Steve Gregg presents a very insightful response to the full preterist paradigm and right off the proverbial bat dispenses with the pleasantries. Cutting to the heart of the issue in his introduction Gregg lays out the founding issues with FP that are completely antithetical to any form of rational Christianity. The dismissal of the contributions of the Church Fathers to the development of Theology proper is considered an attack on the historical Christian faith, yet the FP still tries to maintain they are Christian while denying the future second coming and the bodily resurrection of the saints which are key components for the identification of the historical Christian faith.
While Gregg begins with showing the contrast between the FP and his partial preterist methods of interpretation he notes the “literal” hermeneutics or even the allegorical system that is characterized by each side in the extreme is simply not the real truth. Each Eschatological verse demands careful exegetical due diligence in deciphering its true meaning. When Gregg addresses the Olivet, he clings to a more literal understanding and yet relies on a more figurative interpretation of Revelations, possibly missing the real point. In Rev 1 the seven candlesticks are symbolic of the literal seven churches. This addresses the basic hermeneutics of interpretation of Revelation where it demands that behind the symbolism is something real or concrete, an event that must happen “soon.”
When Gregg addresses the slippery slope of Partial leading to full preterism views this would have been a good point to address Luke 21:22 in which FP claim is the supporting verse to show that all prophecy was fulfilled in that generation. The distorted view of the FP makes for the days of vengeance as the days in which all prophecy is fulfilled. The consistent theme of Mathew and other writers show that all things concerning the days of vengeance must be fulfilled in harmony to Christ’s own words, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets, and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
These are two differing perspectives of interpretation so which one would be regarded as the correct one? The one that creates the most consistency, coherence, and logical framework. We can easily agree that every OT prophecy concerning the life of Christ was fulfilled. Yet prophecy concerning his second coming was yet to be fulfilled or has been fulfilled in any days since AD 70. It is then fair to say that not every prophecy concerning Christ has been fulfilled. At the time of Christ’s statement, the Revelation had not even been written so could hardly be included as “every prophecy” as Gregg pointed out. It is in this main point Gregg rejects the FP paradigm as it fails hermeneutically when trying to make an “illegal transference” of context, meaning they try to make the word or phrase mean the same thing in every case it’s used when it relates to the “Olivet” phraseologies or eschatological references.
Gregg also makes the case that all Christians are in some sense Partial Preterism believing that some prophecies are fulfilled and others yet to be fulfilled. Yet two kinds exist that are formally distinguished one from the other. The first, as in Gregg’s case, holds to a pre-d 70 dating of Revelation so that in his presentation of time statement he neglects to speak of “soon” or “quickly” found in Revelation as he believes these are genuine time statements that point to AD 70 fulfillment of what happened soon. Much of Revelation has been fulfilled, leaving only 19-22 while still trying to hold to an Amillennial position. The other, as for myself, holds to the late date. This implies Revelation was written after AD 70 and has nothing to do with those events of Jerusalem’s destruction.
In Gregg’s bottom line as to why FP should be rejected is that the view that all prophecies have been fulfilled is completely unsustainable in the light of the historical narrative of the actual events of AD 70 as compared to the biblical teaching of the nature of their fulfillment, namely the second coming and resurrection. All that FP have is well structured arguments developed through years of scriptural manipulation. The recent influx of new followers of the views demonstrates their “subjective” and “biblical illiteracy” as they repeat the same arguments without the understanding of how the position was arrived at. Scriptures outside of their purview of eschatology simply overwhelms them like a rip current, carrying them out to the sea of “heresy.”
Gregg makes the claim that “John is explicitly told that his prophecies (Revelation) were for immediate fulfillment.” Which is exegetically inaccurate. The Revelation includes “the things that you have seen, those that are and those that are to take place after this.” which is understood that in the seven letters, they were to be read and taken to heart as those churches faced certain judgment for their failures and were not told that they would receive punishment 2000 years later if they did not make changes. The judgments then follow for a future time period as the context of them being poured out on the entire world is the opposite of the context of the Olivet. The Olivet only speaks of the judgment to come upon Jerusalem and the temple.
Gregg goes on to say according to his PP views that anyone can tell that the events of sixty-six -70 in some way is described in the sensational language of Revelation. He affirms then by reading Josephus it is easy to see Revelation fulfillment. Yet two major glaring points remove Revelation from an AD 70 fulfillment of any kind besides the context as noted above.
The most blatant inconsistency to this view is found in 2 Thess 2:8 and in Rev 19:20. Both passages declare that the beast and false prophet are killed by being “thrown while living into the lake of Fire” by direct action of Christ in his appearing at his parousia. Secondly, Nero died in ’68 by his own hand. There is no record of any type of Beast, False Prophet or any Roman leader who fits the bill killed in ad 70 by the direct hand of Christ who returns. This contradiction is the primary reason partial preterism and FP is to be rejected.
Secondly, (as if more scriptural evidence is needed) Zech 12, 14 which is consistently held up by many scholars is a second coming passage.[1] It declares on the day that Jerusalem is attacked the inhabitant will be protected, they are given salvation and victory over the nations that have come against her. The battle of Armageddon is not a siege against Jerusalem as Megiddo valley is about a hundred miles south of Jerusalem (Rev 16:16), these armies gather “to make war against him who was sitting on the horse and against his army.” Not against Jerusalem. Rev 19 demonstrates a literal victory over the armies of the beast.
In chapter three Gregg deals with Parousia, and on page 64 argues that the Zech 12, 14 passage is not a reference to the second coming but falls short of being true for several reasons. Gregg first states the passage is about a coming of Yahweh and not of Jesus, yet we find Paul quoting this passage of Zech 14:5 in I Thess 3:13. Where at the second coming, “he comes with all his saints.”
Under the Parallel headings found in Biblehub.com cross references are posted as to where a similar message is being used, this cross reference can be found along with Rev 11:13 and 16:18-21 in which a great earthquake is being described in Jerusalem all based on Zech 14:5. In Zech 14:16 it is Jerusalem who wins against the nations that have come against her and in no point in time has this ever been fulfilled, where the nations that survived come year and year to worship God in Jerusalem.
In the same pages Gregg affirms the John 5 passage of resurrection of the just and unjust occurring in the same hour. Exegetically in Rev 20 we find two resurrection. The fist is of those who had been beheaded by the beast, “They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. This is the first resurrection.” The first resurrection take place before the thousand years and another after. The first is of those who are in Christ. Contextually the first resurrection of I Thess 4 and of I Cor 15 is only of the just. There is no mention of the unjust also being raised. In this Rev 20 passage, is showing the just being raised in the first resurrection and the unjust being raised at the end of the thousand years to stand trial before the bema seat of Christ. Therefore, there are two resurrections that take place. The wording does not invoke some kind of contradiction of terms or is confusing on any level.
This one thousand years of Christ cannot begin until the resurrection of the just happens first! There was no corporate resurrection of the “dead in Christ” in AD 33.
Secondly John states that there is a “time” when the just and unjust are raised, exegetically it does not infer it is the same hour where both occur when harmonized with Rev 20.
In his notes “61” Gregg makes this statement,
“the premillennial view would see such a thousand year interval based its case entirely upon Revelation chapter 20 and in particular their own interpretation of that chapter the merits of their interpretation may be debated but any interpretation that places the chapter in contradiction to the other clear statements of scriptures should obviously be passed over in favor of the better and more harmonious interpretation if John actually did intend to predict such a millennial interpolation into the eschatology paradigm he was the only biblical writer to do so and he mentions only in the most symbolic of all books of the Bible through 3/4 of the churches history the Millennium view was rejected in favor of an interpretation more in harmony with the whole of scriptures.”
Gregg suggested that a scriptures “contradicts” another? Schaff pointed out in contradiction to Gregg statements,
The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millennarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius.[2]
From Justin Martyr this declaration is made,
But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.[3]
Gregg goes on to give an excellent rebuttal to the FP argument of why dead bodies do come to life despite their atoms being distributed to the wind. I also found his exegesis of apontesij and of the “transformation” very complete. Gregg reaches many of the same conclusion as I concerning the time texts of chapter 4 and 5. Gregg addresses the timing passages as well and reaches a similar conclusion concerning the timing referencing the AD 70 destruction.
Gregg goes on to deal with Mello, audience relevance, and “we,” “you,” The resurrection, and supplies a sufficient number of quotes to express the early church fathers concerning the resurrection of the dead being of a dead body coming back to life. He further explains the purpose of having a resurrected body is the fulfillment of the restoration in which the earth is remade like new and becomes the place where the church lives face to face with God as it was designed from the beginning.
Greggs handling of the CBV and IBV view is comprehensive and inclusive of all the biblical evidence that undermines any assertion created by the FP.
Coming to page 192, when dealing with “you shall surely die” of Gen 2:17 Gregg views becomes very problematic.
Death is defined in scriptures four ways, death by old age, physical death, a “spiritual death.” The second death in the lake of fire and the fourth, a death that occurs as a punishment for sin. The fourth death, is the death due to punishment.[4] The Hebrew expression found in Genesis 2 is “you shall surely die.” This is death by punishment. It is not about a pronouncement of someone turning to dust, or that one day they will die, this is a declaration of a sentence, a consequence for violating Gods law.
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
4191 [e] מ֥וֹת mō-wṯ surely V-Qal-Inf Abs
4191 [e] תָּמֽוּת׃ tā-mūṯ. you shall die V-Qal-Imperf-2m
mō-wṯ tā-mūṯ., “You shall surely die,” is used in many places throughout scriptures to pronounce the death sentence.
Now then, return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet, so that he will pray for you, and you shall live. But if you do not return her, know that you shall surely die, you and all who are yours. Genesis 20:7
He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death.
Whoever strikes his father, or his mother shall be put to death.
Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.
Whoever curseshis father, or his mother shall be put to death. (Exo 21)
In every verse above mō-wṯ tā-mūṯ, is used and implies the person is to be killed for violation of the crime. Gregg states that he believes the phrase should be understood as “dying you shall die.” The problem is that is not what being communicated in other places of scriptures where the phrase is being used in the exact same way, mō-wṯ should not be implicated as saying, “you’re already dying so die.” The Hebrew should be rendered “you shall die a death.”
This death demands immediate fulfillment upon the completion of the violation of the law or according to the terms that necessitated the sentence to come. The second question posed by Gregg,
Was Adam created mortal?
“Death” is not created. It is the “uncreation” of what God had joined together. Death is not a natural process that happens to a person, Adam after being created to be “alive” was meant to live. God put man together, body and spirit as the intent and purpose for man in the way he was created. He was not created a “spirit” alone nor a “body” alone but both united. If God’s intent in creation was the joining of spirit and body, then the separation is not his intended purpose or its envisioned final destiny, it becomes an enemy to his purposes. Death being an enemy of God would never be counted as “good.” Or that man should be created to being subject too a process of dying as something good. Man was created for fellowship and the intent is eternal fellowship not a “temporary” one. Who has a baby in hopes one day it will die?
Gregg stated,
The phrase you shall surely die is it literally in the Hebrew “dying you shall die” add it was not innately immortal nobody is other than God first Timothy 6:16 though he could potentially have enjoyed the divine gift of immortality had he retained access to the tree of life which God provided for that purpose his immortality was contingent on the eating of that tree and was thus potential not inherent he could live forever if he would eat of the tree of life Genesis 3:22 but not otherwise mortal creatures are always in the process of dying this process needs not result in immediate death however or even eventual death so long as one has access to the tree of life this tree would apparently sustain life indefinitely and is due to the committing of sin that the access to the tree of life was therefore denied so that Adams present process of dying would in due time end up in actual death this became a reality today he sent dying he would die
Gregg is stating that death exited in the Garden, Adam was created mortal, and it was all good, the Last Enemy of I Corinthians 15, by implication is “good.”
Does Gregg argue that because Adam and Eve had to eat of the tree of life continuously to stay alive, which again demands they were mortal and subject to death.?
Gregg’s viewpoint fails to take into consideration that in the restoration we are not returning to the state of Adam post-fall but of Pre-fall. What was lost in the Garden is being restored to its perfection, hence the tree of Life in the New Jerusalem, a restoration of all things and all things become new.
How is it new if the condition after the fall is the same condition of man before the fall? Man could not die before the fall but now after the fall, can die, his body and spirit separate and the body turns back into dust. Then to say the restoration of all things is a return to death is simply dead wrong. (pun intended)
Let me point out one more consideration. God alone is immortal, in the main definition concerning God, God is not subject to death by growing old or by any other means because he is not made of flesh for one. His nature is finite. The word mortal simply means subject to death, immortal, means no longer subject to death as Paul used the word in I Cor 15. Adam was made immortal, not subject to death so upon eating of the fruit he was changed and made mortal under the pronouncement of the curse of turning to dust. Gregg stated that a person can be imparted by God, to become or have “immortality” and so we would hold that Adam was created “immortal.” At the time of Paul writing to Timothy no person had immortality, as all men were subject to death because the resurrection had not taken place.
Gregg goes on to demonstrate the exegetical errors of the FP view of Resurrection and demonstrate the misguided interpretation of not being given in Levitical marriage as something completely foreign to the discussion. It is as if the point is missed by FP on the basic level of not comprehending the Sadducees were arguing all seven came back to life in a bodily resurrection. To argue over legitimacy of Levirite marriage in the resurrection age as Gregg pointed out is such a demonstration of the pure levels of desperation, they will sink to in trying to make illegitimate paradigm legitimate.
In the final chapters we can whole heartedly agree with Gregg assessment of the New heaven and earth, and his literal conclusions of the Olivet “mostly.” I am personally under the conviction that the Olivet was completely fulfilled in AD 70 and has nothing to do with a second coming or can be divided in two as does N T Wright but we all know according to Preston, Wright is wrong. Overall, the strength of the book is cutting to the chase of the FP arguments and claims of proper interpretation of scriptures falls short on many levels from the very outset. The way they go about trying to lay the groundwork for understanding the FP paradigm has digressed from one of possible unity to utter chaos as the movement self-destructs with each and every new generation.
[1] Zech 12:2; 14:2 Siege of Jerusalem
Zech 12 :10; Rev 1:7 those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him.
Zech 12:5 ‘The inhabitants of Jerusalem have strength through the LORD of hosts, their God. 6 Jerusalem shall again be inhabited in its place, in Jerusalem 8 On that day the LORD will protect the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Zech 14:11 And it shall be inhabited, for there shall never again be a decree of utter destruction Jerusalem shall dwell in security. 16 Then everyone who survives of all the nations that have come against Jerusalem shall go up year after year to worship the King, the LORD of hosts,
[2] Schaff, Phillip, History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325. (Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library 2002). 391. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.html
[3] Justin Martyr “Dialogue with Typho” Chapter 80. (155-160 AD.)
[4] Death by disease or sickness is a result of the curse but is not imposed on every person as “the” punishment, that they are to get sick and die, yet examples in scriptures exist where God made people sick unto death as a punishment for their sin.
Leave a Reply