Victorious Eschatology

Victorious Eschatology

A little while ago, in Fervent, Effectual Prayer, I mentioned that it has been on my heart to encourage a fresh wave of believing prayer for the nations. Then in our last post, God’s Purposes For The NationsI shared my personal story of confusion over eschatology. Reading the Bible out loud instilled in me a great expectation of victory and the gospel triumphing until all nations would come to worship Jesus and the whole earth would be filled with the knowledge of God’s glory. But this conflicted with what I was taught about eschatology and with my understanding of certain other verses. I soon realized how much our eschatology can determine whether or not we agree with God’s purposes for the nations in believing prayer.

Do I Really Want To Get Into Eschatology?

Eschatology is a subject I’ve mostly avoided on my blog until now. One reason is that many people feel so strongly about it that they block and shun anybody with a different view—even if that view is well within the bounds of orthodox Christian theology and many of the best Bible scholars today hold it.

The other reason I’ve mostly avoided eschatology is that there is a lot to explain, a lot of questions and objections to answer, and quite frankly, it would be a great deal of work for me to lay it all out. Even though I could do that, other people already have. (And some have done a very good job of it.) I’m not interested in doing a lot of work to say the same things that some very good scholars have already laid out. I’d rather point people to where they can learn more. I have plenty to write about from a unique perspective, and I don’t need to create a great body of work explaining exactly the same things that others have said.

So why am I talking about eschatology now? I have realized that some of the most popular eschatology today is one of the main things hindering Christians from engaging in believing prayer for the nations. I’ve seen how perverse it is when Christians hear bad news and rejoice because they think it means Jesus is about to return. I’ve seen how the idea that “the world is getting worse” distorts Christians’ perception of reality and has also fostered hundreds of false prophecies throughout church history and continues to do so. In fact, more people than you would imagine have lost their lives or committed suicide after being led astray by such false prophecies.

I’m more interested in telling my story and encouraging people to learn more than in insisting everyone sees the same way. So I’ll give you just enough for a basic understanding of my view. Some people, as I was, are barely aware that there is a solid alternative to the most popular eschatology today. Or how much of today’s most popular eschatology is just made up to make all the pieces fit together, or in some cases, didn’t exist for much of church history.

I respect you if you have a different view, as many people throughout church history have had varying views on the subject. I will even share a resource from a friend who has a different view of the book of Revelation than I do. His book gives a good overview of the major Christian interpretations of Revelation. It goes on to give a take on things which differs from my view, but is still much more coherent, reasonable, and optimistic than what I was taught as a kid. If you’ve ever felt like eschatology was impossible to understand, the reason may be that many of the explanations you’ve heard really don’t make any sense and are not coherent with the rest of scripture!

Partial Preterism

I was at a Voice of the Apostles conference in 2010 (I think) with Randy Clark and Bill Johnson when I heard a recommendation for the book “Victorious Eschatology.”  I think it was Randy who recommended it. (Bill has always been ambiguous about his eschatology.) I went over to the book table right away and picked it up.

I got into the book quickly and read an explanation of Mathew 24 that I’d never heard before. It cleared up so much confusion that I’d had! The book contained quotes from many famous Christians throughout church history, proving that they believed at least part of Jesus’ prophecy in Matthew 24 was fulfilled in AD 70 when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem. (Some of those people made conflicting statements on the matter, which only shows that they were also a bit confused by it.) The book also pointed out very clear and precise fulfillment in history of the events Jesus’ prophesied.

Partial preterism is the view that some prophesies have been fulfilled. Technically, every Christian is at least partially “preterist” in some sense because if you believe Jesus came, died, and rose again, you believe that Isaiah 53 and many other Old Testament prophecies have already been fulfilled. But there are different views on how much has been fulfilled.

Full preterism is a much newer position that denies any future return of Christ, resurrection, or judgment. Most partial preterists consider full preterism a heretical and problematic doctrine. The problem is that many people indiscriminately use the word “preterist” without distinguishing between partial and full preterism. There is a huge difference! To be clear, I believe in Jesus’ future return, the resurrection, and the judgment. I am simply convinced that some prophecies which are clearly talking about past events have been confused with prophecies about Jesus’ final return.

“Surely, All These Things Will Happen Before This Generation Passes Away!”

The biggest point of confusion is that Jesus said in no uncertain language that some of the people standing there with him, in the first century, would see the events of Matthew 24. Including “the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven.” Other scriptures also make the timing clear.

Matthew 24:30, 34 (NIV) “Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth[a] will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory…Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened. (The footnote here after earth says “tribes of the land,” as the Greek word here is often used in reference to the land of Israel.)

Matthew 16:27-28 (NIV) For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”

Matthew 26:64 (NIV) “You have said so,” Jesus replied. “But I say to all of you: From now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” (Spoken before his crucifixion to people in the first century.)

Some people have tried to reinterpret “this generation” as “that generation” or “this people.” The problem is it doesn’t say “that generation” and it should have used other language to say “this people.” You can compare nearly 60 different translations of the Bible in English and almost all of them say “this generation.” I have heard the issue debated between the best of scholars, and I think the argument that “this generation” means anything other than “this generation” is almost totally indefensible. There is no getting around this statement. “This” is a near demonstrative, and we use a far demonstrative (“That”) to talk about a future generation.

Arbitrarily changing what the Bible says to fit a particular theological view is unacceptable. It also doesn’t resolve the other verses in which Jesus said people who were standing there in the first century would see his coming.

Some who were more intellectually honest about this point have actually said that Jesus was mistaken. Even the great Christian Apologist C.S. Lewis thought Jesus was confused on this point and missed it. C.S. Lewis called it “the most embarrassing verse in the Bible.” And atheists have used it to say that Jesus was wrong and thus was not who he claimed to be.

Many who reinterpreted “this generation” to fit their theology said it meant “that generation when Israel becomes a nation again.” Thus many Christians were convinced Jesus would return in 1988. When they missed it, they reinterpreted a “generation” as 70 years instead of 40 years. But they missed it again last year! (2018 was 70 years after Israel became a nation.) This is typical of 2000 years of church history of people trying to apply Matthew 24 and the book of Revelation to their present day.

So what is the solution? Various places in the Old Testament use similar language to talk about God coming in judgment. The “coming” they are talking about is not Jesus’ final, physical return. For example, Isaiah 19 is a prophecy that most scholars agree is fulfilled:

Isaiah 19:1 (NIV) A prophecy against Egypt: See, the Lord rides on a swift cloud and is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt tremble before him, and the hearts of the Egyptians melt with fear.

In Daniel chapter 7, Jesus comes to the Ancient of Days. This is a “coming,” but it is not a coming to earth. It is coming to the Father to receive his kingdom, not his final coming.

Daniel 7:13-14 (NIV) “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.

When you read Matthew 24, read it together with Matthew 23. What is Jesus talking about? He is talking about all the blood of the prophets coming on “this generation,” about judgment and the destruction of the temple, when not one stone will remain upon another. When did this happen? The temple was destroyed in AD 70.

The writings of Josephus and other historians show that the predictions of Jesus, the wars and rumors of wars, the falling away, the tribulation, happened very precisely as Jesus said. I don’t feel like going into the details, but I can point you to where you can learn more. The fulfillment of Jesus’ words in Matthew 24 was so precise that I can’t ignore it. In fact, various sources record that first century Christians understood their current events as what Jesus prophesied in Matthew 24, and therefore escaped the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 by fleeing to Pella.

Jesus said the gospel would be preached in all the world, and then the end would come. And multiple New Testament scriptures confirm clearly that the gospel was preached in all the world in the first century. (See this article, or this one for more detail.)

As scripture says, the “end” Jesus was talking about was “the end of the age.” And it has been confused with the end of the world! If you do a Bible search of terms like “last days” and “last hour,” you will find that all the New Testament authors who used these terms believed their time was the last days. This is because they were talking about the end of the age which Jesus prophesied, not the end of the world. It has not been the “last days” for 2,000 years!

What Are The Implications Of This?

First, for me this view clears up a lot of confusion by giving a coherent understanding of Matthew 24. But more than that, it leads us to understand that Jesus was not referring to our time when he talked about a great falling away and the love of many growing cold. The “great tribulation” of Matthew 24 is a past event. The phrase “last days” in scripture is a reference to their time, not our time.

For a good introduction to a partial preterist view, Jonathan Welton has made his book “Raptureless” available for free online. Or you can check out “Victorious Eschatology,” which was my introduction to the partial preterist view. Welton’s book “The Art Of Revelation” is a very understandable explanation of the book of Revelation. If you prefer listening, you can check out Gary DeMar or Dr. Kenneth Gentry on Youtube. Just try searching their names with phrases like “Matthew 24,”The Beast,” “antichrist,” “man of lawlessness,” “Revelation,” “Olivet discourse,“Great Tribulation” “debate,” etc.

Remember that the partial preterist view does see scripture passages like 1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4, Matthew 25 (usually), and others as references to Jesus’ return in our future. But it maintains that many scripture passages which are confused with Jesus’ future return are actually past events.

In the next post, l share why I don’t expect a single, future “antichrist” figure to take over the world. And for those who’d like to explore other views that may also be simpler and more coherent than the popular pessimistic teachings, I’ll link to a book from a friend who is not a partial preterist but still holds a lot of views in common with me.

Then we look at a few statistics in an article called “It’s Hard To Argue That The World’s Not Getting Better!” And we’ll go on from there to talk more about believing prayer for nations to turn to Christ.

Tagged with: , , ,
3 comments on “Victorious Eschatology
  1. Rob says:

    Brother Jonathan…looking at the “Raptureless” book, I can’t help but see a lot of red flags…I guess I fall into the old traditional pre-Trib rapture teaching. The fig tree as Israel is a key for me, and you would have to wipe out a lot of Jeremiah and Ezekiel to support what Dr. Welton suggests. Daniel broke Jeremiah’s 70 weeks into three distinct periods: 7 weeks (49 years, from the time Artaxerxes gave the order to rebuild Jerusalem in 445 BC to Nehemiah finishing the job/dedicating 2nd Temple in 396 BC), 62 weeks (from 2nd temple dedication to Jesus’ crucifixion in 32 AD; these are Jewish 360-day years by the way), and then a final yet unfulfilled one week, which the antichrist will first confirm/strengthen a covenant and then break it halfway mark (Dan 9, Rev. 12, 3.5 years). Dr. Welton’s opinion that the gospel spreading to the Roman Empire somehow fulfills the gospel being preached to the whole world and a witness to all nations (Matt 24:14) also seems a bit weak.

    I’m sorry…I just can’t “get there from here”…

    Blessings, shalom, and agape in Yeshua,

    Rob Chambers

    • Jonathan says:

      Hey Rob,

      There are plenty of people I respect who hold a different eschatological view than I do, and I think this is something we should be able to discuss respectfully, so thanks for your corteous comment.

      Here are my thoughts about your points…

      I don’t think it’s quite fair to talk about “wiping out” the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel since some of the best scholars today hold a partial preterist view and certainly haven’t ignored Jeremiah or Ezekiel. For one example, the battle of Gog and Magog very clearly describes a primitive battle with primitive weapons and settings. Dr. James Jordan and Gary Demar have a good argument that this battle is a reference to the events of the book of Esther, in which Haman who was a “Gogite” tried to destroy the Jews. So there are different interpretations of the books. I’ve listened to debates between scholars on both sides, and personally, I have a very hard time swallowing the arguments that Gog and Magog is a future event when I hear both sides of the issues.

      The Prophecy of Daniel in Isaiah 9 is one of the strongest reasons I can’t accept the popular dispensationalist interpretation. The first part I nearly agree with on, except that I see the 69 weeks as leading up to Jesus standing in the temple and reading Isaiah 61, when he began his ministry. And I see the 70th week as necessarily following the 69th week, three and a half years until Jesus was crucified of “cut off” and as Hebrews says, made animal sacrifices obsolete, and three and a half years after that until the stoning of Stephen and the gospel going to the gentiles, the completion of the 70th week.

      That passage in Daniel 9 does not have the word “antichrist,” that is only an interpretation. It is a bit tricky to translate, as you can see by reading it in a few versions of the Bible and reading the alternate translation notes. But to me the logic of adding a gap of thousands of years to a prophecy which is talking about literal years is absurd. So much of dispensationalist theology hinges on that gap. The passage says nothing about a gap and it seems that if God is revealing something in literal years but there is a gap of an unknown time period in the middle, it would be pointless to be talking about literal years and God would really be being dishonest. I mean, in the beginning of the chapter we see Daniel set himself to pray because the 70 years of them to return were about up. Can we imagine if Daniel prayed and the 70 years came and went because there was an unknown “gap” inserted into the middle and it really ended up being 800 years?

      I mentioned my friend who holds a different view than I do. His view is more futurist, but he also thinks it’s just crazy to add a gap of an unknown time period in the middle of a prophecy about literal years. If it were that long the prophecy should have been about a few hundred weeks, not 70 weeks.

      As for the gospel being preached in that generation, this is also one of the strongest reasons I hold the P.P. position. Comparing scripture with scripture, it’s clear to me that scripture says, using the same language in Greek, that what Jesus was talking about “gospel preached in all the world,” happened in the first century. I’ve heard it debated and I just don’t see any way to get around the fact that Paul and other N.T. writers said that what Jesus prophesied happened. I’m not sure if you got a chance to look at those links yet, but one has a short list of those cross references, and the other has an in depth study on them in an article by Gary DeMar..

      As for being pro-Israel or not, Gary DeMar points out that earlier dispensationalist tracts read like anti-semetic literature (surpising!) and their belief system expects two thirds of all Jews in Israel to be slaughtered, yet it is working hard to get Jews to return to Israel.Gary has a very good debate with Dr. Michael Brown on Israel. It’s one of the best and most respectful debates I’ve ever heard, it sounds like two brothers working through an issue and trying to understand each other. But one thing that came out clearly is that the accusation of “replacement theology” that so often gets thrown at partial preterists is false.

      Thanks for your interaction and God bless!