is a difficult question to answer, and that the question becomes more difficult day by day. This is because “the hyper-preterism movement,” said Gentry, is made up of divided, warring factions. It’s a fragmented and continually fragmenting movement that is continuing to “mutate.” It’s like “mercury” in that it “beads up in different directions.”

But then, oddly enough, Gentry immediately gave a basic definition of “hyper-preterism.” He said that “basically” hyper-preterism can be defined as the belief that all biblical prophecy (specifically, the Second Coming, the Resurrection, and the Final Judgment) was fulfilled by AD 70 and that history and sin on Earth will continue forever. Gentry added that this “basic,” “systematized” belief is “held across the board in all phases” of “the hyper-preterist movement.”

To sum up: Gentry was asked for “a basic definition” of “hyper-preterism.” He responded by saying that it is difficult to answer that question because the “hyper-preterist movement” is a continually fragmenting and mutating movement. But then he immediately gave a systematic, “basic definition” of “hyper-preterism” that is “held across the board” throughout the “hyper-preterist movement.”

As conspicuous as Gentry’s contradiction is, there is a much more important error to be addressed. Gentry does not seem to realize how his criticism of “the hyper-preterist movement” is a perfect echo of the Roman Catholic Church’s criticism of the Reformation and Protestantism. To see this, all we need to do is quote Gentry’s argument word for word, and replace the word “hyper-preterist”/”hyper-preterism” with the word “Protestant”/”Protestantism”:

Question: What is the basic definition of [Protestantism]?:

Gentry’s answer: “That question interestingly is a difficult question to answer, and it’s getting more difficult day by day, and what I mean by that is two things. In the first place, it’s hard to define because the [Protestant] movement is divided into so many warring factions that are running against each other, that if you critique one element then the other element will say, well you haven’t really gotten to the issue. Then if you go to them, another third element will come and say, well you haven’t dealt with our issues. So it is a fragmented movement. Furthermore, it is a continually fragmenting movement that is continuing to mutate. They are developing new doctrines all along the way, depending on which group you go with and how long you stay with them before they blow up. Basically though, [Protestantismconsists of the errors of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura].”

Johann Eck could not have said it better.

Gentry later said that “hyper-preterists” are “very big on denying the legitimacy of the creeds.” He also argued, “How could the church be wrong for 2,000 years?” It was disappointing to hear Gentry use these tired, worn out arguments. Mike Sullivan personally gave him a copy of House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology. Apparently Gentry hasn’t read it yet. As the book plainly demonstrates, it is misleading to say that preterists are “very big on denying the legitimacy of the creeds.” Certainly there are preterists who are anti-creedal, even as many futurists are anti-creedal. But preterists of Reformed background –the preterists with whom Gentry is interacting– cannot be painted with the broad brush of “denying the legitimacy of the creeds.”

As for the argument that the church couldn’t have been wrong about eschatology for about 2,00 years (or more accurately, about 1,800 years), Gentry is yet again using a Roman Catholic argument. How could the Reformers have been correct about “forensic justification by faith alone” when the post-apostolic church NEVER taught that doctrine until about the year 1500? According to Gentry’s fallacious reasoning, Reformed Theology must be an unbibical and damnable heresy. Gentry’s argument (“Hyper-preterism” is new in church history. Therefore it is false.) brings the Reformation down like a house of cards. “Forensic justification by faith alone” was just as “new” in the 1500’s as “hyper-preterism” was “new” in the 1800’s. Gentry, please read the free copy of the book we literally put in your hand. May it save you from using the methodology of Johann Eck.

When asked to elaborate on how “the hyper-preterist movement” is divided and fragmented, Gentry gave as one example that some preterists believe that Jesus’ resurrection “wasn’t really physical.” Can someone please help me with this? I’ve never heard a preterist say that Jesus was not physically raised from the dead. I don’t doubt that there has been some crackpot out there who has made this claim, but Gentry has been saying this about preterists for over 10 years now. He gives the impression that this is a prominent belief in “the hyper-preterist movement.” Someone please tell me, to whom is Gentry referring?

When Gentry was asked how he responds to the argument that he is largely responsible for the hyper-preterist movement, Gentry deflected responsibility by saying that “hyper-preterists” are building on the Bible as much as they are building on Gentry.

I must agree that Gentry’s partial preterism has been serving as a very effective stepping stone for multitudes of believers as they rely on Scripture to lead them to “hyper-preterism.”

Thank you, Ken. You have been serving “the hyper-preterist movement” well, even as, ultimately, Eck did for the Reformation. Keep up the good work, Brother. And God bless you.

David Green

House Divided part 1 & part 2

My Response #3 to Jon: Found here.

Jon wrote: As Wright point outs there are two basic meanings for resurrection in the Second Temple period. “In each case the referent is concrete: restoratin of Israel (’resurrection’ as metaphorical, denoting socio-political events and investing them with the significance that this will be an act of new creation, of covenant restoration); of human bodies (’resurrection’ as literal, denoting actual re-embodiment). Nothing in the entire Jewish context warrants the suggestion that…that the Jewish literature of the period ’speaks both of a resurrection of the body and a resurrection of the spirit without the body’.” End of discussion.

My response: You’re assuming that the saints who were in Hades did not take part with the living in the “restoration of Israel,” the “act of new creation, of covenant restoration.” There is no basis for that assumption. Beginning at Pentecost, the living –both Pagans and saints– were saved (or “spiritually resurrected”) through faith in the recently shed, age-changing blood of Christ (Acts 10:1-2; 11:14; Eph. 2:6; Rev. 20:4, 6). Did not the dead old covenant saints have the same need as the living old covenant saints? Did they not also have to hear and believe the newly manifested Gospel (“the voice of the Son of God“) and be saved (Jn. 5:25, 28; 1 Peter 4:6)? Did not the saints in Hades have the same need as the living old covenant saints: to be baptized into the universal Body of Christ through faith in His shed blood? Did the dead old covenant saints not participate with the living old covenant saints in regeneration/rebirth? Yes, they did (Isa. 26:19; Matt. 19:28; Rom. 8:29; Col. 1:15, 18; Rev. 1:5). Therefore, the dead were resurrected in the same non-biological way (“new creation”) that the living were resurrected. “Behold, I make all thingsnew” (Rev. 21:5).

Jon wrote: Paul claimed to be a Pharisee. To not really be a Pharisee, yet claim to be and then use the language in the way he did is duplicitous.

My response: Paul was not really a Pharisee? I’m not sure where that came from.

I’m sorry you’re not continuing our “back and forth.” But we can leave it at this:

1. My position is “unexegetical.”
2. I make words mean anything I want.
3. I’m comparable to New Agers and Barack Obama.
4. I deny the divinity of Christ.

And I might add, I kill babies in their cribs and I push old ladies down stairwells.

Thank you, Jon.

David Green

Read “House Divided…part1″

My Response #2 to Jon

http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3139

Jon wrote: Dave wants to claim that Paul stands shoulder to shoulder with Hymie and Philetus on the nature of the resurrection.

My response: I didn’t claim that “Paul stands shoulder to shoulder with Hymie and Philetus on the nature of the resurrection.” I said that “for all we know from the context,” that could be the case. All we can derive from the text is that Paul considered Hymenaeus’ teaching on the timing of the resurrection to be a faith-overthrowing heresy. In order to maintain that Hymenaeus’ heresy concerned the nature of the resurrection, the best a futurist can do is assume that to be the case, based on nothing but the assumption of futurism. That’s where the question begging comes in when futurists anathematize preterists based solely on 2 Timothy 2:16-18.

Jon wrote: If you are with two groups of people – “pro-lifer” & “pro-choice” – and declare yourself a member of Operation Rescue and it is with respect to the sanctity of life that you are on trial, then everyone knows what you mean by that language. To respond, I wasn’t getting into the nature of life or when life begins, but merely that I support life is duplicitous. Paul declared himself a Pharisee, which meant a certain perspective on the resurrection of the dead, and he aligned himself with them.

My response: If we may, let’s change to an apples-to-apples analogy. Let’s say the Pharisees believed that angels were material beings and that Paul believed that angels were non-material beings, while the Sadducees denied the very existence of angels. Perhaps we can agree in this scenario that even though Paul and the Pharisees would be “worlds apart” on the “nature” of angels (material versus non-material), Paul could still say he was on the side of his fellow Pharisees against the Sadducees, because he believed in the existence of angels. I see no reason to assume that the Pharisees would have said, “Paul is being duplicitous! He doesn’t REALLY believe in angels. He thinks they’re non-material beings!”

It’s the same thing with the resurrection of the dead. Paul believed that there was going to be a resurrection of the dead. So did the Pharisees.That’s the only point of agreement (the “certain perspective”) that Paul needed in order to divide and conquer his enemies.

Jon wrote: The Pharisees would not “acknowledge” a non-physical resurrection from the dead.

My response: Is there historical evidence that tells us that one would be disqualified from being a Pharisee if he believed in a non-biological resurrection of the dead? Is there evidence that there was no room for disagreement within the Pharisee party on the literal, biological nature of the resurrection?

David Green

A Futurist Review at Last!

House Divided: Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology has been selling now for about two months. In that time, the responses from futurist critics have been less than substantive. There were complaints that the title is a “rip off” of Bahnsen’s and Gentry’s book, House Divided: The Break-Up of Dispensational Theology (1989). There were complaints that the back cover contains an unattributed five-star “review.” (“A Must Read!”) One critic noted that we use the word “hyper-preterism” on the back cover, and then proceeded to declare that we “self-apply” the word and therefore accept it as an accurate description of our belief. He failed to notice the significance of the fact that we put the word in quotation marks. We were referring to so-called “hyper-preterism.”

Many other critics see no need for a further criticism against the book beyond, “Your book disagrees with 2,000 years of church history!” Ah, the joys of hyper-traditionalism. These critics still have not read our response to Charles Hill (chapter two), which deals specifically and directly with this “argument.”

The most stinging of the negative criticisms have come, ironically, from those who have not read the book. One such critic advised everyone to let their pets defecate on it. Another proposed having a public “book burning” in his back yard and posting the event on YouTube. There have been three or four inflammatory, one-star reviews on Amazon. Most, if not all of them, were obviously written by people who had not read the book. All but one of those reviews (so far) were deleted by Amazon.

So much for the first two months of critiques. It was a fun and glorious time. But it ended a week ago on September 4th. That’s the day that a futurist actually began posting a series of critical reviews wherein the arguments of the book are actually addressed. (We understand that there are one or two other such reviews in the works by other futurists.) It’s a fascinating development. The reviewer’s name is Jon/Jonathan Rollen, and he is writing at The Preterist Blog. http://www.preteristblog.com/?p=3083

What follows is the first of my (or our) responses to Jon’s forthcoming series of criticisms:

On page 162 of House Divided, I wrote that futurists are guilty of “question begging” when they anathematize preterists based on 2 Timothy 2:16-18.

Jon responded: Now, Green claims that the futurist is “question begging”, but, in reality, either side can claim that of the other, as even David says, “if we read the passage on the basis of [hyper] preterism, we should reason…” How is this not begging the question?

My response: My argument was not that preterist-anathematizing futurists are guilty of question begging simply because they read 2 Timothy 2:16-18 on the basis of futurism. My argument was that they are guilty of question begging because they smuggle the assumption of futurism into the passage while the passage itself resists that assumption.

There is no indication in 2 Timothy 2:16-18 that it was Hymenaeus’ teaching regarding the nature of the resurrection that Paul called “profane and vain babblings.” All we have in the passage is Paul’s condemnation of Hymenaeus’ teaching regarding the timing of the resurrection. Paul did not condemn Hymenaeus for saying the resurrection is spiritual or non-material. He condemned Hymenaeus for saying, “The resurrection is past already.” Paul condemned Hymenaeus’ timing of the resurrection, but futurists, based solely on the futurist framework, say that the damnable error of Hymenaeus was his teaching concerning the nature of the resurrection.

Therefore, one “begs the question” and makes an exegetically unwarranted assumption if one says that 2 Timothy 2:16-18 condemns those who hold to a non-biological resurrection of the dead. For all we know from the context, Paul stood shoulder to shoulder with Hymenaeus regarding the nature of the resurrection.

On page 168, I said that although Paul agreed with the Pharisees about the fact of the resurrection in Acts 23:6, “there is no reason to assume that Paul agreed with the Pharisees about the nature of the resurrection of the dead.”

Jon responded: Re: “no reason to assume…”, what else would, “I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees” mean other than assuming that Paul agreed with the Pharisees about what “the resurrection of the dead” meant. Declaring himself a Pharisee would be meaningless!

This argument would be weighty if the debate Paul was involved in was: Physical resurrection versus non-physical resurrection. But it wasn’t. The controversy was: Resurrection versus non-resurrection. In that context, we know whose side Paul was on. As Jon put it: “The Pharisees found the resurrection of the dead in the Torah [So did Paul!], but the Sadducees did not.” Well said. In that context, even “hyper-preterists” today stand squarely in the camp of Paul and the Pharisees against the Sadducees.

We cannot judge Paul’s argument by the standard of our own situation. We are in the midst of a debate about the nature (physical versus non-physical) of the resurrection of the dead. That was not Paul’s context or situation. The debate he was in was: afterlife/resurrection/judgment versus no afterlife at all. In that context, Paul was a Pharisee, no matter what he thought the resurrection would be like. Paul and the Pharisees agreed that there was an afterlife, and that there was about to be a “standing up” (resurrection) of the dead to be judged by God, and that this event was prophesied in Scripture. Paul and the Pharisees were not “worlds apart” on those crucial, ethical and eschatological doctrines. They were only “worlds apart” on what the resurrection of the dead would look like –which was a non-issue in Acts 23:1-10.

Jon argues that there is no indication that Luke (the writer of Luke and Acts) changed the usage of the word “resurrection” so that when it referred to Christ it meant a physical resurrection but when it referred to the resurrection of the dead it suddenly meant a non-physical resurrection:

If “resurrection” does not mean what it has meant from Luke 24 to this point [Acts 23], which is always the physical, bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ, then these comments make no sense historically or to his friend Theophilus, because Luke has defined resurrection for him the narrative. At this point in the narrative, resurrection means a physical body leaving a tomb.

My response: Why begin at Luke 24 to find Luke’s meaning when he refers to the resurrection of the dead? Go back to Luke 20:27-36. There Luke recorded for Theophilus the Lord’s teaching regarding the nature of the resurrection of the dead. Jesus taught there that the resurrection would be non-biological; that there would be no marriage and no cycle of reproduction and death for the biologically dead after they were resurrected, because they would be “like angels,” i.e., “spirits” in heaven (Ps. 104:4; Heb. 1:7; cf. Heb. 12:23).

If we are going to say that Jesus’ resurrection-experience was going to be exactly the same in every way to the experience of those who would be resurrected in the end of the age, then we will have to say that when Jesus was raised, He was like an angel (a spirit) in heaven and that He had no sex organs. We will also have to say —in the futurist framework— that Jesus had no blood in his resurrection body, because Paul said that “flesh and blood” cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

These are some of the absurd and Gnostic implications of consistent futurism. Thankfully, not many futurists are consistent in their futurism.

We look forward to Jon’s next installment.

David Green

But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some (2 Timothy 2:16-18).

In the above scripture, Paul said the following about those who say “the resurrection is past”:

1. Their words are to be shunned.
2. Their words increase to more ungodliness.
3. Their words are “profane and vain babblings.”
4. Their words eat like a “canker” (gangrene).
5. They have erred (missed the mark) concerning the truth.
6. They “overthrow the faith of some.”

If preterists today are wrong when they say “the resurrection” of 2 Timothy 2:16-18 is past, are preterists under the condemnation of Hymenaeus and Philetus?

Absolutely.

A: IF “the resurrection” of 2 Timothy 2:18 is not past, and
B: IF preterists say that it is past,
C: THEN preterists are to be shunned. Our words advance ungodliness. Our words are profane and vain babblings. Our words eat like gangrene. We have missed the mark concerning the truth. We are faith-overthrowers.

IF A and B are true, then it irresistibly follows that C is true, according to 2 Timothy 2:16-18.

There are only two ways a futurist can avoid viewing preterists as “Hymenaeans”:

1. A futurist can hold that it is possible that “the resurrection” in 2 Timothy 2:18 does not refer to the yet-future resurrection of the dead, but that it refers to a resurrection-event that occurred in AD 70. (Keith Mathison allows for this possibility. Kenneth Gentry and James Jordan both teach that there was a resurrection in AD 70.)

2. The futurist can hold that it is theoretically possible that futurism could be wrong. This admission would allow the futurist to (at least tentatively) embrace preterists as brothers in Christ.

Short of these two options, there is no way for a futurist to avoid condemning preterists and remain obedient to Scripture (2 Timothy 2:16-18) as it is interpreted within the futurist framework.

This, however, is not the end of the story. Under the futurist assumption, we preterists are teaching a false gospel only because of 2 Timothy 2:16-18. If those three verses did not exist, futurists would have no compelling, biblical basis (under the futurist assumption) for saying that preterists are teaching a damnable heresy. Under the futurist assumption, preterism is an error of course; but there is no systematic, theological basis for anathematizing preterists. There is only 2 Timothy 2:16-18 suspended in midair in an exegetical vacuum.

This clues us in to the fact that the preterist-anathematizing, futurist approach to 2 Timothy 2:16-18 is not on solid biblical ground. The anathema is based on one proof text. We cannot authoritatively base a doctrine on one proof text. How much less can we base an anathema against professing Christians on one proof text?

Futurists must ignore this exegetical and ethical problem and simply smuggle the assumption of futurism into 2 Timothy 2:16-18 in order to maintain their anathema based on those three verses. Their anathematizing use of 2 Timothy 2:16-18 is based on the fallacy of “question begging” and on their a priori (extra-biblical) assumption of our doctrinal guilt. In essence, those verses condemn us only because futurists assume (based on their framework) that those verses condemns us. Without that extra-biblical assumption, the anathema cannot be long maintained.

So yes, within the futurist framework there is a theologically baseless justification for anathematizing preterists, based solely on 2 Timothy 2:16-18 as it is interpreted under the futurist assumption. It is only within the context of proof-texting, logical fallacy, and assumption of guilt that futurists are “justified” in anathematizing preterists.

David Green