Dr. Michael Brown and Dr. Don Preston Debate Israel and Eschatology

Fascinating debate on the issue of Israel and eschatology (last things) with a focus on whether there will be a future national conversion of Israel. The combatants were Dr Don Preston representing the Preterist view (fulfilment in our past, but was in the near future for the original first century audience) and Dr Michael Brown representing the Premillenial Futurist view (fulfilment in our future). Both speakers were cordial and did a good job representing their views and crammed in a lot of material into the time given them. Noted Christian apologist, Dr James White, also did a good, professional job as moderator. It would be useful to listen to this debate again, as there was a lot of material covered. If the organisers know of a good scribe, maybe they could produce a written transcript of the debate, which would be useful.

If we allow Scripture to define its own terms, then I think the Preterist view is the superior view. We shouldn't assume a rigidly literal interpretation for every Biblical passage (even the most wooden literalists interpret some passages figuratively), but rather we should understand the language conventions of the Biblical authors and understand how they defined their terms. Two of the key points of difference between the two positions are whether we should understand the apocalyptic passages figuratively or literally, and whether we should understand the time statements figuratively or literally. I think Preterism is the stronger position on both counts. Preterism interprets the apocalyptic passages figuratively and the time statements literally. Looking at Old Testament apocalyptic, we see that events of local judgement were presented in terms of universal destruction. For example in Isaiah 34 mention is made of the heavens being dissolved and the sky being rolled up like a scroll, yet it is a passage of judgement against Edom (vv 5, 6, 9, and 11). The universe wasn't literally dissolved, yet it was an event of real judgement on Edom, which effectively was the end of the world for them. Another example can be found in Micah 1, where God is described as coming down and melting mountains and splitting valleys, as he was going to bring judgement on Samaria and Jerusalem. Mountains didn't literally split, however there was a real event of judgement on Samaria and Judah at the hands of the Assyrians in 722-721 BC.

Regarding the time statements, Preterists interpret them literally. In the New Testament phrases such as 'this generation" are used consistently to refer to the generation alive in the time of Jesus. About the only time futurists dispute this is in the Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21). They do this to preserve their futurist paradigm and don't like the idea of a first century fulfilment of the Olivet Discourse. Once the Olivet Discourse falls to a first century fulfilment it is not too hard to connect the dots and realise that the other New Testament apocalyptic passages also had their fulfilment in that timeframe. Matthew 24 (and parallel passages in Mark 13 and Luke 21) start out with a question about the timing of the destruction of the Herodian temple which happened in AD70. Logically then the subsequent verses must have something to do with that event. Jesus repeatedly described what his first century audience would see, hear and experience. When they saw the abomination of desolation they were to flee Judea and head for the hills (Matthew 24:15-16). These verses prove that the judgement in the Olivet Discourse is local, focussed on Judea, and not global. If this passage was talking about a global, world ending judgement, what good would it do to flee Judea and run to the hills? Furthermore when Jesus told his first century audience "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened" (Matthew 24:34), somehow I don't think his original first century audience was sitting there thinking "Of course! He must be talking about a distant future group of people 2000+ years in our future". I think they would have realised he was talking about what they would need to do. In terms of audience relevance, the Preterist view is much stronger than the Futurist view.