Response to ADW's "Why the Modern View of the Book of Revelation may be Flawed"

My response to the recent endorsement by a pastoral staff member of the Archdiocese of Washington, a Monsignor Charles Pope, of David Chilton's Days of Vengeance and Chilton's style of "partial preterism".

The rather lengthy and well defended article can be found here:
Why the Modern View of the Book of Revelation may be Flawed

My response to this post (from Dec 4, 2012) is copied below:


Msgr. Charles Pope,

Thank you for your blog post. It has created quite a bit of buzz in the community of “full”/”consistent” preterists that exists primarily online in discussion groups and on Facebook. Laypeople particularly will benefit from being more informed of the various views concerning this difficult book, so thank you again for your contribution.

As you are aware, the “preterist” view (though not as thoroughgoing as David Chilton) was common, even dominant, in the 19th century among pastors and many scholars. However, the academic community has largely turned away from this former consensus to the modern persuasion (including most Catholic – e.g. Brown, Fitzmeyer, Meier, the USCCB, Ford the exception – and Protestant – e.g. Aune, Metzger, Yarbro Collins – professors, commentators, and exegetes). The number of credentialed representatives of preterism (of the Chilton variety – pre-AD 70 composition, Jerusalem as Babylon) is very small today, and I do not see it growing except on the internet among lay people and the non-academically engaged (i.e. publishing) priests and pastors.

There is a scholarly core representing the generally “conservative” preterist minority camp on the Olivet Discourse (Hatina, Caird, France) that appears to be growing slightly (primarily thanks to the prolific N. T. Wright), but they do not endorse the minority(-minority) view on Revelation. Being largely guided by the opinion of scholarship, who from the modern academy would you recommend on Revelation?

For those interested, the work of any number of scholars is a good place to start on the majority view. You can pretty much pick up any academic commentary and be well treated. I regularly commend the treatment on composition date by Beale in his commentary introduction, as well as works on Revelation that address the issue at depth, such as A. Y. Collins Crisis and Catharsis.

Thank you again, Msgr. Pope.

James Metzger


Unfortunately, it appears Msgr. Charles Pope ceased interaction with replies to the post a day or two before my post.

Did Fitzmeyer and Bruce endorse the early date for Revelation?

[This is a response to a post at Gary DeMar's site that included references to Fitzmeyer and Bruce among others as advocates for the pre-70 AD composition of the Apocalypse. Emphasis in all quotes mine.]

Gary,

Thanks for your contributions, as always. I realize the list of modern scholars is from a dissertation and not your own words, however I think it would be helpful to those that might want to cite the above to be aware, particularly concerning Fitzmeyer and Bruce.

Moule: As almost admitted in the footnote, "The Apocalypse may be before A.D. 70” would probably not qualify as "support[ing] the early date position."

Fitzmeyer: As Thomas noted above, I do not believe there is evidence J. A. Fitzmeyer endorsed the pre-70 AD date. In his review of Robinson's Redating, cited above from Interpretation 32, no 3, after noting the table where his own dating of 90-95 AD is provide alongside Robinson's in Redating, Fitzmeyer notes with a positive reflection on his effort,

I must admit that what Robinson writes about the Book of Revelation makes a great deal of sense. Here is a case where I might be inclined in the future to admit a pre-seventy dating. While I am willing to admit much of what he writes about the basic historical value of Johannine tradition, I am still skeptical about his ideas on its apostolic authorship." (p.312)

A positive endorsement of Robinson's work, but not of the pre-70 AD dating, which I don't believe he later re-evaluated as he suggests above he might.

Bruce: While I do not have a copy of Bruce's New Testament History, elsewhere Bruce has endorsed a later date of Revelation, providing a cautious dating of the Apocalypse as composed "at some point between 69 and 96 AD" (The International Bible Commentary, p.1593. Bruce was the editor and the contributor for the Revelation section). Internal to the commentary, Bruce further dismisses an early date, interpreting 11:1-2 as originating from a zealot's Jewish prophecy during the siege (a popular view among commentators):

The apocalypse contained in the 'little scroll' probably referred to the literal city and temple of Jerusalem, and reflected the interval between July 24 and August 27, A. D. 70, When the Romans under Titus were in occupation of the outer court of the temple but had not yet taken the holy house itself. ... But this little apocalypse is now to be reinterpreted in the light of the new context which is acquired by its incorporation in John's Apocalypse, especially in the light of ch. 13. The temple is now the people of God... (p.1612)

And concerning the fear of Nero's return from the East with a Parthian army, Bruce writes,

For some twenty years after his death, therefore, the belief persisted that he had not really died but gone into hiding, probably beyond the Euphrates... Several opportunists profited by this widespread belief to set themselves up as pretended Neros. After 88, the last year in which one of these pretenders is known to have arisen, the belief that Nero was still alive was generally given up; but it was replaced by the belief that one day Nero would return from the dead and regain his sovereignty. This later belief in a Nero redivivus ... [was] a subject of dread to the Christians, who identified Nero redivivus with the last antichrist." (p.1615)

Regardless of one's opinion of Bruce's comments, it does not appear that he subscribes to a pre-70 AD date with the two examples above of the later incorporation by John of a Jewish prophecy from 70 AD into his own work and the notion that Nero redivivus is the clear allusion in ch.13, and that this belief did not predominate over the fear of Nero's return until maybe the late 80's.

Ellis and Robinson clearly endorse the earlier date, and while qualifications exist for each's arguments, they are not important for this post.

If someone has later corrections for my citations of Fitzmeyer and Bruce, I would appreciate them. Thank you.

James

Is Bryan E. Lewis a Full Preterist?

This is a response to the podcast from Bryan E. Lewis, Am I a Full Preterist? A Statement from Bryan E. Lewis.

*** Please note: I have respect for Bryan as he pursues academic training at Vanderbilt Divinity School. Of those within the FP movement, there is no question that Lewis is the one with whom I have the most interests in common with regard to scholarship, not unlike Sam Frost as a trained and theologically and exegetically conversant partner for dialogue before he returned to orthodoxy. I will hopefully continue to dialogue, and look forward to following Bryan's evolution.

Why are we discussing Bryan E. Lewis?

Bryan is an interesting figure who has attracted the attention of full preterists and orthodox/consensus defenders alike. What separates him from the thousands of other students beginning graduate coursework is the fact that Bryan himself comes out of the heretical "hyper-preterist" or full preterist (FP) movement and he is attempting to maintain that perspective as he delves into academia. He received his bachelor's in theology  from Amridge University, a Churches of Church (CoC) institution. Bryan is now (Spring, 2012) beginning graduate work at Vanderbilt Divinity School.

Has he produced anything for peer review?

Lewis has recently started his post-graduate work but has released some papers from his time at Amridge University. He has exhibited a knowledge of the writings of Jesus scholars of the 20th and 21st century (see the overview paper produced for his undergraduate work posted on his website as well as mentions within his other papers posted on Orthodox Wars).

Has James Metzger produced anything?

No. I am a layman who digests scholarly works for fun. I especially enjoy the research on 2TJ apocalyptic texts as well as the historical Jesus, which is why I attempt to bring the findings of scholarship to those within both the FP and partial-preterist camps. I have no Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Aramaic, or other Semitic language training, and digest knowledge solely through English-language books and lectures. I am only qualified to speak at all where I accurately reflect the work of (especially modern) published scholars. My personal opinions are worth nothing on an academic scale, but hopefully I properly reflect those who are respected within scholarship. I disagree strongly with both the FP and ('modern') partial preterist perspectives in favor of scholarly consensus.

Why should I be interested in Bryan E. Lewis, again?

Lewis would be the first FP scholar, assuming he completes his academic work at a reputable school while maintaining the fundamentalist perspective of FP. Those who have been most influential within the FP movement are not scholars, but mostly (former) pastors from the CoC, notably Max King, Don Preston, Jack Scott, and William Bell, most of whom received pastoral training from CoC institutions. In the podcast, Bryan has in mind this group as the prime representatives of "responsible full preterists", but they are not scholars, and do not pursue academic peer review or scholarly publication. They are primarily popularizers, more careful in their presentation than the less educated web personalities. (Sam Frost and Kelly Birks represent former and current full preterists with post-graduate credentials from a Reformed perspective.)

Is serious scholarship compatible with the beliefs of "full preterism"?

Lewis has yet to address the fact that the fundamentalist presuppositions of full preterism/"covenant eschatology" are incompatible with critical scholarship. Full preterism assumes, sine qua non, that OT and NT expectations must be fulfilled historically in the events involved with the 1st century siege of Jerusalem by the Romans (otherwise they would not be FP). This belief is bolstered by the multiple statements in the NT where the authors anticipate the return of Christ/arrival of the Son of Man within the lifetime of the authors and their audience. The broad consensus of scholarship agrees with this analysis of NT expectation, but none would think that this should have a bearing on the critical investigation of the fulfillment of the writings. More on this below.

What should we note from the recent podcast, "Am I a full preterist?"

In the podcast, Bryan notes four beliefs that he holds in common with full preterism that are in direct contradiction with the broad consensus of scholarship regarding what the NT 'teaches'. Bryan says,

1. "...I continue to not believe that there will be a consummation to history." (32:30)

2. "I do not believe ... in a future visible physical manifestation of Christ, a second coming." (32:56)

3. "I do not believe in a future final judgment of all men and nations." (33:25)

4. "[I] continue ... to not believe in a future bodily resurrection and transformation of all believers." (33:48)

Noteworthy here is that Bryan is at irreconcilable odds with scholarship on these points concerning the beliefs of the Christian authors and the Jewish 2TJ sources that most influenced their perspective. Consummation, judgment, and resurrection were persistent and powerful themes, as even a cursory survey of the scholarship bears out, and these expectations are enhanced tenfold within the movement of early Christianity and apostles such as Paul. The belief in resurrection within particularly Palestinian 2TJ is strongly attested and the evidence from within the NT corpus is without a scholarly dissident. So, Bryan has clearly decided to maintain a "hyperpreterist" ideology against the consensus of scholarship. And this is what makes the subsequent statement by Lewis quite curious. Bryan says (34:04),

"I have no theological bias in the mix. ... I am from a Neo-Orthodox perspective, or a Historical Jesus perspective, a historical-critical idea or method..."

Bryan has admitted that he believes, against academia, in the four statements above. So on what basis can he say, "I have no theological bias"? The only reason he takes the stance he does is because of the theological bias he brings with him into his academic pursuit. He is not deriving any FP theology from scholarship. No one does. One does not scientifically pursue the study of ANE texts, from without FP, and fideistically determine what the fulfillment of them must have been. On the contrary, full preterists generally come to their understanding the same way Bryan did, not from an academic or critically informed perspective, but because "full preterism really seemed to provide an answer" (8:39) to the theological dilemma perceived in the NT text and highlighted by the likes of Schweitzer in the early 20th century.

So Bryan's real dilemma is reconciling his fundamentalist/concordist beliefs in FP (similar notions are of course evident in orthodox theology) with the methods of critical scholarship.

At some point, as Bryan pursues academic training, he will have to actually confront the consensus arguments of Jesus and apocalyptic scholars that have come to starkly different conclusions. However, I am optimistic given Bryan's propensity toward the academy, reflected in the current post-graduate pursuit, and believe that in the end his desire to be faithful to the method of the scholars will force him away from his theologically aberrant perspectives, which would bring him back to within striking distance of orthodoxy. And from there he can choose, as other scholars have, faith (after Bauckham, Hurtado) or skepticism (so Ehrman, Allison).

So, keep up the good work, Bryan, and I look forward to reading more on your full engagement with modern critical scholarship.

respectfully,

James Metzger

Clarifying addendum [provided as a subsequent post at RCM]:

On the points of disagreement between Bryan and scholarship, I am not asserting that critical scholars personally believe in items like the consummation of history or the resurrection. My point is that they broadly agree that the NT authors as well as Pharisaic Judaism and much of the apocalyptic strand within 2TJ believed these things. Some of the scholars are orthodox, some are 'liberal', and some are skeptics, but that does not concern us (for my discussion above). I am raising the issue of what scholarship has published/contended about the beliefs of the 1st century church and the NT authors because that is where FP's have made claims that I do not believe stand up to scholarly scrutiny, and this is an issue Bryan in his study will be intimately aware. And I look forward to him addressing the arguments of the scholarship on (the authorial intent and community interpretation of) texts like Dan 12 and 1 Cor 15, where academia is currently quite united.


Thanks again.

Response to gracious mention on the New Covenant Eyes (NCE) 04.17.2011 broadcast

The hosts were extremely gracious in their response to my critique (in the comments of the April 3rd broadcast) during their April 17th show. My reply (combining two posts):

Wow, Brothers, I am humbled by your gracious response and interaction with my comments earlier in this edition of New Covenant Eyes! Sorry for the late response, I just find I am in one of those seasons that is especially busy and I am catching up with the shows ever so slowly.

Jeremiah, Alan, Mike, and Michael, again, I really appreciated you going into the basis for your characterizations of, for example, the eschatology of Presbyterian laity. I actually totally believe your experience, and that it is probably not uncommon, now that I think on it from the perspective you guys provided. It reveals my bias, that when I think of the 'beliefs' of a denomination, such as the PCA, I associate that with the Session, not the communing membership, but particularly the teaching elders. Of course, Alan mentions that he has been in Reformed churches where the leadership was premillennial (though the historic/early church variety is of course quite different dispensational), and I believe it, it has just not been my (narrow though it is) experience.

In our presbytery (Potomac), and a few others that I am familiar with, the elders are quite knowledgeable in the Reformed tradition, Puritan and scholastic, and none of the teaching elders to my knowledge are dispensational, but I would not be surprised if a number of the ruling elders out there were, or more likely simply uninformed or confused.

Thank you again for elucidating your perspective and experiences, and I cannot thank you again enough for such a loving response.


On the question of my own perspective, I am doing my best to reflect scholarship - evangelical and critical - as best I can, as I believe those that have most dedicated themselves to the study of the ancient scriptures and contemporaneous documentation and languages, interacting and challenging peers all the while, are the best able to discern meanings and intent. And I favor the exegetical and biblical-theological over the broadly systematic as a guide to interpretation (though as many have written, it is impossible to separate the two completely, and attempts at such are doomed to fail). So, as far as which eschatological persuasion I think describes how things will actually play out in our future, the amillennial expectation (i.e. resurrection and judgment probably sans future earthly or heavenly messianic or saintly reign) is probably the closest to the NT consensus view, or at least that of Paul and the gospels.

However, as anyone knows who has studied Revelation 20 and digested the top scholars of the last 100 years, the only passage that uses the term 'millennium' is unquestionably premillennial in structure (I have listed the plethora of scholars before, with the only holdouts usually those that are theological bound to conform the Apocalypse's presentation - an echo of abundant similar 2TJ parallels - to that of the rest of the NT; obviously Beale must come to mind). But I think it is also worth asking if the premil presentation of Rev 20 is not also an apocalyptic rhetorical device, not unlike the expectation of imminent persecution in Asia Minor and salvation at the parousia. This apocalyptic contextualization is not unlike Paul's in 2 Thess 2. Regardless, I do not feel an urgent need to reconcile the tension between the likes of the synoptic authors, Paul, and 'John' and am more at peace with simply a firm grasp of what each author's perspective and message was and do not feel compelled to force a harmonization.

So, that may just confuse things, but if you are familiar with scholarship today, you could pretty much throw a rock into the sea of exegetes and you'll hit one of the 90% representing the broad consensus, and me following them:
  - yes, most of the NT writers thought the parousia, resurrection, judgment, and NH/NE, etc. would happen relatively soon (not 40 long years down the road, much less 2,000);
  - the synoptics - notably Mark, and even more Matthew - contextualize the prophecy of the temple's destruction w/ the apocalyptic consummation (Allison and Adams of late have been particularly excellent on this point);
  - Paul (unquestionably) and Jesus (as recorded/conveyed) are inline with the general pharisaic expectation of the future, individual bodily resurrection of the saints (at a minimum) and the condemned (more broadly but with less support), the major Pauline innovation(/conveyance) being the two-stage actualization: Christ, raised the first-fruits, and the saints raised bodily at his coming again (practically every non-'Jesus Seminar' scholar agrees on these points);
  - the author of the Apocalypse is the only one that interacts heavily with the 2TJ concept of the earthly Messianic reign, but he broadly affirms the expectation - this is overwhelmingly agreed upon in scholarship as basically 'premil' in convention (so Mealy - who academically dismantles the amil - and postmil - quite well, quoting Roman Catholic interpreter J. Sickenberger, "The Augustinian [i.e. amil] approach 'does violence to the text'." (After the Thousand Years (JSNTS 70),  p19 n3)), with the innovation being that the martyrs in Asia Minor who persevere to the end  will be resurrected _before_ the reign begins, with the honor of reigning with Christ, as opposed to the traditional 2TJ understanding of resurrection as following the earthly Messianic reign (e.g. 2 Bar 30);
  - the author of the Apocalypse is speaking to a community that anticipates persecution probably late in the 1st century from Babylon (undeniably Rome; see Yarbro Collins, Crisis and Catharsis, for an extremely able defense of the consensus view concerning date, theme, and audience, recognizing the limitation of former dependencies on the anti-Flavian historians).

There are many more that press the preterist outside the mainstream of exegetical thought that could be cited, but these I think are some sufficient examples that should give the preterist that attempts to interact with scholarship reason to pause and re-evaluate. Thank you again for your interaction and allowing this critic to post. Peace to you all!

James

Revelation commentary survey, varieties of preterism, and millennial permutations

Links to some spreadsheets I've used in instructing people about aspects of New Testament Apoaclyptic eschatology and the lay of the land in modern scholarship and among exegetes and theologians.

Revelation commentary survey (always in progress):

Preterisms compared (overview):

Millennial permutations (overview; needs work):

More on the varieties of preterists [continued pt2]

Continuing interaction. Greg's response followed by my own:

Hi James,

"I'll need some clarification on which part you would like more comment or references for further reading."

I was thinking of your comment: "given discoveries of more apocalyptic 2TJ texts and an enhanced understanding of the genre in the 20th century"

This would presumably be damaging to, or be against, full preterism and some partial preterism.

"And "failed prophecy" is a bit loaded (this is a quibble), as it belies a lack of contact with the purpose and modus operandi of apocalyptic and an inflation of expectation/anticipation to some kind of measurable prophetic."

Could you expand on this comment?

"Did (early) Paul expect a return of Christ in his lifetime? Almost certainly. - Does this equate to "failed prophecy"? Again, no."

I guess it depends where he got that expectation from, or whether he gives a firm prediction himself. If Jesus predicted a near "end" (ignoring preterist conceptions) and Paul was following the error, then it looks like failed prophecy. Another point here, is that if early Paul expected a near end, well did that influence any of his ethical teaching? Because if so, that teaching would then  seem discredited.

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom. (Matthew 16:28)

I'm sure you're aware of the end of John. To me, it looks like a very possible attempt to explain away the kind of prediction previously given in the synoptics. It looks like something was expected to happen... but didn't happen.

"I affirm broadly Allison, Ehrman, Schweitzer, Weiss, et al on the Olivet but think this word choice can be unnecessarily inflammatory"

I'm looking at it from the perspective of trying to determine whether or not a religion is likely to be true. So I can't really avoid the category of "failed prophecy". Of course, this is one of the Hebrew Bible's own criteria (Deut. 18) for assessing a supposed prophet, so it seems like a fair standard to apply to Jesus.

But you don't seem to think the term "failed prophecy" is really appropriate in this case, and I have already asked you to expand on that.

"No, I do not off hand, but I'm sure full preterists have found quotes/sources and could provide them here."

I'm not so sure they have anything persuasive.

"Eusebius, for instance, in the late 3rd and 4th centuries claimed past fulfillment of some apocalyptic NT texts, but I have not checked his commentary on the Olivet(s)"

Eusebius applies Daniel 7:13 and Matthew 24:30 to a future 2nd Coming. I would say that, "when He comes in the heavens with power and great glory", is a pretty clear reference to Matthew 24:30.

"We see in part, indeed, now with our own eyes the fulfilment of the holy oracles as to the first Epiphany of our Saviour to man. May it be seen completely as well in His second glorious Advent, when all nations shall see His glory, and when He comes in the heavens with power and great glory."

"For the second Coming shall be glorious, that of which Daniel speaks unfolding and revealing his vision:

9. I saw until the thrones were set, and the Ancient of Days did sit. Thousand thousands ministered to him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him. 13. And, behold, one as a son of man coming with the clouds of heaven. And he came even to the Ancient of Days, 14. and there was given to him rule and honour and a kingdom, and all peoples, tribes, and tongues serve him. His power is an everlasting power, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom shall not be destroyed."

(Eusebius, Demonstratio Evangelica, Book VI, Chapter 25 and Book IX, Chapter 17)

Greg

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My response:

Hi Greg,

>> I was thinking of your comment: "given discoveries of more apocalyptic Second Temple Judaism (2TJ) texts and an enhanced understanding of the genre in the 20th century". This would presumably be damaging to, or be against, full preterism and some partial preterism.

Absolutely. It's pretty damning. This is not to say former generations were not aware of/versed in many of the 2TJ pseudepigrapha and apocalyptic OT and NT, but the progress in understanding over the last century is comparable to the understanding of Hebrew from the time of the Reformation, when scholarship was practically nil in the ANE languages, to the modern era, with its many correctives and superior translations and lexicons. The scholarship is night and day by contrast.

The wealth of material that has been (in some cases literally) unearthed in the late 19th and 20th century, particularly at Qumran, has opened a huge window to provide us an improved view of the 2TJ period, with 'new' apocalyptic texts from the intertestamental and late 1st century period as well as numerous midrash (put simply, a form of expounding commentary) and pesher (an interpretation of texts often applying them to and seeing/predicting their fulfillment in/upon the recipient community). Obviously, this should set off some bells, as we see a very similar appropriation of OT prophetic texts in the NT, particularly in the pattern of pesher (the scholars still debate continually over which portions of the NT represent which genre).

For some accessible and less expensive texts that start at the ground floor and expand on the major issues, I might recommend for further reading volumes by Collins (e.g. _The Apocalyptic Imagination_ and _Daniel: With an Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature_; if you have cash his Hermeneia commentary is worth it, not to mention everything produced by his wife) on the development and common themes to apocalyptic. And Vanderkam (e.g. _The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls_ and _The Dead Sea Scrolls Today_; also _An Introduction to Early Judaism_ for more on the 1st century CE perspective) on the importance of Qumran for our understanding of 2TJ, the sea in which the NT swims.

>> "And "failed prophecy" is a bit loaded (this is a quibble), as it belies a lack of contact with the purpose and modus operandi of apocalyptic and an inflation of expectation/anticipation to some kind of measurable prophetic."

>> Could you expand on this comment?

I'm not sure where you stand, Greg (are you a skeptic of Christianity or just of FP?), but I am a Christian, so to call prophecy 'failed' would mean that God's purposes were not accomplished through a given prophet. So I would deny that. Hopefully I address some of this below, at least to your satisfaction. If not, the resources above and in texts like D. Brent Sandy's _Plowshares & Pruning Hooks: Rethinking the Language of Biblical Prophecy and Apocalyptic_ and G. B. Caird's _The Language and Imagery of the Bible_ would also be helpful.

>> "Did (early) Paul expect a return of Christ in his lifetime? Almost certainly. - Does this equate to "failed prophecy"? Again, no."

>> I guess it depends where he got that expectation from, or whether he gives a firm prediction himself. If Jesus predicted a near "end" (ignoring preterist conceptions) and Paul was following the error, then it looks like failed prophecy. Another point here, is that if early Paul expected a near end, well did that influence any of his ethical teaching? Because if so, that teaching would then  seem discredited.

I would say if there was a concrete measurable prediction that did not take place, then that would probably be a strong candidate for a 'failed prophecy'. But we don't have those failures. Instead, we do have firm predictions of Jesus's death. We also have a predictive prophecy of the destruction of the temple (almost surely at the hands of Romans), and we have a typical apocalyptic framing of that event with end-times consummation language that both a) focuses the audience on the importance of the current conflict by elevating the language to the cosmic and age-consummation perspective, and b) it maps these events into the very timeline of the end, inviting the possibility that this may indeed be the culminating time, the very 'last days'. If you are familiar with apocalyptic, from portions of Isaiah, Zechariah, most of Daniel, and non-canonical 2TJ pseudepigrapha, this is all old hack to you.

Part of the purpose of apocalyptic, with it's unnatural, cosmic, and explosive imagery, is to a) get the audience's attention - normally a call to discipline and holiness in the midst of  - or before the anticipated - extreme persecution, or b) as a desperate wake up call to a wayward (from covenant faithfulness) community, to get them to focus on the current real and deadly tragedy that is unfolding/present. I think absolutely at a minimum Paul, the author of the Apocalypse, and the author of 2 Peter are caught up in this expectation, and rightfully so, because the crisis in the community is very real, and the apostles and prophets speak and write in order to convict and move their audiences. I am afraid if you apply the judgment you are above, you are applying a 'presentist' perspective, going against the Hebraic familiarity with this genre of literature and speech. It is also contrary to the judgment (or lack thereof) that they would have had (and the early church did pardon without incident) on the apostles, which was very much inline with the 2TJ handling of OT consummation and apocalyptic texts (more on this later).

Scholars agree that in the early epistles Paul truly expected to be alive at the parousia, and everyone of merit acknowledges he died before AD 70, yet even the FP would not say Paul is a false prophet when his convictions and expectations for his own lifespan and the nearness of the parousia are not met. Personal conviction of a Holy Spirit led individual does not rise to the level of concrete prophetic utterance, and such a thing is never suggested.

>> I'm sure you're aware of the end of John. To me, it looks like a very possible attempt to explain away the kind of prediction previously given in the synoptics. It looks like something was expected to happen... but didn't happen.

And I think I could probably concede your point that there is a teaching engagement in John 21, but do not see this as a challenge to my defense of the scripture as infallible in the purposes God has for them, but instead as another corrective to perceptions, like the epistles to the Corinthians or Thessalonians, who heard the good word from Paul but then still managed to get off track and be in need of further correction.

>> I'm looking at it from the perspective of trying to determine whether or not a religion is likely to be true. So I can't really avoid the category of "failed prophecy". Of course, this is one of the Hebrew Bible's own criteria (Deut. 18) for assessing a supposed prophet, so it seems like a fair standard to apply to Jesus.

>> But you don't seem to think the term "failed prophecy" is really appropriate in this case, and I have already asked you to expand on that.

Attempting to apply Deut 18 to apocalyptic would be like calling a parable or metaphorical language 'a lie' or 'untrue' - it's a category mistake. And of course, we have the wealth of later prophets as our witnesses to the effect that Deut. 18 would not have applied to this class (age-consummation, New Heavens New Earth, etc,, language). If it did, Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, Daniel, et al would be deemed 'false prophets' because their end-of-the-age/age-transition, and in some cases true apocalyptic, prophetic content did not come to completion in the 'expected' time frame - end of exile, post temple restoration, and end of Antiochene persecution respectively. And scripture even addresses this (an adjustment in expectations) directly in places like Jeremiah 18 in the OT and 2 Peter 3 in the new. (Yes, FP attempts to dismiss both passages, but they are simply subordinating those scriptures to their guiding paradigm, that the consummation and concomitant events had to happen in the 1st century at the fall of Jerusalem.)

>> "No, I do not off hand, but I'm sure full preterists have found quotes/sources and could provide them here."

>> I'm not so sure they have anything persuasive.

Again, there are quotes here and there - you provide one example from Eusebius - but an FP appeal to historic argument would be a construction mined from a few outlying exegetes. I agree with your sentiment.

Thank you, Greg, for a fun correspondence and for your patience. I am very busy and try not to let dealing with FP concerns dominate more than it should, which is hard, so it often will take some time for me to get back to you.

Peace,  

James

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A follow-up post on a point I missed:

I skipped this point (and probably others), my apology.

>> Another point here, is that if early Paul expected a near end, well did that influence any of his ethical teaching? Because if so, that teaching would then seem discredited.

Is 'discredited' the right category? I would instead say that ethical guidelines given in the light of his expectation should be exegeted and applied carefully, as we should do with all of scripture. It is no easy task, and too many pass it off as if it is a simple text approachable by all. But this is impossible, because we cannot (re)live the full context of the NT. There is a cultural translation that must take place, and it takes time and effort to do it justice.

As one simple example to your point: In I Cor 7 Paul encourages the Corinthians (who are being eyed with distrust by the pagans), generally to refrain from marriage, because "the time is short", and "this world in its present form is passing away." (And he has in mind the typical 2TJ apocalyptic understanding of world, as the Gentiles in Corinth would have seen little connection between the cessation of temple sacrifices and their practice of engagement and marriage under current persecution with the probably soon return of the Son of Man.)

Application: For us, the general lesson is that it will be easier to weather persecution and trial when you are not in the process of marrying a spouse. This admonishment could surely endure. Should we perceive ourselves again with our nose up against the age of the impending fullness of the kingdom? I don't think so, but again it does not rob all from the former facet, so maybe we should find another point that is wholly conditioned on the anticipated parousia. 

James

More on the varieties of preterists [continued]

Greg's (bskeptic) response:

Hi James, thanks for taking the time to reply.

Firstly, as it seems, I understand "partial preterist" in a different way to yourself. My preferred definition is that a partial preterist is someone who thinks that Matthew 24:30-31 was fulfilled in the first century, as do NT Wright and RT France. (But of course still look for a future 2nd Coming.)

If someone thinks, e.g., that the "great tribulation" was fulfilled in the first century, but Matthew 24:30-31 is still future, then I wouldn't personally regard it as "partial preterism". If such a thing is partial preterism, then I don't see why even self-professed dispensationalist "futurists" wouldn't qualify as partial preterists, because they can believe in *some* first century fulfillment, (e.g. Luke 21:20-24).

"there were many who argued for a pre-70 AD composition and some even a Jerusalem-centric (the city, not the spiritual people) judgment, but this view is almost non-existent among modern scholars given discoveries of more apocalyptic 2TJ texts and an enhanced understanding of the genre in the 20th century."

This is interesting to me. Could you expand a little? Could you recommend any books which cover this?

"While scholarly advocates of this position can be counted on one hand, this is a legitimate minority view given the quality advocates, particularly Caird."

As a skeptic I would say:

(a) Even Christians will find it far-fetched and implausible to separate those verses from "2nd Coming" material like 1 Thess 4.

(b) There is an obvious reason why they could be reaching for "far-fetched" explanations here: they think the scriptural evidence places the event in the first century, and Christians may not like the idea of failed prophecy. I believe Dale C. Allison points out that the behaviour of Wright etc. could be seen as falling into a well-known pattern of what happens when prophecies fail.

Do you know of any church fathers, or early Christian literature, which clearly teaches that Matthew 24:29-31 was fulfilled in the first century as Wright and France suggest?

Greg

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And my response:

Greg,

I'll try to respond to your points. Thank you for a cordial conversation.

>> Firstly, as it seems, I understand "partial preterist" in a different way to yourself. My preferred definition is that a partial preterist is someone who thinks that Matthew 24:30-31 was fulfilled in the first century, as do NT Wright and RT France. (But of course still look for a future 2nd Coming.)

You can define your terms how you like in this conversational context, Greg, so that's fine with me. I was attempting to provide a fuller context. For instance, 'preteristic' interpretation has normally been applied categorically as a hermeneutic to Revelation (less so now with Wright's prominence and discussion of his more unique interpretation) and not to the Olivet. But in this (full preterist) context (pretcosmos), expanding this to other texts was natural.

>> If someone thinks, e.g., that the "great tribulation" was fulfilled in the first century, but Matthew 24:30-31 is still future, then I wouldn't personally regard it as "partial preterism". If such a thing is partial preterism, then I don't see why even self-professed dispensationalist "futurists" wouldn't qualify as partial preterists, because they can believe in *some* first century fulfillment, (e.g. Luke 21:20-24).

That was my point, that almost everyone _is_ a partial preterist. But if we want to narrow that term, I am fine with that. An illustration of the 'problem' is that many might narrow "partial preterism" to refer to just the views of a small Reformed band (formerly) involved in a theonomic and Reconstructionist apologetic, which demanded a pre-70AD composition of the Apocalypse, when most preteristic commentaries on Revelation refer to Rome as the target of fulfillment and a later date of composition, and in this sense France and Caird would not be "partial preterists", though they are by your definition above.

Again, not an issue for our discussion, just an attempt to explain my effort in differentiating the flavors of preterists. In times past, and in some far corners of modern dispensational and other thought, there were/are actual full futurists in regards to the primary texts. In fact, as you will note when reading the commentaries (as per Allison (ICC), who you have had interaction with and I commend), some (even 'a number' of) scholars believe the Olivet was crafted after AD 70, and thus looked forward to a rebuilt temple (not uncommon to later 1st century Jewish hope and not unanticipated by Christians until the total crushing of the 2nd revolt). 

>> "there were many who argued for a pre-70 AD composition and some even a Jerusalem-centric (the city, not the spiritual people) judgment, but this view is almost non-existent among modern scholars given discoveries of more apocalyptic 2TJ texts and an enhanced understanding of the genre in the 20th century."

>> This is interesting to me. Could you expand a little? Could you recommend any books which cover this?

I'll admit that my quoted statement above is overly packed, so I'll need some clarification on which part you would like more comment or references for further reading. (For example, if it is the first point on 19th century pre-AD 70/early authorship, I would point to Hort, Lightfoot, Westcott, Schaff, Zahn, et al). :) 

>> "While scholarly advocates of this position can be counted on one hand, this is a legitimate minority view given the quality advocates, particularly Caird."

>> As a skeptic I would say:

>> (a) Even Christians will find it far-fetched and implausible to separate those verses from "2nd Coming" material like 1 Thess 4.

Correct (assuming you mean "Christian scholars" and that the common use of apocalyptic framing is intended to point to a complete(d) transition of the ages and the concomitant events: resurrection, final judgment, new heavens and new earth, etc.). Thus almost all of modern scholarship (and I am gleaning from them) agree that this is the context. An extended defense could be offered here, but you appear on board this this conclusion. :)

>> (b) There is an obvious reason why they could be reaching for "far-fetched" explanations here: they think the scriptural evidence places the event in the first century, and Christians may not like the idea of failed prophecy. I believe Dale C. Allison points out that the behaviour of Wright etc. could be seen as falling into a well-known pattern of what happens when prophecies fail.

Yes, the resurgence in preterist interest, particularly in the "emergent movement", probably points more to the apologetic advantage of brushing under the table some exegetical difficulties. However, the likes of Caird and France could hardly be maligned as motivated by an apologetic bias on the Olivet, which is laden with numerous exegetical difficulties/challenges. I would recommend reading the likes of Beasley-Murray's _Jesus and the Last Days_ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/1573833517) which provides a lengthy survey of the interpretation of the Olivet and Mark 13 particularly, followed by his commentary, invaluable for understanding the exegetical and redactional challenges inherent in the discourse.

This does not mean that scholarly consensus has not basically settled (it has; one may refer to the list provided before), but the door will never be closed all the way because of an inability to get back to the exact original spoken discourse (a difficulty given the synoptic disparities, etc.). I think Wright is wrong, and now the likes of consensus defenders Allison and Adams have had to spend time reminding people why he's wrong (again, probably because of the attractiveness of the apologetic simplicity of adapting the partial preterist (your definition) approach as you surmise). But I do not think the same charge could/should be levied against the scholarly defenders themselves, at least at this point (again France and Wright are following their mentor Caird's scholarship who followed an even earlier tradition and argument that dates back a few centuries).

And "failed prophecy" is a bit loaded (this is a quibble), as it belies a lack of contact with the purpose and modus operandi of apocalyptic and an inflation of expectation/anticipation to some kind of measurable prophetic.

 - Did the apostles and maybe Jesus as recorded in the synoptic gospels expect the consummation to follow the destruction of Jerusalem? Probably (again, the Olivet (and related) redaction is fragmented, so ironclad determinations of this sort are difficult if not impossible; I would point to targeted work by Ehrman and Allison in support).

 - Did (early) Paul expect a return of Christ in his lifetime? Almost certainly.

 - Does this equate to "failed prophecy"? Again, no. Expectations not met, probably, but even by Paul's later life (let's assume Pauline authorship of the disputed epistles for now, shall we?), the apocalyptic expectation is toned down considerably. And a couple of centuries after Christ, the church is hardly struggling with a shift in expectations from the early and apostolic church.

This is not to disagree with your point, but register my Christian perspective on the same data and the usage of "failed". (I affirm broadly Allison, Ehrman, Schweitzer, Weiss, et al on the Olivet but think this word choice can be unnecessarily inflammatory.)

>> Do you know of any church fathers, or early Christian literature, which clearly teaches that Matthew 24:29-31 was fulfilled in the first century as Wright and France suggest?

No, I do not off hand, but I'm sure full preterists have found quotes/sources and could provide them here. Eusebius, for instance, in the late 3rd and 4th centuries claimed past fulfillment of some apocalyptic NT texts, but I have not checked his commentary on the Olivet(s). Full preterists here would be happy I am sure to provide quotes to backup early support for this position, but as you probably are already aware, these positions were in the very small minority, were varied, and I do not think any of them can definitively be dated to before the middle of the 3rd century (if that early; I'm very open to correction). Frost's _Misplaced Hope_ (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0964138824) is probably the most thorough treatment from full preterists concerning the writings of the early church. I'll leave it to full preterists to provide specific quotes on the latter Olivet from the Fathers.

One could also poll France's extensive commentaries (Matthew (NICNT) and Mark (NIGTC)) for support. He vigorously defends his position and I've just not had time to refer to them for this quick note.

Thanks, Greg, for the discussion. I am sorry if I have missed or skipped anything. Please let me know and I will try to address what I can as I am able.

James

More on the varieties of preterists (from PretCosmos response)

I posted this morning in response to an inqury in a full preterist forum/email list run by full preterist Dave Green regarding the disagreements/different positions of 'partial-preterists' on varied passages. The original post by 'bskeptic':

[title: Partial preterist confusion by bskeptic]

I'm interested in the level of disagreement between partial preterists. Some examples: 

(1) Some of them will have a "switch" or "transition" at Matthew 24:36 to the subject of a future 2nd Coming. Other partial preterists would disagree. 

(2) For those who "switch", they can still disagree about the meaning of Matthew 24:27. (For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.) 

(3) Related to the first example, I would guess that 1 Thess 5 is a matter of disagreement. 

(4) Matthew 13 and Matthew 16:27 can also be differently understood by partial preterists I think. 

Are there more examples of where partial preterists disagree about whether something is "AD70" or future 2nd Coming? 

Is there any disagreement about Acts 1:11? Or 2 Peter etc.?

I realize my original answer (below) is incomplete on a number of the passages brought up here, but I attempted to address the more major views in (orthodox) preterist circles:

bskeptic,

Going back to basic definitions, 'partial preterist', as pertaining to all of the major prophetic and apocalyptic portions of NT scripture, encompasses almost everyone in scholarly circles. There are only a few full futurist scholars (some older dispensationalist and more liberal scholars who view the gospel products, and particularly the Olivet discourse, as late 1st century or 2nd century products). And I'm not sure we have any full preterist scholars (there are some with seminary training but I do not believe there are any with doctoral (or greater) level accomplishments from a recognized institution).

The main breakdowns are:

1. On the Olivet Discourse

- Scholarly Majority View

The large majority of scholars place the division between the prophecy of destruction of the temple and the framing of that event with the apocalyptic consummation (Son of Man, judgment, implicit resurrection, NH/NE, etc.) prior to the cosmological signs. The majority is represented in recent Marcan commentaries by Lane (NIC), Gundry, Marcus (AB), Yarbro Collins (Herm), Evans (WBC), Geoffrey (FoBC), Garland (NIVAC), Ferguson (Let's Study), Edwards (PNTC), Cole (TNTC), Barclay (DSB), Brooks (NAC), Stein (BEC), Hendrickson (NTC), McKenna (CC), Hughes (PTW), and Hortado (NIBC), among many others. An even longer list could be produced for Matthew, but you get the idea. One should note that all of these men and their commentaries are well regarded and I'm not sure any of them could be labeled a dispensationalist. Maybe 85-90% of the scholars fall in this camp.

- Scholarly Minority View(s)

A small group regards the cosmological and Son of Man passages of the Olivet Discourse as pertaining to a type of 'coming' in the 1st century AD. Scholars representing this perspective are R. T. France (pertaining to most of the discourse; Mark (NIGTC), Matthew (NIC)) and Hatina, and G. B. Caird and N. T. Wright (pertains to all of the discourse, e.g. Matt. 24-25). It should be noted that France and Wright were both disciples of Caird. While scholarly advocates of this position can be counted on one hand, this is a legitimate minority view given the quality advocates, particularly Caird. Maybe 5% of the scholars fall in this camp. (The remainder are in other varieties and breakdowns.)

2. On the Book of Revelation

- Scholarly Majority View

There is close to complete agreement in the scholarship concerning both the date and target of the Apocalypse. The list of scholars and commentaries that advocate a later date of composition and Babylon as Rome is almost too many to count. As a sampling, scholars in agreement on these points include Caird, France, Beale, Bauckham, Collins, Yarbro Collins, Sweet, Swete, Beckwith, Charles, Rowland, Poellet, Witherington, Mounce, Osborne, Boring, Boxall (supports pre-70, post-Nero date), Johnson, Keener, Blount, Ladd, Morris, (Bruce) Metzger, and on and on. These positions are represented by probably 95+% of scholars today.

- Scholarly Minority Views 

There are a view scholars who have advocated different approaches, including most notably Ford (AB), who advocates an origin of the Apocalypse with John the Baptist. In previous centuries (notably the19th), there were many who argued for a pre-70 AD composition and some even a Jerusalem-centric (the city, not the spiritual people) judgment, but this view is almost non-existent among modern scholars given discoveries of more apocalyptic 2TJ texts and an enhanced understanding of the genre in the 20th century.

There have been some on the Reformed fringe who have advocated for the minority view on the Olivet and a pre-70 AD composition and Jerusalem centered focus in the Apocalypse. Many of these men are either current or former advocates of Theonomy and Reconstructionism (e.g. North, Gentry, DeMar, Jordan) or of the Federal Vision movement (Leithart, Wilson, Jordan again). Among these Leithart is probably the only one that approaches the status of 'scholar', but its a fringe perspective not in learned/academic interaction with the leading brains in the seminaries and academies (most of these men are pastors and not academicians/scholars). Of course, many in the full preterist camp, often reacting to dispensationalist excesses, latch onto works by the opposite fringe and often progress further ('more consistently') into full preterism.

Among scholars the Pauline passages are generally regarded as Apocalyptic, as (early) Paul language and sense of urgency is in tune with one informed by the genre (including elements also appealed to in the Olivet, though lacking the Jerusalem focused prophetic).

I hope that helps. Let me know if you need clarification or more references.

James

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.