Saturday , May 27 2017
Breaking News
You are here: Home / Michael Sullivan / House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Conclusion

House Divided Chapter Four The NT Time Texts Partial Preterist Keith A. Mathison Vs. Full Preterist Michael J. Sullivan Conclusion

House Divided Bridging the Gap in Reformed Eschatology A Preterist Response to

When Shall These Things Be?

 

Chapter Four

The Eschatological Madness of Mathison or How Can These Things Be? 

Conclusion

Michael J. Sullivan

Copyright 2009 and 2013 – All rights reserved.  No part of this
book (or article) may be reproduced in any form without permission
in writing from the publisher or author of this chapter/article (Vision Publishing
or Michael J. Sullivan), except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical
articles or reviews.  

Conclusion 

Mathison says that interpreting New Testament eschatological time

texts is a “difficult problem” that has “perplexed commentators for

centuries,” and that it is therefore a subject upon which he and his coauthors

do not agree (155, 178, 204). Consequently, Mathison’s treatment

of the time texts is ambiguous and he casts a fog over the whole

matter. Here are some examples of Mathison’s pervasive uncertainty

as he wrestles against God’s eschatological time-statements.

 

“You shall not finish going through the cities of Israel,

until the Son of Man comes.”

 

Commentators have interpreted [Matthew 10:23] in a number

of different ways. (175–176)

 

Mathison presents five competing futurist and partial preterist interpretations.

He eventually lands on an interpretation but he does not

express unequivocal confidence in it.

 

“Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing

here who shall not taste death until they see the Son of

Man coming in His kingdom.”

 

. . . [W]hat does it mean for Jesus [in Matthew 16:27–28] to

suggest that [the coming of the Son of Man] will happen within

the lifetime of his hearers? (176)

 

But of course, Jesus did more than merely “suggest” that His coming

would happen within the lifetime of His hearers, as Mathison weakens

the words of the Lord.

 

• The Coming of the Son of Man

 

Each of the texts we have looked at (Matt. 10:23; Matt. 16:27–

28; 24–25) seems to portray the coming of the Son of Man as

something that would occur soon after the words were spoken.

This has perplexed commentators for centuries. (178)

 

Mathison then makes reference to “all of the difficulties surrounding

these [time] texts” and adds that “several” interpretations have been

“suggested” (178–179).

 

But as preterists know, these texts are unequivocal and nonperplexing.

Note that Mathison admits that all of the biblical texts

he cited in Matthew (including the prophecy of the sheep and goats)

“seem” to say what preterists say they say. When Mathison says that

the texts are surrounded by “difficulties” and that they have “perplexed

commentators,” the reason is—obviously—because the texts, if left

to interpret themselves, teach “hyper-preterism.” Yet five pages later

Mathison says, “There is nothing in any of these texts that demands or

even strongly suggests a hyper-preterist interpretation” (183).

 

“Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until

all these things take place.”

 

. . . [S]everal possible interpretations [of Matthew 24:34] have

been offered.

 

Mathison presents nine competing futurist and partial preterist interpretations

(179–181). All of the “possible interpretations” of the word

“generation” proposed by Mathison are puzzling though, since he tells

readers in his book, Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope, while refuting

Dispensationalism, that they can “know” the preterist interpretation

of “this generation” in Matthew 24:34 is the true interpretation:

 

We know that the phrase “this generation” refers to the generation

of Jews to whom Jesus was speaking for these reasons. . . .[1]

 

Treading water in a great sea of uncertainty and contradiction,

Mathison flounders among the “many possible interpretations” of these

and other passages, and then miraculously arrives at the shore and concludes

with curious confidence: “Just as there is nothing in the Gospels

that even remotely suggests hyper-preterism, so there is also nothing

in the book of Acts or in the New Testament epistles that suggests

hyper-preterism” (205, emphases added). “The New Testament . . . does

not even suggest hyper-preterism” (213, emphases added).

 

Let’s see now. Mathison admits that Jesus said (or suggested or

seemed to teach) many times and in many places that His coming

would happen within the lifetime of His hearers. Mathison admits that

this fact has perplexed futurist commentators for centuries (176–179).

Mathison admits that Paul and other New Testament writers seemed to

teach that Christ was coming soon and that the end of the age was near

(201–202). Then Mathison says that there is nothing in the New Testament

“that even remotely suggests hyper-preterism” (205, 213). Our

question to Mathison is not when, but how can these things be?

 

Mathison undertakes to evaluate and dismiss the preterist position

while he himself is uncertain as to how to interpret the verses that

“seem” to support preterism (but at the same time do not even “remotely

suggest” preterism). Mathison’s particular beliefs are a matter

of opinion and debate, because according to Mathison, who can know

with any certainty what such terms as “near” and “soon” and “this generation”

and “some of you standing here” really mean? There are many

possible interpretations.

 

Mathison should consider that his eschatological particulars (the

time texts) are vague and uncertain because his eschatological universals

(the physical and yet-future second coming, resurrection, and

judgment) are askew. If we all were to agree and stand “shoulder to

shoulder” (155) on the universal that eschatology is all about the fall

of the Soviet Union, the result would be that our interpretation of a

myriad of verses would become a “difficult problem” (Mathison’s term).

Mathison’s quandary vividly illustrates the centuries-old problem with

futurism. Two or three flawed universals have made a vast multitude of

particulars unfathomable.

 

. . . [O]rthodox Christianity was characterized by two eschatological

doctrines: the future return of Christ to judge mankind

and the future bodily resurrection of all men for judgment. . . .

[A]part from these two doctrines, there was nothing approaching

consensus for the first four centuries [of church history].[2]

 

This problem is alive and well today, as Mathison’s multi-authored

book demonstrates. Mathison uses wild understatement when he says

of the authors of WSTTB: “ . . . [T]he contributors to this volume do not

completely agree in their interpretation of every eschatological text”

(155). The fact is that all seven of the contributors to Mathison’s volume

do not agree at all on any (or at least virtually any) eschatological

doctrine except the doctrine “that the second coming of Jesus Christ,

the general resurrection, and the Last Judgment are yet to come” (155).

Mathison can call that “shoulder-to-shoulder” agreement, but it is not

impressive. Agreement on only a few points out of a myriad merely

indicates that those few points are wrong.

 

It is more than difficult to understand how these authors can portray their

historical positions as unified on these points when between their two

systems (partial preterism and amillennialism) two contradictory

propositions emerge when you examine the particulars – that is the

passages that are used to arrive at a futurist position for these three

 events:

1)      Partial Preterism – Imminence and fulfillment is accepted, Christ

appeared a second time at the end of the old covenant age, there

was a spiritual, corporate, covenantal judgment and resurrection of

the living and dead which was attended by a passing of the old

creation and arrival of the new in AD 70 in such passages as these:

Daniel 12:1-4; Matthew 5:17-18, 13:39-43, 24-25; Acts 1:11;

Romans 8:18, 13:11-12; 1 Peter 4:5-7; 2 Peter 3; Revelation 1-22;

Hebrews 8:13, 9:26-28,[3] 10:37.

 

And yet we are also told that this proposition is true –

2)       Classic Amillennialism – The NT only teaches one coming of

Christ, general judgment and resurrection of the living and dead

attended by the restoration of creation at the end of the age.

 

How can these things be indeed?  Obviously both of these propositions

cannot be true at the same time unless full preterism is true and accepted.

Allow me to use two particular passages in connection with my testimony

on how I became a full preterist which illustrates the problem the authors

of WSTTB have with their so called “shoulder to shoulder” unity.  One day

I was reading Reformed amillennial and partial preterist books while also

studying Matthew 24-25 and comparing it with 1 Thessalonians 4-5 in my

dorm room at the Master’s College.  I concluded that the partial preterist

was accurate in teaching that the coming of Christ in Matthew 24-25 was

fulfilled in AD 70 spiritually using apocalyptic language and that the

amillennialist was also accurate in that Paul was drawing from Jesus’

teaching in the Olivet Discourse and that there is only one “the parousia”

of Christ in the NT.  Therefore “orthodoxy” was teaching me that 1

Thessalonians 4-5 was the same coming of Christ described by Jesus

in Matthew 24-25.  But since the futurist errs on the nature of the

resurrection assuming it is biological and at the end of time, the

readers of WSTTB are forced into a contradictory “either or” situation

on passages such as these when the truth is a “both and.”  I think one can

see the problem the authors of WSTTB are trying to sweep under the rug when it comes

to how they can “unify” in teaching that the Second Coming is still future when

the particulars of what they are each saying on the given texts and how they relate to

each other teach otherwise.

 

The choice is simple.  Either one continues propagating the myth that

these two propositions within the futurist paradigm do not lead to a

contradiction, or accept the organic development of full preterism which

unites them in seeing that these events were fulfilled in AD 70 when Christ

came (once a “second time”) invisibly to close the old covenant age

dissolving the elements of that world while establishing the new.

 

It is ironic that the title of Mathison’s book is When Shall These

Things Be?  Not only is there no consensus among the authors as to the

answer to that very question, but Mathison himself (the only author

who attempts to answer the question) fails to arrive at an unequivocal

and decisive answer. Within a span of six pages (177–182), Mathison

tacitly admits that the question is a problem for futurism, and offers

seven or eight possible “solutions.”[4]

 

If we were to apply Mathison’s method in eschatological matters

to all other areas of life, we would be certain of nothing; we would all

be postmodernists. The truth would become unknowable. Mathison

himself, in his book The Shape of Sola Scriptura, teaches that “clear”

and “firm scriptural proof for every article of faith” is a “necessity.”[5]

Yet in WSTTB, Mathison demonstrates with his plethora of “possible

interpretations” that he lacks “clear” and “firm” scriptural proof either

for futurism or against preterism. Nevertheless, he feels at liberty to

anathematize us for our preterist challenge to futurism (213).

 

Mathison claims that Christ died to leave the church, for 2,000

years and counting, in an “evil age.” As my editor has said, “Joy to the

world!” Postmillennialists such as Marcellus Kik and Keith Mathison

have produced not so much an Eschatology of Victory or An Eschatology

of Hope, as a “sick” eschatology, because, “Hope deferred makes the heart

sick, but when the desire comes, it is a tree of life” (Prov. 13:12). Preterism

will stand the test of time; and as godly men embrace it and teach it,

it will bring healing to the “eschatological schizophrenia” of Mathison

et al, and to the eschatological division within the church as a whole.

 

Interestingly, Gentry and Mathison in their books pit old school dispensationalism

against modern day progressives as a “House Divided” that “cannot stand”

unless they move more toward covenant theology.  And yet we have

documented their “House Divided” approach which equally “cannot stand”

unless full Preterism is embraced to “bridge the gap.”  And since they also

exhort progressives such as Pastor John MacArthur in his/their changes

which are moving closer and closer to covenant theology, we too applaud

Gentry and Mathison for coming closer and closer to full Preterism in what

they have written since WSTTB.  If a five point Calvinist and progressive

dispensationalist such as MacArthur can be seen as “inconsistent,” holding

to a “compromised” position, or being content in being a stepping stone for

others to come into covenant theology, then full preterists can view Gentry

and Mathison’s writings as such in their moves towards full preterism.

If not why not?
As a Reformed believer, dear reader, you know that there is no middle

ground between Arminianism and Calvinism. You may have tried at one

time to say that you were neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian. Or you may

have acknowledged that the Bible teaches Calvinism, but you rejected the

teaching because you were troubled by its implications. Or you may have

even been a closet Calvinist for years. Though the road was perhaps difficult,

you eventually embraced the doctrines of grace, and now you know

there is no compromise position between the two doctrines.

Many Reformed believers today are having the same experience

with the doctrine of preterism. They are learning that it is also a hard

pill to swallow and that it is nevertheless the doctrine of Scripture. They

are learning that it represents “the whole counsel of God” in the area of

eschatology. After we are confronted with biblical preterism, we may

try to straddle the fence, but there is truly no middle ground. Just as

R.C. Sproul (Sr.) would consider a four-point Calvinist to be in reality a

“confused Arminian,” more and more futurists, on their way to biblical

preterism, are beginning to see that partial preterism is just “confused

futurism.” There is no biblical basis for “partial preterism” even as there

is no biblical basis for “partial Calvinism.” This is why partial preterism

invariably leads to full preterism. This is why Keith Mathison and Ken

Gentry have both come closer to “hyper-preterism” since they wrote

WSTTB. Mathison now believes that the prophecy of the sheep and

the goats in Matthew 25 was fulfilled in AD 70 and Gentry now believes

that the resurrection in Daniel 12:2-3 was fulfilled in AD 70.

 

 


[1] Mathison, Postmillennialism, 111 (emphasis added)

[2] Postmillennialism, 33

[3] Milton Terry wrote of Hebrews 9:26-28, “The ‘end of the age’ means the close of the epoch or age—that is, the Jewish age or dispensation which was drawing nigh, as our Lord frequently intimated. All those passages that speak of ‘the end,’ ‘the end of the age,’ or ‘the ends of the ages,’ refer to the same consummation, and always as nigh at hand.” “…the writer [to the Hebrews] regarded the incarnation of Christ as taking place near the end of the aeon, or dispensational period. To suppose that he meant that it was close upon the end of the world, or the destruction of the material globe, would be to make him write false history as well as bad grammar. It would not be true in fact; for the world has already lasted longer since the incarnation than the whole duration of the Mosaic economy, from the exodus to the destruction of the temple. It is futile, therefore, to say that the ‘end of the age’ may mean a lengthened period, extending from the incarnation to our times, and even far beyond them. That would be an aeon, and not the close of an aeon. The aeon of which our Lord was speaking was about to close in a great catastrophe; and a catastrophe is not a protracted process, but a definitive and culminating act.” Milton S. Terry, Biblical HERMENEUTICS A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New Testaments, 441-442.

[4] Ken Gentry, in another book, gave a decisive interpretation of Jesus’ answer to the disciples’ question: “Christ’s teaching here is extremely important to redemptive history. He is responding to the question of His disciples regarding when the end of the age (Gk., aion) will occur (24:3). In essence, His full answer is: when the Romans lay waste the temple (vv. 6 and 15 anticipate this) and pick apart Jerusalem (v. 28).” Thomans Ice, Kenneth Gentry, The Great Tribulation Past or Future? Two Evangelicals Debate the Question (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1999), 58.

[5] Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2001), 32

 

 

 

 

About Mike Sullivan

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*