CRITIQUE OF THE LAST DAYS? BY RON McRAY: PRETERISM

The Last Days? By Ron McRay

I was loaned the above book by a friend who shared in McRay's full preterist beliefs. For those not familiar with preterism, the full (or extreme) preterists feel that Jesus' Second Coming happened during the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 AD.  Below was my response after reading this book:

As you well know, I am an intellectual snob. I like to know an author's academic credentials before accepting anything they say in areas in which I am not an expert myself. After vainly searching the internet to learn where “Dr.” McRay had received his three impressive doctorate degrees, at last I found from his high school alumni news and his LinkedIn biography that his entire academic career consists of attending one year at Florida Christian College before dropping out. Presumably, his three “doctorates” were honorary degrees from some unknown institutions. [My friend subsequently found out that McRay had purchased his three degrees by mail.] Not that this precludes him from having something important to say, but it should certainly color the authority with which he speaks on any matters of a more technical nature. In summary, the question mark on the cover is misplaced; it should read The Last Days by Dr? Ron McRay.

Chapter 1: He makes the good point that “last days” (and equivalent phrases) does not necessarily mean the end of time itself or of the physical universe. But, of course, no one is disputing that obvious fact. In each case, the phrase means a time before some definite upcoming event.

Then he concludes the chapter by setting up a straw man to knock down. He puts forth as the only viable alternative to his own views the extreme wing of dispensationalism with its attendant date-setting propensity. What about the views of the vast historical majority of Christians who hold or held to either amillennialism or historical pre-millennialism? No need to jump from one extreme to the other when both presented alternatives are unacceptable.

Chapter 2: McRay begins to show his ignorance in this chapter when he uses KJV to demonstrate that the exact phrase “last day(s)” only appears 8 times in the Bible. If he were even a beginning Hebrew or Greek scholar he would at least go to an analytical concordance to show that the same words in the original languages are also translated as “latter day(s)” or some other equivalent phrase. This brings the total up to about 40 references, not just 8. That is in addition to the other similar phrases he mentions.

He states that if the concept were important, he would expect it to occur more often. What is his magic cut-off point? The idea that the Messiah would have to suffer and die for mankind's sins only appears once in the whole OT. I guess that means we should add that Christian doctrine to the list of those he is willing to jettison. However, he then apparently contradicts himself to state that the concept of “last day(s)” permeates the entire Bible.

McRay then makes the totally unsubstantiated statement that the NT scriptures were written to and for Israelites only. (This fits in with other interpretations you have forwarded to me about the NT letters and Revelation being written before 70 AD and addressed only to a Jewish audience.) But then he seemingly changes his mind and states that Christians are Israelites also. (That I would agree with.) In the middle he asks the strange, obvious question, “Do you realize that Moses was an Israelite?” I guess his book is geared to a bunch of ignoramuses who are not already aware of that fact. He apparently tries to tie together these contradictions by closing the chapter with the historically inaccurate statement that the first century Christians were predominantly Jewish.

Up to this point, the most charitable thing I can say about McRay is that perhaps he is suffering from dementia and cannot be held responsible for his words.

Starting with p. 25, McRay begins to develop his 70 AD theory. He first hedges his bets by saying that Jesus was only about 30 years old when he began preaching so that we shouldn't get to hung up on exact details. That is probably a wise move since we also don't know in which year Jesus was born. Then in p. 26 he jumps to the details within a parable, of all things, for proof that the time of three years there should be taken as literal. But then he states that the phrase “after that” instead of referring to the time immediately afterward (which we would expect in the context) somehow needs to be stretched out to include 40 years, which he then defines as beginning precisely with 30 AD. On p. 31 he explains what Jesus was doing for most of those 40 years after his crucifixion. Jesus apparently needed that time in heaven to “prepare the completed covenant with his people.” That unsubstantiated nonsense is exactly the same type of reasoning that the Jehovah Witnesses use in their doctrine of “investigative judgment” to explain why Jesus didn't reappear on earth at their predicted date. He supposedly began the judgment in heaven on their predicted date, but needed a lot of time to go over everyone's records to make sure each one would get a fair hearing.

Then we move on to Jonah for the next bit of “proof.” Certainly there are several parallels between Jesus and Jonah. But McRay over-literalizes the number 40 while over-spiritualizing it at the same time by changing the 40 days of Jonah's preaching to the 40 years of Jesus' preaching (and he only arrives at that latter time by saying in p. 35 that the preaching was “through his apostles.”) I would hardly call that proof of any sort.

Of course (on p. 36) Jesus' teachings in Matthew 24 (and parallels) are trotted out next since this is arguably the only place in the whole Bible where there is any association whatsoever between the destruction of Jerusalem, the second coming of Christ, and the end of the age. Since this is such an important passage, I will make one more brief and probably futile attempt to put it in its proper context. That discussion began with Jesus' prophecy of the destruction of the temple. This prompts the disciples to ask two (or possibly three) separate questions: “When will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age.” Notice that the question does not mean (in English or Greek) anything like, “When will you come again to do this and usher in the end of the age?” Any competent commentator (I am excluding extreme dispensationalists and full preterists here) will therefore explain Jesus' extended reply in terms of his going from answering one of these questions to answering the other. The only controversy is in lining up the exact verses of his reply with the proper question. (See my post on Matthew 24 to show where the breaks in thought probably occur.) 

However one divides up Jesus reply in Matthew 24, it is patently obvious that at least two entirely different chronological events are in mind here. Otherwise, there is a hopeless contradiction between on one hand (a) Jesus mentioning specific events to watch out for that will directly precede localized events in Jerusalem along with attendant actions to take in order to evade danger and (b) numerous prior events (wars, earthquakes, omens, many false prophets, continuing persecution) that should not be taken seriously as “signs” of His coming, which will happen at a totally unexpected time to affect the whole world with no prior warning whatsoever. With that simple explanation, the sole evidence for the preterist's beliefs disappears and their house of cards collapses.

Chapter 8 concerns Elijah, and again the preterists and dispensationalists are allies. They both take John the Baptist's statement that he is not (a literally reincarnated) Elijah to totally discount Jesus' statements saying that John is Elijah. This is made abundantly clear in Matthew 11:14, concerning which McRay says on p. 44 that “some translations” say that “John himself” is Elijah, but he believes that this is a poor translation. He prefers “This (referring to Jesus) is Elijah.” Actually, all translations other than KJV say quite unequivocally that John is Elijah. Even if one uses McRay's translation (and I guess we are to trust the technical expertise of one who has only attended one year of Bible college rather than all the translating teams who have produced modern versions of the Bible), the pronoun “this” always refers to the previously occurring noun, which is “John.” A self-proclaimed “doctor of linguistics” should know better.

As added evidence that McRay is way off-base here, elsewhere in the gospels Jesus asks his disciples who people say he is. One of the incorrect responses given is Elijah. And finally, McRay has to explain away the comment in Matthew 17:13 that says that after Jesus' words, the apostles understood that He was talking about John the Baptist. McRay simply states that the apostles must have misunderstood Jesus' words. That is utter nonsense again! Wherever else in the NT the apostles drastically misunderstand Jesus, that fact is clearly pointed out immediately afterward by either Jesus or the narrator. The only time I have heard that sort of argument before was from a Jehovah Witness I was talking to. I asked him what he did about the verse in which Thomas called Jesus his God. He merely replied, “That was just Thomas' opinion and he was mistaken.”

At this point, I am afraid I am giving up on the futile effort to refute his ramblings point-by-point. At least I give McRay the credit for being honest about the logical conclusion to all his musings. At various places in the rest of his book he out-and-out admits that he does not believe in any sort of bodily resurrection and that it is not taught anywhere in the Bible. A believer's spirit is already aligned with God, and it continues after we die. In other words, this is what you have stated to be your own personal belief. This is like saying that water baptism is not taught anywhere in the Bible, only baptism. The very word “resurrection” means the bringing back of something. It is patent nonsense to say that the many references to future resurrection of believers somehow refer to our continuing spiritual relationship to Christ after we die. And it makes the bodily resurrection of Jesus himself (unless McRay denies that also) into no sort of parallel at all with what we will eventually experience.

The Resurrection

A quick review of some of the references in the NT to the resurrection follows, showing how it cannot mean a spiritual transition to heaven only:

Matthew 22: The Sadducees debate with Jesus concerning the resurrection. Even though they do not personally believe in the concept, their question reveals what the concept meant to the other Jews of the time. They ask about questions of family relationships and marriage. This would be ridiculous if resurrection only meant one's spirit leaving the body.

Luke 20:36 has Jesus stating, “Those in the resurrection are like angels.” From both OT and NT stories involving angels we know that they can appear in physical bodies and have physical appetites, but also have the power to destroy cities, open jail doors, appear and disappear at will, etc. They are not at all mere disembodied spirits.

John 5:28-29: This verse makes it clear that those physically dead in their graves will come forth to the resurrection of life at a time future to the writing. Is that supposed to be defined as those in the grave retaining their spirit until 70 AD at which time it was free to leave their body?

John 11:23-25: Martha clearly defines resurrection as a bodily one to happen on the last day. Do you really construe this as meaning that in 70AD Lazarus' spirit was expected to rise?

Acts 17:18: When Paul is teaching in Athens, the philosophers are mystified as to what this “resurrection” means. They even confuse it with the name of a new deity. It was obviously a concept with which they were totally unfamiliar. When in v. 32, Paul explains what it means, some immediately scoff while others are intrigued and want to more know about this new idea. What McRay defines as resurrection – one's spirit going to God at death – would have been totally familiar territory to all Greek and Roman philosophers since that was exactly what most of them already believed. 

What was confusing to the Romans was that Paul's teaching involved resurrection of the body as well. It was from these pagan philosophers that the early Christian Gnostics got their heretical belief in the separation of spirit and body at death, with only the spirit living on. The idea died a timely death until it was recently “resurrected” by the total preterists. Notice, by the way, that I use “resurrect” in the proper way here to denote the bringing back of something that once was. Not at all the same as the incorrect usage by McRay, et al to denote a continuing on of part of something while discarding the rest.

Acts 24:15 mentions a future time of resurrection of the good and bad. It makes no sense to say that this occurred in 70 AD for those who had died earlier. And full preterists deny that it will occur on any future day of judgment when Christ comes again. So when will or did it occur?

Romans 6:5 says that we will experience a resurrection like that of Jesus. That doesn't exactly sound like a spiritual-only event, unless you are so much of a liberal that you say Jesus didn't really bodily resurrect, he just lives on in our hearts.

I Corinthians 15:12-19 closely associates the resurrection of Christ with that of believers using the same language for both. Again, if Jesus was raised body and spirit, then we shall be also.

I Corinthians 15:35-54: Certainly this passage teaches that the resurrected body will be qualitatively, not just quantitatively, more than our present physical body (just as Jesus' resurrected body and the body of angels). But McRay's teaching is that we will be less in the resurrection – our spirit which already resides in God's kingdom will still be there after death but we will have discarded everything else. This appears to be a giant step backwards rather than forward.

II Timothy 2:17-18: Paul condemns Hymenaes and Philetus and McRay (Oh, I guess that's not in the original.) for claiming that the resurrection of believers has already taken place. Sounds an awful lot like realized eschatology to me. No wonder that “modern-day preachers quake at the sound” of that phrase, in McRay's words. IT IS RANK HERESY!