“Already—Not Yet”: A Helpful Concept?

G. K. Beale agrees with at least one point in our first post on Acts (here). He says the “last days” were a reality in the book of Acts. Christians of that period were “the actual beginning fulfillment of the prophesied spiritual resurrection of Israel that was to transpire in the latter days.”¹

But Beale’s concept of the “last days” differs from our own. He calls one section of his excellent New Testament theology “The Already—Not Yet Latter-Day Resurrection and New-Creational Kingdom in Acts.”² This “already—not yet” concept allows Beale to define the “last days” as “the final outcome of future  events.”³

Inmillennialism says the term “last days” refers most often to the final period of the Mosaic age, the time from John the Baptist to the Temple’s fall in AD 70. It is, therefore, a form of preterism. It says God fulfilled many prophecies in our past. (“Preterism comes from the Latin word meaning ‘past.’”⁴)

Because of this orientation, some writers charge preterism with an error regarding the “already—not yet” aspect of prophecy. For example, Brock D. Hollett says, “the faulty claims of preterism arise from a deficient understanding of the ‘already and not yet’ principle.”⁵ Hollett makes this charge against both unorthodox and orthodox forms of preterism, like inmillennialism.

To defend ourselves against such charges, we need a clear definition of the “already—not yet” concept. Hollett provides the following:

The “already and not yet” principle is foundational to a proper understanding of New Testament eschatology.… This principle is … the doctrine that God’s kingdom has been set in motion by Jesus Christ and his work on the cross and will be consummated when he returns.⁶

We will list five reasons our inmillennial evaluation of Acts will omit this concept. 

First, this concept is unhelpful because, at a basic level, everyone agrees with it. Adherents of the four major prophetic positions—amillennialism, postmillennialism, historic premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism—all use it. Each system teaches God has established the kingdom in some sense and will consumate it in the future. Inmillennialism, too, recognizes this. The “already—not yet” concept does not help us determine which of these models best reflects the teaching of Scripture. It is a common factor in each. 

Second, at a more pernicious level, some writers use the “already—not yet” concept to deny certain fulfillment-pronouncements by Christ and the apostles. For example, in the Old Testament God said, “I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD” (Mal 4:5). Jesus told his disciples, “Elijah has come already, and they did not know him but did to him whatever they wished” (Matt 17:12). 

Hollett uses the “already—not yet” principle to interpret this statement in his section on “Elijah as ‘already and not yet.’” He says, “John the Baptist was a partial fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy and that Elijah will return in complete fulfillment”⁷ in our future. Elijah has already come and not yet come! This comes close to violating the law of noncontradiction that says “two propositions ‘A is B’ and ‘A is not B’ are mutually exclusive.”⁸

One suspects Hollett applies “already—not yet” to Matt 17:12 because his premillennialism requires a future coming of Elijah. It cannot allow Jesus’s statement—“Elijah has come already”—to stand without modification. 

Third, some writers use the “already—not yet” scheme to evade New Testament time stamps. This is, perhaps, its most wide-spread and egregious use. Anthony A. Hoekema provides one example in his discussion of Jesus’s Olivet Discourse. Jesus predicted the Temple’s fall. The disciples asked for signs of that event (Matt 24:1–3). The Lord gave the signs and said, “Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place” (Matt 24:34). 

Hoekema uses the “already—not yet” concept to evade this time limitation. According to him, Jesus’s signs

point both to the past and to the future [i.e., our future]. They underscore the already-not yet tension in which the New Testament church lives: already we bask in the light of Christ’s victory, enjoy the firstfruits of the Spirit, are new creatures in Christ—but we are not yet what we shall be, and therefore look forward eagerly to the glorious return of our Lord.⁹

Jesus’s statement that his signs pertained to his generation vaporizes in the presence of “already—not yet.”

Fourth, these bad uses of the “already—not yet” concept are unnatural and contrived. The Scriptures describe the process by which God established the kingdom and will bring it to fruition. They do so by describing concrete events that play a role in the kingdom. These events do not possess a foggy “already—not yet” nature. For example, the Bible speaks of two distinct corporate resurrections (e.g., Rev 20:5–6, 12). It does not describe an ongoing, “already—not yet” corporate resurrection as Beale’s section title suggests.

“Already—not yet” language can seem awkward when applied to things that develop over time. When we look at a young child, we may consider the miracle of its birth. Or, we may marvel at its current state of development. Or, our thoughts may wander to what this child may become. We know it has experienced some things “already” and others “not yet,” but we do not speak of an “already—not yet” child. 

The same is true of the kingdom. God established the kingdom “in the latter days” of the Mosaic age. These were also the days of the Roman emperors (Dan 2:28, 44). He said this kingdom will grow and defeat all other kingdoms (Dan 2:35, 44). It will end with the resurrection (1 Cor 15:25–26). God has already fulfilled some kingdom-prophecies, he is presently fulfilling others, and he will fulfill still others in the future. We need not speak of an “already—not yet” kingdom. 

Fifth, these applications of the “already—not yet” concept obscure the interpretive task at hand. We are trying to rightly divide the word of truth (2 Tim 2:15). Our prophetic model should show the individual kingdom prophecies God has fulfilled. It should list those that remain unfulfilled. The assertion that some kingdom prophecies are both past and future is a truism of little worth.

Conclusion

As we move forward in Acts, we will encounter several Old Testament prophecies. God fulfilled most of them in the “last days” of the Mosaic age, the period Acts describes. The Lord will fulfill the rest of these prophecies either in the messianic age or in the eternal state. In no case will we need an “already—not yet” perspective to place them in their proper place.

1. G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 254.
2. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 238.
3. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology, 98.
4. John M. Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2006), 302.
5. Brock D. Hollett, Debunking Preterism: How Over-Realized Eschatology Misses the “Not Yet” of Bible Prophecy (Kearney, NE: Morris Publishing, 2018), 171.
6. Hollett, Debunking Preterism, 154.
7. Hollett, Debunking Preterism, 165.
8. “The Law of noncontradiction,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction.
9. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 134.