Friday, July 30, 2010

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.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

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).