Monthly Archives: December 2019

Does the Bible Predict A Future Rebuilt Temple”

Posted on by
Reply

Article by Gary DeMar (original source here – https://americanvision.org/21571/does-the-bible-predict-that-there-will-be-a-future-rebuilt-temple/ )

Dispensational premillennialists need a future “tribulation temple” so their idea of antichrist can take his seat (2 Thess. 2:4), place a statue for people to worship (Rev. 13:14–15), and proclaim himself to be god (2 Thess. 2:4). But what the dispensationalists really need is a verse that states that there will be another rebuilt temple since there’s already been one. Rebuilt-temple advocates Tommy Ice and Randall Price admit that “There are no Bible verses that say, ‘There is going to be a third temple.’”1 Having made this revealing concession, they go on to claim “that there will be a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem at least by the midpoint of the seven-year tribulation period.”2 As we will see, the Bible says no such thing.

Does the Bible predict that a third temple will be built, one following Solomon’s temple and the post-exile temple that was still standing in Jesus’ day? Don Stewart and Chuck Missler insist that “The crucial issue boils down to how we interpret prophecy. There are two basic ways to interpret Bible prophecy. Either you understand it literally or you do not. If a person rejects the literal interpretation then they [sic] are left to their own imagination as to what the Scripture means…. We believe it makes sense to understand the Scriptures as literally requiring the eventual construction and desecration of a Third Temple.”3 The authors are careful to say only that another rebuilt temple is required. A third temple is required only if you’re a dispensationalist.

Jesus’ completed redemptive work makes the need for a rebuilt temple unnecessary. His ministry begins with the declaration that He is our tabernacle (John 1:14), “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29), “the temple” (John 2:19–21), and the “chief cornerstone” (Matt. 21:42; Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20). By extension, believers are “as living stones, … being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). Those “in Christ” are the true temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; Rev. 21:22). Jesus and the people of God are the focus of the only temple that has any redemptive significance. To be “in Christ” is to be in the temple and all it stood for, “the renewed centre and focus for the people of God”4 (Rom. 12:5; 1 Cor. 1:2, 30; Gal. 3:14, 28; 5:6). The NT references to the temple of stone only refer to its destruction (Matt. 24:1–2), never its reconstruction. It is highly significant that “Jesus never gives any hint that there will be a physical replacement for this Temple. There is no suggestion, either in the Apocalyptic Discourse or elsewhere, that this destruction will be but a preliminary stage in some glorious ‘restoration’ of the Temple.”5

The original temple was a shadow of things to come. It was designed to be a temporary edifice looking forward to the completed work of Jesus Christ. For dispensationalists to insist that another temple is needed to complete some type of covenantal obligation with the Jews goes against the entire NT and makes the “first covenant … faultless,” with “no occasion sought for a second” (Heb. 8:7). Let the Bible settle the issue:

Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest, who has taken His seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary, and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer. Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, just as Moses was warned by God when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for, “See,” He says, “that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.” But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises (Heb. 8:1–6).

The writer of Hebrews declares that Jesus entered “through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation” (9:11). Since Jesus completed His redemptive work, any new temple “made with hands” is not much different from a pagan temple that has no inherent life or redemptive value (cf. Acts 17:24; 19:26; 2 Cor. 5:1). “[T]he description of the Jerusalem Temple as ‘made with hands’ . . . is a strong means of playing down its significance. This had been a way of belittling the pagan idols (e.g. Ps. 115:4; cf. Isa. 46:6); to describe the Temple in such a fashion was potentially incendiary.”6 This is because “the author of Hebrews believed the Jerusalem Temple was but a ‘shadow’ of the reality now found in Christ (8:5).”7 The “new covenant” had made the “old covenant” obsolete (8:13)

Stewart and Missler have made it very simple for us to determine whether the Bible addresses the issue of a rebuilt temple. If the Bible is interpreted literally, the need for a third temple should be explicitly stated. What biblical evidence do they offer to support their claim that “the Bible, in both testaments, speaks of a Temple that has yet to appear”?8 From the OT they use Daniel 9:27, 11:31, and 12:11 for support. Ice and Price can only find only one verse for support–Daniel 9:27.

Since Daniel was written after Solomon’s temple had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC (2 Kings 25:8–9; Dan. 1:1–2) and before the second temple had been built by the returning exiles (Ezra 6:13–15), it stands to reason that the “sanctuary” whose “end will come with a flood” (Dan. 9:26) must refer to the second temple that had not been built at the time the prophecy was given. It was this post-exile rebuilt temple that was desecrated by Antiochus Epiphanes around 170 BC but not destroyed. After a period of misuse and disuse, Herod the Great restored and enlarged this second temple, a project that started around 20 BC and was completed just a few years before it was destroyed in AD 70 by the Romans, just as Jesus had predicted (Matthew 24:1–34). It was this same temple that Zacharias served in (Luke 1:9), that Jesus was taken to as an infant (2:27), that had been under construction for forty-six years when Jesus prophesied that He would be its permanent replacement (John 2:20), that Jesus cleansed of the money changers (Matt. 21:12), that He predicted would be left desolate (Matt. 23:38; 24:2), whose veil was “torn in two from top to bottom” (Matt. 27:51), and that was finally destroyed by Titus in AD 70.

Is there any indication in the three passages from Daniel that we are to skip over what we know was a rebuilt temple, the temple that was standing in Jesus’ day, and look for another unmentioned third temple? Would Jews living in the first century have made the historical leap over the temple that was standing before them and suppose Jesus was describing yet another temple? As Ice and Price admit, the Bible does not say anything directly about another temple. The passages from Daniel cited by Stewart and Missler and Ice and Price can easily find their fulfillment in the rebuilt temple that was standing during the reign of Antiochus (Dan. 11:31; 12:11) and the second temple’s destruction in AD 70 (9:27). In fact, Ice and Price find the fulfillment of Daniel 11:31 in the sacrilegious acts of Antiochus:

The abomination of desolation was something that took place the first time sacrifices and desecrated the second Temple by sacrificing an unclean pig on the altar and setting up in its place a statue of Jupiter. This literally fulfilled Daniel 11:31. Therefore, these future events will be similar in kind to the prototypes–they will be real, historical events in a last days’ Temple.9

Daniel only mentions one sanctuary (8:11, 13; 9:17, 26; 11:31; cf. 12:11). What indication does the reader have that two temples are in view? The temple that Jesus said would be torn down and dismantled stone by stone was the “last days’ Temple,” the only one mentioned by Daniel. We know that the last days were a first-century reality, not the prelude to the period of time just before a pre-tribulational rapture: “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world” (Heb. 1:1–2; cf. Acts 2:17; James 5:3).

Now we are left with Daniel 9:27 as the only verse from the OT that Ice and Price contend supports the need for a third temple. But there is a problem with their reasoning. They argue that “the city and sanctuary” in Daniel 9:26 refers to Herod’s temple that was destroyed when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed in AD 70 (Luke 21:6): “Jesus, seeing Himself as the Messiah, therefore saw the Romans as the people … who will destroy the city and the sanctuary. Knowing that He would soon be cut off (crucified), He likewise knew that the Temple’s destruction would soon occur.”10 In the span of two verses, these authors find two temples, one in Daniel 9: 26 and another one in Daniel 9:27, separated by 2000 years. As a careful reader will note, the “sanctuary” (temple) that appears in Daniel 9:26 does not appear in 9:27. This means that Daniel 9:27 is describing events related to the already mentioned sanctuary of 9:26 that Ice and Price say refers to the temple that was standing in Jesus’ day. For Ice and Price to find another rebuilt temple, Daniel 9:27 would have to say something like this: “After an unspecified period of time, he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering in the third  sanctuary; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction of the third sanctuary, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.” Of course, not one word of this is found in Daniel 9:27.11

Since, as we have seen, the OT says nothing about a third temple, maybe the NT says something about it. Stewart and Missler and Ice and Price claim to have incontrovertible biblical evidence for a rebuilt temple in three NT passages: Matthew 24:15, 2 Thessalonians 2:3–4, and Revelation 11:1–2. On Matthew 24:15, Stewart and Missler write: “Jesus spoke of this prophecy being still future to His time (Matthew 24:15).”12 This is true. But the rebuilt temple was still standing when Jesus said that “the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet” would stand “in the holy place.” Notice the audience context: “Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet” (Matt. 24:15). When who sees it? When “you see it,” that is, when those in Jesus’ audience see it. Ice and Price never explain the audience reference “you.” If Jesus had a distant future audience in view, He would have said “when they see the abomination of desolation.” Here’s their interpretation of Matthew 24:15: “‘The holy place’ is a reference to the most sacred room within Israel’s Temple. What temple? The third Temple, since it is a future event.”13 Saying it’s a “future event” does not mean that Jesus was referring to another rebuilt temple since the temple was still standing when Jesus made His prediction about the fate of the temple. We know that the temple was destroyed in AD 70, forty years in their future. There is no mention of another future rebuilt temple or even an implied reference to a rebuilt temple. Jesus does not say, “When they see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet standing in the rebuilt holy place.” The holy place, the sanctuary, was right before their eyes (Matt. 24:1–2). Jesus told His disciples, “‘Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down’” (Matt. 24:2).

Ice and Price argue that “the apostle Paul gives us perhaps the clearest passage relating to the third Temple in 2 Thessalonians 2:3, 4.”14 Since Paul wrote before the temple was destroyed in AD 70, what is it in these verses that would tell us that the temple where the “man of lawlessness” takes his seat is “the third temple”? Paul does not describe “the temple” (lit. sanctuary) as a rebuilt temple. What would have led his audience to conclude that he was referring to, using Ice and Price’s words, “the future third Temple,” when the temple was still standing in Jerusalem when he wrote his letter? The “man of lawlessness” was being restrained “now,” in their day (2:6, 7), and the Christians at Thessalonica knew the identity of the restrainer (2:6).15 This hardly requires the need for another rebuilt temple.

Third-temple advocates try to muster support for their position by referencing Revelation 11:1–2. They begin by assuming that Revelation was written nearly three decades after the temple was destroyed.16 From this unproven assumption, they conclude that John must be measuring a rebuilt temple. The passage says nothing about a rebuilt temple. The words “shortly” and “near” (Rev. 1:1, 3) are used to describe the time when the events outlined in Revelation were to take place. These words are meaningless if the events have not taken place. The fact that John is told to “rise and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and those who worship in it” (11:1), is prima facie evidence that the temple was still standing when John received the revelation. How could John have measured a temple that did not exist in his day? Ice and Price insist that the temple that John is told to measure is the literal temple, not a “spiritual temple.” “For example, in Matthew 24 Jesus is speaking about a literal Temple, since in the context of the passage He is standing and looking directly at the second Temple.”17 Following Ice and Price’s argument, how could the temple John was told to measure be a literal temple if it hadn’t been built yet? On the contrary, John was told to measure the literal Temple that still had worshipers in it, the same temple that Jesus stood in and Titus destroyed in AD 70.

Ezekiel’s Temple

This brings us to the visionary temple described in Ezekiel. While John is told to measure the temple in Revelation 11:1, Ezekiel sees a vision of “a man … with a measuring rod in his hand” (40:3). Ezekiel cannot measure the temple because it’s a vision. John can measure the temple because it’s still standing in Jerusalem. It should be noted that nowhere in the description of the temple described in Ezekiel is it ever said that it should be built. It’s a place that cannot be defiled (40:7–9), probably an allusion to a spiritual, heavenly, or ideal representation of the abode of God like the way God’s glory is described in the first chapter of Ezekiel, another vision that is not to be built.

With the incarnation (John 1:14), “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (1:29, 36) is the once-for-all sacrifice (Heb. 10). The altar in Ezekiel’s vision was to be built but not the visionary temple: “And He said to me, ‘Son of man, thus says the Lord GOD, “These are the statutes for the altar on the day it is built, to offer burnt offerings on it and to sprinkle blood on it”’” (40:18). The words “build” and “built” are not found anywhere in Ezekiel 40–43:1–12 in relation to the visionary temple. The words apply only to the altar, an old covenant shadow whose reality is Jesus Christ.

Some believe that Ezekiel’s temple is a “millennial temple.” If this is true, then why is there no mention of a temple in Revelation 20? Why would there be a need for a stone temple for the premillennialists when Jesus is said to be the temple (John 2:18-22)? The Ezekiel temple can’t be referring to events after Revelation 20 since John says that he did not see a “temple in” the holy city that came down out of heaven (21:10, 22).

  1. Thomas Ice and Randall Price, Ready to Rebuild: The Imminent Plan to Rebuild the Last Days Temple (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 1992), 197–198. [↩]
  2. Ice and Price, Ready to Rebuild, 198. [↩]
  3. Don Stewart and Chuck Missler, The Coming Temple: Center Stage for the Final Countdown (Orange, CA: Dart Press, 1991), 193. [↩]
  4. Timothy J. Geddert, Watchwords: Mark 13 in Markan Eschatology (Sheffield, England: JSOT, 1989). Quoted in Peter W. L. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City: New Testament Perspectives on Jerusalem (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996), 9. [↩]
  5. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 8. [↩]
  6. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 10. [↩]
  7. Walker, Jesus and the Holy City, 208. [↩]
  8. Stewart and Missler, The Coming Temple, 194. [↩]
  9. Ice and Price, Ready to Rebuild, 200–201. Emphasis added. [↩]
  10. Ice and Price, Ready to Rebuild, 68. [↩]
  11. For an exposition of Daniel 9:24–27, see Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, 4th ed. (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999), chap. 25. [↩]
  12. Stewart and Missler, The Coming Temple, 194. [↩]
  13. Stewart and Missler, The Coming Temple, 199. [↩]
  14. Ice and Price, Ready to Rebuild, 199. [↩]
  15. For a verse-by-verse exposition of 2 Thessalonians 2, see DeMar, Last Days Madness, chaps. 22 and 23. [↩]
  16. For a defense of a pre-AD 70 date of composition for Revelation, see Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation, 2nd ed. (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 1999). [↩]
  17. Ice and Price, Ready to Rebuild, 200.

Refuting the Idea of Corporate Election

Posted on by
Reply

From Thomas R. Schreiner’s “Does Romans 9 Teach Individual Election Unto Salvation? Some Exegetical And Theological Reflections”

To say that election involves the selection of one group rather than another raises another problem that warrants an extended explanation. Most scholars who claim election is corporate argue that personal faith is the ultimate and decisive reason why some people are saved rather than others. Calvinists, on the other hand, assert that faith is the result of God’s predestining work. But those who opt for corporate election think that they have a better conception of election than Calvinists, and at the same time they can maintain that faith is what ultimately determines one’s salvation. Now it seems to me that there is a flaw in this reasoning that is fatal to those who espouse corporate election. If God corporately elects some people to salvation, and the election of one group rather than another was decided before any group came into existence (9:11), and it was not based on any works that this group did or any act of their will (9:11–12, 16), then it would seem to follow that the faith of the saved group would be God’s gift given before time began. But if the faith of any corporate entity depends upon God’s predestining work, then individual faith is not decisive for salvation. What is decisive would be God’s election of that group. In other words, the group elected would necessarily exercise faith since God elected this corporate entity.

But if what I have said above is correct, then one of the great attractions of the corporate view of election vanishes. Many find corporate election appealing because God does not appear as arbitrary in electing some to salvation and bypassing others. But if corporate election is election unto salvation, and if that election determines who will be saved, then God is not any less arbitrary. It hardly satisfies to say that God did not choose some individuals to be saved and passed by others but that it is true that he chose one group to be saved and bypassed another group.

Those who champion corporate election, however, would object, and I think the reason is that they do not really hold to corporate election of a group or of people at all. When those who advocate corporate election say that God chose “the Church,” “a group,” or a “corporate entity,” they are not really saying that God chose any individuals that comprise a group at all.32 The words “Church” and “group” are really an abstract entity or a concept that God chose. Those who become part of that entity are those who exercise faith. God simply chose that there be a “thing” called the Church, and then he decided that all who would put their faith in Christ would become part of the Church. In other words, the choosing of a people or a group does not mean that God chose one group of people rather than another, according to those who support corporate election. God chose to permit the existence of the entity called “the Church,” which corporate whole would be populated by those who put their faith in Christ and so become part of that entity.

If corporate election involves the selection of an abstract entity like the Church, and then people decide whether or not to exercise faith and thereby become part of the Church, it seems to follow that the selection of the Church does not involve the selection of any individuals or group at all. Instead God determined before time that there would be a “thing” called the Church and that those who exercise faith would be part of it. The problem with this view, however, is that the Church is not an abstract entity or a concept. It is comprised of people. Indeed the Biblical text makes it clear again and again that election involves the selection of people, not of a concept. For example: “He chose us in him before the foundation of the world” (Eph 1:4); “God chose the foolish … and God chose the weak … and God chose the base and despised” (1 Cor 1:27–28); “God chose you as the firstfruits for salvation” (2 Thess 2:13; cf. also Rom 9:23–25; 11:2; 2 Tim 1:9). The point I am trying to make is that those who advocate corporate election do not stress adequately enough that God chose a corporate group of people, and if he chose one group of people (and not just a concept or an abstract entity) rather than another group, then (as we saw above) the corporate view of election does not make God any less arbitrary than the view of those who say God chose certain individuals.

An analogy may help here. Suppose you say, “I am going to choose to buy a professional baseball team.” This makes sense if you then buy the Minnesota Twins or the Los Angeles Dodgers. But if you do this, you choose the members of that specific team over other individual players on other teams. It makes no sense to say “I am going to buy a professional baseball team” that has no members, no players, and then permit whoever desires to come to play on the team. In the latter case you have not chosen a team. You have chosen that there be a team, the makeup of which is totally out of your control. So to choose a team requires that you choose one team among others along with the individuals who make it up. To choose that there be a team entails no choosing of one group over another but only that a group may form into a team if they want to. The point of the analogy is that if there really is such a thing as the choosing of a specific group, then individual election is entailed in corporate election.

. . .

Those who defend corporate election are conscious of the fact that it is hard to separate corporate from individual election, for logic would seem to require that the individuals that make up a group cannot be separated from the group itself. Klein responds by saying that this amounts to an imposition of modern western categories upon Biblical writers. He goes on to say that it requires a “logic that is foreign to their thinking.” Clark Pinnock also says that the Arminian view is more attractive because he is “in the process of learning to read the Bible from a new point of view, one that I believe is more truly evangelical and less rationalistic.” Those who cannot see how election is corporate without also involving individuals have fallen prey to imposing western logic upon the Bible.

I must confess that this objection strikes me as highly ironic. For example, Klein also says that it makes no sense for God to plead for Israel to be saved (Rom 10:21) if he has elected only some to be saved. But this objection surely seems to be based on so-called western logic. Klein cannot seem to make sense logically of how both of these can be true, and so he concludes that individual election is not credible. Has he ever considered that he might be forcing western logic upon the text and that both might be true in a way we do not fully comprehend? Indeed, one could assert that the focus upon individual choice as ultimately determinative in salvation is based on “western” logic inasmuch as it concentrates upon the individual and his or her individual choice. And on the same page that Pinnock says he is escaping from rationalism, he says he cannot believe “that God determines all things and that creaturely freedom is real” because this view is contradictory and incoherent. He goes on to say, “The logic of consistent Calvinism makes God the author of evil and casts serious doubt on his goodness.” These kinds of statements from Pinnock certainly seem to reflect a dependence on western logic.

Now most Calvinists would affirm that logic should not be jettisoned, but they would also claim that the relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility is finally a mystery. The admission of mystery demonstrates that Calvinists are not dominated by western logic. In fact it seems to me that those who insist that human freedom and individual faith must rule out divine determination of all things are those who end up subscribing to western logical categories.

. . .

There are times when Scripture strongly affirms two realities that cannot finally be
resolved logically by us. . . . Such mysteries should only be adopted if that is where the Biblical evidence leads. I believe the Biblical evidence compels us to see such a mystery in the case of divine election and human responsibility.[1]

This Generation?

Posted on by
Reply

Article: DOES JOHN MACARTHUR MAKE HIS CASE ON THE OLIVET DISCOURSE? by Gary DeMar

In his book The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age, John MacArthur seems to go out of his way to avoid having to deal with the inherent problems of his prophetic system. Here’s just one example:

[N]otice Christ’s only explicit remarks about the destruction of the temple are those recorded in verse 2 [of Matthew 24], as Jesus and the disciples were departing from the temple (v. 1). In the Olivet Discourse itself He makes no clear reference to the events of A.D. 70. His entire reply is an extended answer to the more important question about the signs of His coming and the end of the age. Virtually ignoring their initial question, He said nothing whatsoever about when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur. That is because those events were not really germane to the end of the end of the age. They were merely a foretaste of the greater judgment that would accompany His return, previews of what is to come ultimately.1

This is a remarkable statement given that there is nothing in the context of the Olivet Discourse that indicates that Jesus is “ignoring their initial question.” How does MacArthur know this? He doesn’t. This is not exegesis. He is reading his dispensational system into the text. He scrupulously avoids the heart of the debate over the time texts, especially regarding “this generation” (24:34).

“Virtually ignoring their initial question, He said nothing whatsoever about when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur.” Nothing whatsoever? He has to say this because to admit that Jesus was describing what was going to happen to the temple that was standing there – “not one stone here shall be left upon another” (24:3) – would mean Jesus had a great deal to say “about when the destruction of Jerusalem would occur.” It would occur before that existing generation passed away (24:34).

There’s a lot I could say about MacArthur’s comments on Matthew 24, but I’ve said them repeatedly elsewhere. I found this comment surprising:

Notice, moreover, that the great tribulation Christ described involves cataclysm and suffering on a global cosmic scale (vv. 29-30)—not a local holocaust in Jerusalem only.2

If Jesus isn’t describing “a local holocaust in Jerusalem only,” then how is it that it can be avoided by escaping to the mountains outside of Judea (24:16-20)?

The cosmic language of 24:29-30 is typical of cosmic language being used to describe a judgment on Babylon (Isa. 13:1-11) and “Judah and against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (Zeph. 1:1-4).

The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age reads as if it was written in a hurry. For example, in one place MacArthur writes that preterists “ultimately depart from and nullify the strict literal sense of Matthew 24:34,” while on the previous page he chides preterists for insisting that Matthew 24:34 should be interpreted with “wooden literalness.”3 MacArthur should have studied how “this generation” is used elsewhere in the New Testament. “This generation” always refers — without exception — to the generation to whom Jesus is speaking.4 Since the meaning of “this generation” is crucial for establishing the proper time setting for the Olivet Discourse, MacArthur should have spent considerable time justifying his interpretation.

He calls the preterist interpretation of “this generation” a “misunderstanding”5 without ever dealing with the extensive arguments preterists use to defend their position. Preterists are not the only ones who have this “misunderstanding.” Here are three examples from commentators who would not describe themselves as preterists:

  • [T]he obvious meaning of the words “this generation” is the people contemporary with Jesus. Nothing can be gained by trying to take the word in any sense other than its normal one: in Mark (elsewhere in 8:12, 9:19) the word always has this meaning.6
  • [This generation] can only with the greatest difficulty be made to mean anything other than the generation living when Jesus spoke.7
  • The significance of the temporal reference has been debated, but in Mark “this generation” clearly designates the contemporaries of Jesus (see on Chs. 8:12, 38; 9:19) and there is no consideration from the context which lends support to any other proposal. Jesus solemnly affirms that the generation contemporary with his disciples will witness the fulfillment of his prophetic word, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the dismantling of the Temple.8

Why doesn’t MacArthur attempt to refute these non-preterist scholars? Do they misunderstand the clear teaching of Scripture?

In addition to an incomplete study of how “this generation” is used in the gospels, MacArthur morphs “near” and “shortly” into “imminent” without ever making a case for how this can be done exegetically. If the Holy Spirit wanted to convey that Jesus could return at “any moment” over a period of nearly 2000 years (so far), He would have directed the biblical writers to choose Greek words that mean “any moment” instead of “near” and “shortly.” He didn’t.

https://americanvision.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Time-Text-Chart.jpg

 

Consider James 5:8–9, a passage that MacArthur uses to support his contention that Jesus could come “at any moment” but near to those who first received and read his letter.9 “You too be patient; strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand” (5:8). “At hand,” or “near,” cannot be made to mean “any moment.” “At hand” is defined for us by the Bible in the next verse: “Behold, the Judge is standing right at the door” (5:9). “At hand” = “right at the door.” How far from the door is Jesus in Revelation 3:20? Being “right at the door” means being close enough to knock.

MacArthur is either oblivious to the debate surrounding this issue or he tactically decided to steer his readers around the topic so as not to raise a very big red flag.

Will the Real Literalist Please Stand Up?

MacArthur states that interpreting “this generation” in a “wooden literalness” fashion would mean that “the rest of the Olivet Discourse must be spiritualized or otherwise interpreted figuratively in order to explain how Christ’s prophecies could all have been fulfilled by A.D. 70 without His returning bodily to earth.”10 Do preterists spiritualize (a word not often defined) the events described by Jesus in Matthew 24? Not at all! They compare Scripture with Scripture. We let the Bible interpret the Bible. There were literal earthquakes (Matt. 27:54; 28:2; Acts 16:26) and literal famines (Acts 11:28; cf. Rom. 8:35), just as Jesus predicted (Matt. 24:7). Paul tells us that the “gospel” literally had been preached “throughout the world [kosmos]” (Rom. 1:8), “to all the nations” (Rom. 16:25-26; 1 Tim. 3:16), “in all creation under heaven” (Col. 1:23; also 1:6), just as Jesus predicted (Matt. 24:14). Then there are Jesus specific words that the literal temple that the disciples asked about would be destroyed before the last apostle died (Matt. 16:27-28) and that first-century generation passed away (24:34).

Last Days Madness and Wars and Rumors of Wars answer every argument raised by MacArthur, arguments which he studiously avoids addressing in this poorly conceived book. Some might claim that MacArthur is unaware of the work done in this area. This debate has been around for centuries. Anyone writing on this topic should be aware of the current literature. He knows what’s going on. He quotes from an internet article by me and references other preterist sources. MacArthur, who was good friends with R. C. Sproul who wrote The Last Days According to Jesus (1998), was aware of Sproul’s preterist position.

  1. John MacArthur, The Second Coming: Signs of Christ’s Return and the End of the Age (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1999), 80. [↩]
  2. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 78. [↩]
  3. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 81, 80. [↩]
  4. Gary DeMar, Last Days Madness: Obsession of the Modern Church, 4th ed. (Atlanta, GA: American Vision, 1999), 55-60, 183-188. [↩]
  5. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 219. [↩]
  6. Robert G. Bratcher and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook of the Gospel of Mark (New York: United Bible Societies, 1961), 419. [↩]
  7. D.A. Carson, “Matthew” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, gen. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, 12 vols. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1985), 8:507. [↩]
  8. William L. Lane, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 480. [↩]
  9. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 51. [↩]
  10. MacArthur, The Second Coming, 80. [↩]