Gimme That Mountain!

[Note: This article represents the prophetic and eschatological views of Brian Simmons, co-administrator of “Preterist News.”  The writer is speaking on behalf of himself only, giving his opinion on a much-disputed prophetic passage.  As always, charity and humility are the watchwords when dealing with such historically inflammatory issues as the second coming of Christ, the repentance/restoration of the Jewish people, and the timing and nature of the Millennium.  If this article should offend the reader, please be informed that it was not the author’s intention].

Well, folks, it has recently come to my attention that Dr. Ken Gentry has written a seven-point response to a comment I posted at his “Against Dispensationalism” blog, in which I argued for a literal fulfillment of Zechariah 14. My comment was published in reply to an article he wrote entitled “Marvelous Mountains and Clueless Dispensationalism.” The full comment is as follows:

“Dr. Gentry,

   “Although I am not a Dispensationalist, I understand Zechariah 14 in its plain and natural sense. Please read Acts 1: 9-11. It is conceivable that when Christ returns, He will descend to the Mt. of Olives, in the literal clouds of heaven. See “Didache” chap. 16 on this.

   “If you admit location in Zech. 14, you should take the passage literally. For instance, if the city of Jerusalem is the literal city, then the mount of Olives EASTWARD of the city must be literal as well. Direction demands location. Otherwise, you are using an inconsistent two-tiered hermeneutic. There is simply no objective exegetical basis for taking the city literally, and the mountain spiritually.

   “Also, just because God said He was the fountain of living waters does not necessarily allow one to import that concept into Zech. 14. Christ also said “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11: 25), yet orthodox Christians do not spiritualize passages that speak of the physical resurrection of the body. This very kind of reasoning is what leads to Hyper-Preterism and Hymeneanism.”

   Since the issue Gentry’s writing about is pretty important, I figured I’d post a short counter-rebuttal here, that readers may see that the prophecy must be taken in its plain and natural sense. I’ll give Gentry’s seven points of refutation in order, followed by my responses..

When Logic Slams The Door

    Last week, I wrote a brief article detailing Bryan Lewis’s journey into liberal agnosticism.  It now appears that his blog has sparked quite a bit of controversy within the Hyper-Preterist community.  But while remarks have been bandied about by those wishing to know more about his current views, and perhaps convince him that he is headed in the wrong direction, what no one seems to have observed, is that Lewis’s downfall was not sudden, but gradual and insidious.  Just last year (February 2009) he affirmed that Christendom was now ripe ‘n’ ready to learn about the truths of covenant eschatology (source).  To this end, Lewis launched a church called “Fulfilled Life Bible Fellowship,” which met on April 4th, at the Ramada Inn Conference Center in Lebanon, TN.  Despite its lofty pretensions, though, the project never amounted to anything, but fizzled out, nothing more being heard from Bryan, until around September he announced on a now-defunct Ning site, that there will never be any compatability between Hyper-Preterism and orthodoxy, since the two are like oil and water, which never do mix..

My Case Against “Orthodox” Partial Preterism

    Everyone remembers the episode in Luke 11: 39-44, where our Lord denounced the Pharisees for their legalism, hypocrisy, and observance of the mere externals of religion. The lawyers sat there for awhile, listening to Christ’s criticisms as patiently as they could; until one of them determined to speak up.  Said he: “Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also” (Luke 11: 45).  But in response to his words, our Lord, instead of letting up, turned his verbal artillery upon the lawyers, including them in the number of those Israelites  —  mere descendants of Abraham, but not his children  —  who were culpable for their rejection of His Divine ministry to the nation.

  I was asked not long ago, why I don’t make a sharper distinction between heretical “Full” Preterism and orthodox “partial” Preterism.  After all, said my critic, this distinction needs to be pressed, so people do not think that Partial Preterism is in the same boat as Full or Hyper-Preterism.  This is because one is a heresy, whereas the other is a valid evangelical option.  So he reasoned.   Well, in all fairness, I do try to make a distinction between what I conceive to be heresy and orthodoxy.  However, I suppose the reader was right in that I don’t make an especial point of distinguishing between full and partial preterism in my articles, podcasts, and videos.  The reason is, quite simply, because I am not sure where that distinction can be drawn..