Synthesis of views

First and foremost, the central, pivotal, and controlling end-time event contained in each of the four views—the “second coming” or “return” of Christ—is taken off the table of synthesis. It is a weakness to be discarded for the following reasons:

“The words ‘return’ and ‘second coming’ are not properly speaking Biblical words in that the two words do not represent any equivalent Greek words” (Ladd, The Blessed Hope, 69).
These two non-scriptural expressions are also un-scriptural concepts that will not stand up to an honest and sincere test of Scripture.
They are to be replaced by the many comings of Jesus and the biblical fact that He never left as He said (Matt. 28:20 – see Lessons #7, 8 & 11 in “Unraveling the End” MPC series by John Noe – listen to podcasts on this website.
Hence, these two traditional expressions and concepts are inappropriate and that’s why the Bible (properly translated) never uses them.

Secondly, the superiority of the preterist view over the other three views is simple and profound but it’s not sufficient in and of itself. It is the only view that fully accepts and honors the natural reading and understanding of Jesus’ time-restrictive words and the intensifying imminency declarations of the New Testament writers. No other view can legitimately make this claim. It also documents how Jesus came “on the clouds” in age-ending judgment exactly as and when He said He would and exactly as and when every New Testament writer and the early Church expected—as they were led into all truth and shown the things that were to come by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13; 14:26). It emphasizes the harmony of this precise past fulfillment with the literal, exact, chronological, and sequential fulfillment of Daniel’s two specific and two general time prophecies—no interruptive gaps, no exegetical devices. These prophecies frame the end times and establish its historical setting and defining characteristic (Dan. 12:7).

Thus, everything happened “at just the right time” (Rom. 5:6) and “in its proper time” (1 Tim. 2:6). This amazing harmony and perfection of timely past fulfillment is God’s stamp or fingerprint of divinity, or divine perfection—not only in Bible times— but also in the end times.

While superior, however, the preterist view was found to be insufficient in and of itself. Two of it major identified weaknesses are, the preterist insistence that: 1) the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple was the “final coming” of Christ. 2) The prophecy of the book of Revelation was exhausted in the events of A.D. 70. Therefore, the strengths of the other three views must also be incorporated with strengths of the preterist view.

From the amillennial view, was kept the idealist interpretation of the book of Revelation with its ongoing, timeless, and countless applications in human history. But these now follow, rather than precede, Christ’s historic and literal coming in judgment and consummation in A.D. 70.

From the postmillennial view, was incorporated but reapplied its strong kingdom-society orientation, positive worldview, long-term outlook, and many comings of Christ—past, present, and future.

From the dispensational premillennial view, was retained its strong interest in prophecy and the current dynamic role of Christ in the present and future affairs of humankind (although this must now be reapplied per this synthesis).

Discarded were the identified weaknesses from each of the four views that did not stand up to an honest and objective test of Scripture.

In sum, this series has presented a new groundwork—or break-through initiative—for eschatological reform, consensus, and unity. Others can now build on these findings as we more readily come together to build a fuller and deeper understanding of our “once for all delivered faith” (Jude 3) and God’s once-again demonstrated attribute of divine perfection in foretelling and fulfilling his plan of redemption.

Sources:

1 “Unraveling the End” MPC series by John Noe – listen to podcasts on this website

2 Unraveling the End by John Noe