[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
James,
ReplyDeleteInteresting. Thank-you for broaching this subject.
As regards the general resurrection, it might help to explain a couple things.
Scripture does not talk about a "physical resurrection" of the saints. It talks about a "resurrection of the flesh/dead/body" This is widely assumed to mean "physical bodies."
The major point of preterism is that biblical eschatology refers to the end of the Old Covenant, not the end of the physical universe.
Paul called the Old Covenant, the covenant of death and of flesh. In 1 Cor. 15, Paul has spent the last several chapters discussing the body of Christ- the Church. In 1 Cor. 15, Paul continues that theme. No change of subject. The Old Covenant to New Covenant transition was the time of the resurrection or raising again of the fleshly covenant to the spiritual covenant, from the covenant of death to the covenant of life, from the body of Moses to the body of Christ.
When Paul spoke of the resurrection (the "stand again"), Paul would throw in references to Adam, specifically to Adam hiding because he was naked. Adam could not stand before/with God because he was naked. Paul's references show the nature of the resurrection, that because of Christ, we can now "stand again" before/with God.
Blessings,
Jeff Vaughn
Coauthor Beyond Creation Science
http://BeyondCreationScience.com
Jeff,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your thoughts and explanation.
On these points (the nature of the resurrection as anticipated by Christians and the majority of 1st cent. Jews; the comprehensive nature of the curse and the effect of sin as including pervasive mortal/human death; the nature of the parallels with Adam; etc.) I side with practically unanimous scholarly consensus against the full preterist.
Generally, I have found the full preterist is driven to these interpretations not on the basis first of the primary texts on resurrection, personal and national judgment, New Heaven and New Earth, but as a systematizing task necessary given the conflict said interpreter has with a particular understanding of 'time texts', the interpretation of which is the sine qua non of the full (and some conservative partial) preterist.
As a very literal view of the time texts take hermeneutical priority, the meaning of the texts on resurrection, etc., find extreme minority interpretations to allow them to fit within that system. Personally, I think the (quite clear, in my survey) expectation of the writers, grounded in the 2TJ and 1st century context, for the nature of fulfillment, takes precedent over speculation on the time texts, if such a thing were necessary. However, as I have highlighted elsewhere, a whole body of 2TJ literature in the apocalyptic writings incorporates imminence as primary genre feature, and thus no a major cause of concern.
I should note, as it may be necessary: I am not judging your view or interpretation as 'wrong', and that solely on its lack of adherence. At my current state in my studies, I do not personally find such a minority view warranted or compelling, and for the same exegetical reasons the church and scholarship has historically not entertained such views.
Thanks as always, Jeff. Peace, Brother.
James