But I’ll have to disagree with his interpretation of the 70th weeks of Daniel 9. As you know, I’m not Preterist, whether full or partial.

Hope you enjoy the attached link. My goal for this blog is to “Speaking to Full Preterists in a Language They Can Understand” by using their own writings to show them how heretical their view is. The division found within Preterist circles shows what kind of fruit they bare.

There are many errors and consequences of this system of interpreting bible prophecy and I hope to show these throughout the blog.

I have also posted some humorous posts to liven up the discussion. I hope you enjoy.

What in the world is Mathison’s argument intended to convey? Many preterists, myself included, agree with Mathison’s point. I think the ascension into the clouds was meant to illustrate in the physical what was going on in spiritual terms (is heaven really in the sky?), which was the fulfillment of Daniel 7′s Son of Man going before the Ancient of Days on the clouds to receive power and glory (receiving His throne). Mathison’s point certainly doesn’t help the case for anyone expecting a literal or in any way physical return of the Son of Man on clouds. Maybe you can explain how he uses this to undermine full preterist claims.

And for the record, before I was a full preterist, I was bewildered at why FPs insisted that everything had to be fulfilled in the first century; it seemed to be an arbitrary hermeneutic. But what wore me down was how all the apocalyptic language was leading toward things that as a partial preterist I definitely believed had happened in the first century. What I began to see was that it was truly an arbitrary hermeneutic to suggest bits and pieces were fulfilled and others yet to come.

Thank you, but you won’t be rid of me that easily. Eschatology is one of the few things I’ve learned a little bit more than nothing about, so I fully intend to keep plugging away in speculating to that regard, even if I don’t know for sure how it’s going to end (ha ha).

BTW, the author of the article in question was Richard Pratt Jr., not Mathison, though the latter certainly bears some overall accountability for being the editor of the collected book. I’ve gotten the impression from several of the articles now that their approach is not a direct refutation of full preterism, but instead constructing arguments designed to undercut any exclusive claims by FP, e.g. all prophecy must have been fulfilled in the first century.

Another example: I’m halfway through Mathison’s own article and he’s just made the argument that the phrase “the coming of the Son of Man” doesn’t necessarily mean the second coming of Christ to Creation, whether physical or spiritual, but could mean the ascension of Jesus to heaven, to receive his throne.

The promised exegetical rebuttal is at the end of the book, but I’m making myself read the entire thing front to back.

Mathison would have God promise, predict, and assure all first century believers through Jesus, John, Peter, and Paul that they were living in “the last days” (Acts 2:16-17), and in the words of Peter himself in 1 Pet 4:7, “the end of all things is near” and then be stymied somehow by an unforeseen rejection of the gospel.

Nowhere do the Resurrection and judgment appear as separable from the restoration of Israel. Jesus’ parables in no way imply a gap between, for instance, the vengeance upon the vineyard caretakers and the giving of the vineyard to others. Yet that’s what’s implied by Mathison’s scheme. You have God saying, “Well, I was going to give you a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but since you didn’t say please, I’m only giving you the peanut butter. I won’t give you the jelly until you say please.” Come on, Keith! Anyone can tell you’re graspng at straws.

Moreover, Peter again shows that the restoration of Israel/the coming of salvation was imminent without any conditional stipulations in 1 Peter 1:5, “…who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation about to be revealed in the last time.” Hebrews 9:28, the only passage in Scripture that refers to the Second Coming with the word “second”, defines it not simply as judgment but also as the accomplishment of redemption, “so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” No intervening “comings”, no conditions.

In fact, as I mentioned in my Jeremiah and the potter post, Paul is clear that God intended all along for the Jews’ hearts to be hardened, so any claim that some massive wholesale repentance was an achievable stipulation is horribly problematic, especially coming from a Reformed guy like Mathison who denies the synergism necessary for complete fulfillment as a fundamental matter of doctrine! God did delay forty years so that the maximum number of people could hear — Paul had just penetrated the heart of the empire a few years before AD 66, and this jives really well with Peter’s statement that God was not slow in keeping His promises. Gosh, think of what Peter’s audience would have said about his statement in light of the two millennia delay futurists insist upon!

At some point, it becomes obvious that Mathison and other futurists are grasping at straws, even when it challenges their own fiercely-defended beliefs on sovereignty vs. man’s ability to choose. All to uphold the creeds. the production of which the Westminster Confession of Faith describes as fallible (“All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred”).

Well, given your recently stated resolve to refocus your blog, this may be the last of these eschatology posts I get to comment on for HiS. I’ll miss it – it’s been enjoyable for me. Luckily, I can talk about more than just eschatology, and I certainly intend to do so. Congrats on your first year anniversary!