Contra the (Jerusalem-centered, pre-70 CE) partial-preterists

[Response to a post advocating the Gentry/Chilton/DeMar/Jordan partial preterist approach, here.]

Chris and Steve,

Yes, Daniel’s visions were ’sealed’ until the time of their fulfillment, that is the Antiochene persecution, temple desecration, and subsequent death of Epiphanes, temple cleansing, and restoration with the ‘little help’ (11:33) of the Maccabean revolt. And from a prior response, and his recommendation of I and II Maccabees (which I heartily endorse!) from Steve, I see he gets that as well. Daniel is about the Seleucid occupation and tragedy. All the apocalyptic prophecies, in fact the entire book, point to this time of trial. Practically no modern scholar does not place the focus in the 2nd century. The prophecies are not particularly hard to decipher (we are given four to be read in parallel) particularly the ultimate closing prophecy of chapters 11 and 12, which lays out the Ptolemaic and Seleucid interaction with such incredible specificity as to leave no doubt as to the historical corollaries.

And of course, in apocalyptic form (understanding apocalyptic is fundamental to texts like Daniel and Revelation, and little less in Zechariah and the Olivet Discourses), this crisis is positioned within the cosmic understanding of the final justification of God’s people before the oppressive empires, their judgment, and the final vindication of the martyrs, including their being brought back to bodily life (the resurrection) from the martyred death they received in obedience to God and his call for holiness. (Daniel 12 is the first, and probably only OT, explicit reference to the individual resurrection, a concept hinted at - not unlike the Trinity, the suffering of (an individual) Messiah, the same’s deity, and so many other aspects - but under development from the beginning of the scriptures to their end.)

But this is all common to the commentaries and scholarship of the last 100 years. The older (e.g. Matthew Henry) and less/non-scholarly (dispensational (e.g. Scofield) and preterist (e.g .Chilton)) commentaries are less worthy of consideration, as lacking in understanding of apocalyptic as many of them exhibit themselves to be.

And like Daniel (in that it is addressed to the affected community, whether written long before or in the 2nd century BC), Revelation is written - explicitly and by name - to the churches of Asia Minor to encourage them in the coming persecution at the hands of another God defying empire. These are not abstract works that have no ‘audience relevance’. That is, it is a fairly safe hermeneutic assumption that prophets and writers wrote to convey God’s word first to their contemporaries, as instruments of God in the current crisis for their encouragement and exhortation. To suppose that John is pontificating about events that have no consequence to the Gentile churches of latter first century Asia - either casting the crisis as far future (the dispensational futurist that sees the empire downing events of chapters 4-19 as still future to us) or seeing it as insignificant to the audience (by placing the writing under Nero, when his persecution of Christians did not extend beyond Rome, and the siege of Jerusalem would have hardly contributed to any stress, much less persecution) - challenges a fairly basic presupposition.

Whether the persecution anticipated by John came to the churches or not, God knows (there is very little record). The prophesied downfall of Rome was accomplished, as Steve notes (this is the traditional preterist position; the Jerusalem/AD 70 variant is the fringe offshoot among interpreters). But of course the completion of many of the culmination themes mentioned above in the context of Daniel - present in all major prophecies from the early Minor Prophets through the Majors, the gospels, the Pauline epistles, and the Apocalypse - awaits the consummation. And thus the New Heavens and New Earth did not arrive on return from Babylonian exile (Isaiah), and neither did the spiritual national resurrection (Ezek), or the exaltation to follow the restoration of the temple and sacrifice after return (Zech), or the physical resurrection and judgment of nations after the overthrow of the Seleucids and death of Antiochus IV (Daniel), and neither did these follow the destruction of Jerusalem, or the fall of Rome (John).

But we should never like Jonah be hindered by our own assumptions on God’s design or lack of apprehension in how God may stay his judgment and continually stretch out ‘these latter days’, despite the scoffers (2 Peter). Clearly the OT and NT prophets and interpreters were more than happy to continue to expect a culmination when the events of more immediate concern that were placed within the same context in prophecy (this is a core element of apocalyptic, placing the current crisis in relation to the consummation and final justice) passed (return from exile, consecration of temple, relief from persecution, destruction of temple, destruction of Rome). And I would recommend the same approach.

Thanks, fellas. Sorry for a short response that practically turned into a sermon. 

James

A correction in classifying scholars as preterists on the Olivet Discourse

[First, apologies for the delay. It's been a few weeks.]

As mentioned explicitly earlier, almost all varieties of exegete are preterist on the Olivet in some aspects. And I say almost not because of some dispensational or extreme futuristic interpreters, but on account of a number of scholars who believe that the synoptic gospels, and most notably Luke and Matthew, may have been written after 70CE and that the material in the Olivet represents to some degree the looking forward to either a rebuilding of the temple (so some later 1st century Jewish interpreters) or a more complete desolation, as the 70CE siege did not level the temple site or the city to the degree some observers expected (cf. Davies & Allison, Matthew, which on recent rereading spurred me to provide this corrective).

All that to say that I spoke in an overly narrow manner in classifying all scholarly interpreters as preterist on the Olivet as a number of scholars have argued for a later composition date. I am not committed to either the earlier or later dates, but with a majority of major exegetes would consider at least the original form of the Olivet as dated to before 70CE.

A refreshing take on Revelation by Gordon Fee

An interview with Gordon Fee on his forthcoming commentary. I look forward to his welcome addition to the hallowed hall.

Some thoughts on liberal theology and preterism ...

[This began as a reply to a post by PaulT on the The Preterist Blog, but given its length I thought it better to include as a blog post here, freeing me also to make emendations as necessary]

Paul,

I would clearly agree that the view of the resurrection and the afterlife in (full) preterism is like in some manners to that of the Gnostics, not too unlike the Jewish (e.g. Philo or 4 Maccabees) and Christian Platonists, or even the  Stoics, or the Sadducees for that matter. But I do not think a similarity in a point of doctrine is the same as dependent theological formulation. (I remember on this point the attacks on Calvin and Calvinism as importers of Stoicism because of some theological similarities and Calvin's interest in the likes of Seneca.)

But of course the dissimilarities with the likes of Gnosticism are huge. And I'm not sure one could point to Bultmann and (a very different thinker) Schweitzer as a source for King's inspiration. I have not read anything by him (King), but I hope every learned layman would digest both of the aforementioned scholars, particularly to understand the important developments of Bultmann's existential approach and demythologization as well as Schweitzer's 'Quest' and (after Weiss) consistent/apocalyptic eschatology, which in some ways has come closer to winning the day, helped along by post-Bultmann scholars like Kasemann (a disciple) and Cullmann (following in Schweitzer's chair) who proposed alternatives to Bultmann (the latter a proto-Wright on Christ as the center of history, though Cullmann's achievements may still outshine Wright's to date).

But now I am rambling. I believe the more clear path of inheritance of full preterism is 1) the sincere attempt to be faithful to the time texts' of scripture according to a fairly conservative hermeneutic, and 2) the work of preterists in the 19th century (many of them conservative) and (ironically largely Reformed) partial preterists in the later 20th century who have gone before and a) laid a foundation for believing the entirety of the NT was composed prior to 70 AD (importing the work of some liberal scholars like J. A. T. Robinson) and b) crafted an apologetic for interpreting the expectations of the NT in purely spiritual categories (as you note concerning enlightenment thinking).

Obviously, I (and I'm no scholar, I'm simply riding the consensus of scholarship) think that preterists - partial and full - are wrongheaded on all of the above mentioned accounts, but I do not think it is a clear issue of theological inheritance from liberal scholarship. The (full) preteristic doctrine of the resurrection becomes an apologetic answer for texts that prove very difficult to the system. Every system to some degree must do this. Of course, I feel the hermeneutical gymnastics being attempted in many places in the NT - because of their tensions with the time texts - in favor of the full preterist interpretation should instead give us pause to reflect upon the apocalyptic undercurrent of imminence texts in the NT and question such a literal(istic) interpretation of those passages.

One of the more notable developments in critical (as well as conservative) scholarship over particularly the last 50 years or so (but it started in the early 20th century) was an acknowledgement of the high degree to which apocalyptic provides a backdrop to much of the NT, including the belief in the physical resurrection, the use of escalated apocalyptic imagery for a church under (real and perceived imminent) distress, and a belief that the culmination of the ages and the return of the Son of Man could be very soon - all characteristics of Second Temple Judaic apocalytic. So, ironically, if the preterists followed the consensus of modern liberal and conservative scholarship (which I of course wish they and all preterists would do), they would be affirming as apostolic the doctrine of the physical resurrection and the anti-Platonic nature of Pharisaic and Christian 'life after life after death' in the renovated creation.

So, from my perspective, I would agree that there are reasons to reject full preterism, however I do not think that a perceived relationship to liberal scholarship is one of them. Thanks, Paul, for your contributions and thoughts.

James

Some perspective and a definition

The first thing that should be noted, prior to stepping through the major influences and schools within preterist thought is: Every scholar (those who have done the requisite post-doctoral level research, are published and reviewed by their peers, and are thus respected by their contemporaries as a scholar) is a preterist to some degree.

And what do I mean by preterist? One that calculates that a prophecy (in part or full) that was forward looking from the perspective (or conveyed context) of an author in the New Testament has been fulfilled since that writing/recording/context. A most obvious example that is universally acknowledged by scholars is that Jesus predicted a cataclysm upon the (then standing) temple in Jerusalem. The temple was in fact largely destroyed in a Roman siege in AD 70. (There is a brand of eschatology that looks forward to a like destruction in the future, but this a small contingent in the world of scholarship, and even they acknowledge a 1st century fulfillment, if partial as they look to the penultimate.)

So in this sense, as all are preterists, the word comes to bear no meaning. My use of the word 'preterist' here then applies to those who see more than the consensus view/groundwork regarding the prophecies of the New Testament. In the next segment, I hope to focus on the differences within preterism concerning expectations and interpretations of (expected and past) fulfillment of the Olivet discourse(s) and its relation to John's Apocalypse and Pauline expectation.

The apostles expected the return of Christ from heaven in their lifetime. It did not happen, but is this a problem?

One of the fundamental premises of the preterist is that the apostles expected the return, or a 'coming' or 'presence', of Christ in the not too distant future, likely within their lifetime. And kudos to the preterists for reflecting this near universal consensus among scholars. However, the difficulty is such that the more literalistic preterists (particularly the 'full' variety) assert that therefore Jesus must have come back within the Apostolic time frame, presumably in the events associated with the siege of Jerusalem.

The contention naturally arises that if Jesus did not return (and all the logically concomitant events were not completed in that same time frame), then the inspiration of scriptures and Jesus's status as prophet is threatened. True, many Christians and skeptics alike have echoed the sentiment that since the anticipated events did not occur within the first centuries after Christ (a scoffing recorded as early as the second general epistle bearing Peter's name) that Jesus was indeed a 'false' if not mistaken prophet. (I am not sure this perspective has adequately interacted with the intra-canonical development from author to author in apocalyptic expectation, particularly the Olivet Discourse from Mark to Matthew and Luke (see, e.g. Hagner's Matthew in the Word Biblical Commentary series).)

Nonetheless, such a charge (that the emotive expectation of the author should bear on the reliability of God's communicated Word) is never leveled concerning the emotions and passions on display in, for example, the wisdom literature, including a rage in the imprecatory psalms that surely represents a very real and human expression that we do not doubt the spirit can use for his purpose, if he desires. So on what basis is the very real and human expectation of the return of the Lord in bodily form within a generation or two from the ascension somehow an abrogation of trustworthiness of the Word?

As a study in Second Temple Judaism (2TJ), and particularly the development in apocalyptic and the pesher of Qumran, makes clear, this type of expectation and interpretation, especially in the midst of or on the perceived eve of extreme persecution, is common if not expected. Our observation of the very real, passionate, and earthy expectations of New Testament writers should not contort out understanding of both the theological expressions of 2TJ (and particularly the common Jewish anticipations, the Pharisaic school and the apocalyptic writings) and the Apostolic witness and theology that echoes and builds upon the foundation of the former in the 1st century.

More next on the three preterist schools as I see them,

1. the scholarly or synoptic preterists (France and Wright, following Caird), 
2. the reformed partial preterists (DeMar, Gentry, Jordan, Mathison), and
3. the full or hyper preterist (Frost, King, Preston).