CRITIQUE OF "THE LAST DAYS" BY DALLAS BURDETTE PRETERISM

Below was my response to a friend who forwarded to me the subject paper written by a full preterist. I believe this paper is available on-line for those interested. Again for clarification full preterism is the doctrine that all the OT and NT prophecies have been fulfilled, many during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD:

The more I am exposed to preterist “scholarship,” the more I realize the similarities in hermeneutic method between it and dispensationalism [the opposite extreme position on the eschatological spectrum].

1. Both take OT prophecies, ignore the closest term fulfillment of their words, and jump hundreds or thousands of years ahead to apply it to a later event. This is despite the insistence of the preterists that hermeneutic priority must be given to the meaningfulness of the message to the immediate audience being addressed.

2. Neither school recognizes that NT writers often utilized common OT phraseology but applied it to more current or future events (see Commentary on the NT Use of the OT for literally hundreds of examples). Both feel that the exact same event must be referred to in each case. As just one example, look at Burdette's citation of a 3 ½ year period in both Daniel and Revelation (referring symbolically to a limited time of testing) and jumping to the conclusion that all of these references must refer to the same time period. Dispensationalists do exactly the same sort of jumping back and forth between the OT and NT based on a few similar phrases to prove their various points.

3. And, of course, both schools of thought collapse the two or three different questions of the apostles to Jesus in Matthew 24 and insist that only one question is in mind [see my previous Matthew 24 posting]. Thus, for both points of view the coming of the Lord and the destruction of the temple complex have to occur at the same time.

4. Both views reject accepted Christian teachings on the subject that were around for almost 2,000 years in favor of new, improved doctrines. Burdette even casts suspicion in his opening arguments on any well accepted interpretations as questionable and hand-me-down. Thus, both schools of thought cater to the modern gnostics who claim to be more in-the-know than run-of-the-mill Christians who are not as enlightened as they are. At least the dispensational view has the advantage of being “sexy” and so has captured the imagination of a huge chunk of Christianity. It is doubtful that the preterists will even amass enough followers to fill more than a few small congregations since their view is even less exciting than the amillennial view with which I am personally most comfortable.

5. Both views flirt with unorthodox doctrines but try to hide the fact. With dispensationalists, they have to ignore the fact that their premillennial kingdom is a crude revitalization of the Old Testament period with animal sacrifices, etc. With preterists, they often conveniently ignore the fact that their view leaves up in the air what happens to those who die. As Burdette seems to put it, the heaven and earth can't disappear because then where would we live after death? Where indeed, unless God creates a New Heaven and Earth (the orthodox view) or our souls continue in some sort of disembodied state (an early heresy born out of Greek philosophical dualism).

6. Both views don't seem to know how to deal properly with the poetic language of the OT prophets. The dispensationalists take it as being literal language while the preterists tend to confuse it with apocalyptic language (see Burdette's comments on various Isaiah passages).

7. Both relegate large portions of NT teachings as being of only academic interest for today's predominantly gentile audience by applying them only to the Jews, either in the distant past or during a yet future time period.

8. Both groups discount the possibility of today's Christians encountering any sort of widespread tribulation, and thus leave their followers unprepared in case their theologies happen to be mistaken. It is always more prudent to be over-prepared rather than under-prepared.

Now for some random comments on the paper itself:

1. As part of Burdette's proof that all of Matthew 24 refers to the events of 70 AD, he quotes the often repeated story of Christians fleeing the city in response to Christ's warning for them to literally “run for the hills.” Burdette shades the truth by giving the impression that Pella is in the mountains. Actually, it is located in a low valley. And the first legendary accounts of the flight to Pella didn't even come about until the 4^th century by Eusebius and Epiphanias, and so are somewhat suspect to start with. In addition, Eusebius merely states that the Christians were supernaturally warned to leave before the war started, and Epiphanias says that it was an angel of the Lord that warned them. It wasn't until even later accounts that Pella and Christ's comments in Matthew 24 were even associated together.

2. I won't repeat my earlier, detailed rebuttal of Don Preston's blatant misuse of “heaven and earth” references in the Bible. I didn't compare all of them with Burdette's list but assume they are about the same. There was one example, however, that I don't recall Preston using, and it is especially egregious. Burdette cites Isaiah 1:1-2 as proof that Israel was called “heaven and earth.” Look at this one yourself to see if you agree. Verse 1 states that the vision concerns Israel; verse 2 calls poetically on heaven and earth to witness His complaint against them (obvious from the fact that he treats Israel in the third person in verses 2-3); and only in v. 4 does he begin to address Israel herself. There can't be a clearer example in all scripture that Israel is not the same as heaven and earth (as if anyone in their right mind needed to have that fact proven to them).

Burdette uses the same trick in explaining Deuteronomy 32 as indicating that “heaven and earth” means Judaism and that this Song of Moses refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Any competent commentary or reference Bible will explain that the reference to heaven and earth that begins this poem is calling on them as an impartial party to be witness to God's complaint against Israel (which is referred to again in mainly the third person, not the first person, in this chapter). Also, if this poem describes the destruction of Jerusalem, why does it end up in vv. 36-44 with God taking pity on Israel and killing her enemies in order to cleanse the land for them to occupy it?

3. Daniel references – There are three references to “the time of the end” unifying the passage 11:40-12:9 (at 11:40, 12:4, and 12:9). Burdette tries to carefully distinguish this phrase from “the end of time” and the apostles' question regarding the end of the age in Matthew 24. But then according to Burdette's reasoning, Daniel 11:40-12:9 all refers to the events of 70 AD. These events, according to Daniel's account, are described as an invasion by land and sea (many boats) which includes the conquering of Egypt. This conqueror will, however, meet his fate as he is camping somewhere between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean Sea. These events also include a time of general resurrection in which physically dead people rise from the ground to live forever. It takes quite a stretch to explain all these events away as apocalyptic ramblings somehow connected with the destruction of one city.

The alternative, and almost universally accepted, view of this passage in Daniel is that it quite accurately starts out by describing the nearer-in-time events associated with Antiochus IV's exploits in Israel, Egypt, and the Near East and ends up with typically prophetic telescoping of events to picture the Last Judgment. The main purpose of such telescoping is to use the fulfillment of events relatively close at hand for the immediate audience as a guarantee that the longer range predictions will also come true in the fullness of time. This understanding fits in much better with your general principle that prophecies had to be of some interest and applicability to their audience at the time they were written. The same certainly cannot be said of prophecies that would only be fulfilled about 500 years after the time of Antiochus.

4. Book of Hebrews references – Burdette correctly distinguishes between the various Greek words used at the start of Hebrews for world, universe, earth, etc. That is not in contention, unless one is still reliant on KJV. However, that alone does not prove his point since the word aeon can rightly mean a number of concepts other than “covenants.” Just look at any modern translation. Some keep it vague and just say “ages” while others correctly render it as world, worlds, universe, whole universe, or “everything that is.” No one translates it as “covenants” or any equivalent word.

He then jumps to the problem passage (for preterists) in Hebrews (1:10-11), where the word for earth (ge) unambiguously means the physical earth. The text clearly states that it will pass away. This he explains away by resorting to the general statement that the verses seem to remind us of Revelation, and therefore can all be dismissed as apocalyptic language with absolutely no literal meaning. To buttress his argument, he moves to the OT where, of course, the same Greek word never appears.

5. Joel reference – Burdette puts Peter's quotation of Joel's prophecy “in context” so that he can dismiss any of its literal “earth-shaking” implications. He ignores the fact that the first part of the Joel quote was literally fulfilled at the Day of Pentacost when God's spirit came down. That certainly opens the door for considering that the rest of Joel's prophecy might be fulfilled literally as well. He also carefully ignores the following verses in Joel referring to the same last days: “For then, in those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all the nations, and bring them down to the valley of Jehoshaphat, and I will enter into judgment with them there, on account of my people and my heritage Israel, because they have scattered them among the nations.” (3:1-2)  Again, how in the world does that fit into any sort of preterist scheme?

6. Book of Revelation references – As mentioned earlier, Burdette makes a big deal out of the fact that a time period of 3 ½ years appears in both Daniel 12 and Revelation 11 and therefore both books must be referring to the same event. This is exactly the correspondence that dispensationalists make. Both schools of thought make the mistake of assuming that similar language must mean identical events. Instead, it is generally understood that 3 ½, as half the perfect number 7, is symbolic of a limited time of testing and persecution. I am not sure how preterists fit in the statement in Daniel 12:13 that Daniel himself will receive his reward at the end of this time or the comments in Revelation 11 regarding two witnesses in sackcloth who will be killed by the beast and lie in the streets of the city for 3 ½ days while people exchange presents.

7. New Testament passages – Burdett cites a number of NT scriptures in which “last days, etc.” appears. I see nothing wrong with proposing that these various events cover any time from Christ's appearance on earth to the Last Judgment, including the fall of Jerusalem. But that is quite different from merely stating without further proof that all of these passages must necessarily be only predicting events of 70 AD.

8. Genesis 49 – Burdette starts out his discussion on this chapter with an untrue assertion. He says that the literal Hebrew of 49:1 means “the end of days.” A Hebrew-Greek interlinear Bible as well as any modern translation will show that the phrase means “the coming days” instead. With that falsehood exposed, he is only left with KJV and LXX translations to prove his point. Verse 10 certainly does refer to the coming of the Messiah, but Burdette didn't at all connect that event with the destruction of Jerusalem, unless I am missing something he said.

I know that I probably didn't deal with every contention that Burdette brought up in his paper, but the above should amply demonstrate that he is not really a commentator to be trusted to “rightly handle the word of truth.” In summary, I must admit that I agree wholeheartedly with one of Burdette's statements: “Unfortunately, uninspired individuals take great liberties with texts in order to give validity to their opinions, which interpretations often border on the fringes of one's wild imagination. (p. 2)” Amen to that!