- This topic is empty.
- Posts
“Shreds of Preterism” Among First-Century Writers
by Gary DeMar, May 23, 2003http://www.presence.tv/cms/shreds-demar.shtml
The Early History of Preterism: Part Three
My preterist friends have not been able to find any early preterists in the early church. I would never say that there is no one in the early church who taught preterism. . . . Don't be foolish enough to say that nothing is out there in church history, because you never know. . . .[1]
Since Ice does not quote from any first-century documents to make his case that none of them offer a “shred of evidence that anyone in the first century understood these prophecies to have been fulfilled when preterists say they were,”[2] I am left to speculate how Ice might argue his case if he had placed first-century documents into evidence. It’s hard to interact with phantoms, but I am left with no choice.
In reality, there are only four first-century Christian writings available for study today: The Didache, 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Of the four, only 1 Clement and the Didache allude to Matthew 24. Ice demands that a “preterist has to prove that the early church writings interpreted passages such as Matthew 24:27, 30, 25:31, Acts 1:9–11, Revelation 1:7,[3] and 19:11–21 as fulfilled in A.D. 70.”[4] They may not, as he suggests, prove preterism, but they certainly do not prove dispensationalism. In fact, a study of the documents of the period will show that only selected prophetic texts are quoted, not enough to offer dogmatic support any prophetic position. Even so, Ice assumes that these documents (which he never cites) cannot be used to support preterism because they do not quote certain passages. Are we to assume, following Ice’s logic, that if a writer during this period did not comment on Matthew 1:23, a passage dealing with the virgin birth, that he did not believe in the virgin birth? In the end, Ice’s argument from history is an argument from silence.
Much of the debate over preterism comes down to when a document was written. This is especially true for the book of Revelation.[5] If a document was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in A.D. 70, then any statement about future prophetic events could be a reference to that event. The burden of proof is on the futurist to prove otherwise.
A “Shred of Evidence” from the Didache
The Didache, also known as “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” is probably the oldest surviving extant piece of non-canonical, extra-biblical literature that the church has to study. It claims to have been written by the twelve apostles, but this cannot be proved.[6] While a copy of the full text of the Didache was not discovered until 1873, there are references to it in Clement of Alexandria’s Miscellanies,[7] Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History,[8] and Athanasius’s Festal Letter.[9]
In Didache 16, there are 12 references to Matthew 24–25 (24:4, 10–13, 21, 24, 30, 31, 42, 44, and 25:31). The crucial time text of Matthew 24:34 (“this generation will not pass away”) is not quoted, but a form of Matthew 24:30 is: “The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven” (16.7–8). John F. MacArthur, whose chapter in The End Times Controversy uses the Didache as a defense for futurism, claims that the “document proves that those who actually lived through the events of A.D. 70 regarded Matthew 24:29–31—and the entire Olivet Discourse—as yet-unfulfilled prophecy.”[10] Nothing in the Didache says anything about “living through the events of A.D. 70.” Nothing in the Didache indicates that the destruction of the temple has taken place.
The verses quoted from Matthew 24–25 in Didache 16 obviously refer to future events from the perspective of the author(s). Of course, if the Didache was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then preterists have their “shred of evidence” that Ice says does not exist. MacArthur maintains that “most scholars believe it was written near the close of the first century, most likely after A.D. 80.”[11] He does not offer a source for his assertion. The dating of the Didache, like many of these very early documents, is debatable. But there is good reason to place its composition early, prior to the destruction of the temple.
Didache authority Kurt Niederwimmer, after a thorough study of the document, concludes that “the date of the Didache is a matter of judgment.”[12] In addition to MacArthur’s “most scholars,” none of whom he cites, other scholars believe that the Didache was composed before A.D. 70. In the authoritative work The Apostolic Fathers, we read the following:
A remarkably wide range of dates, extending from before A.D. 50 to the third century or later, has been proposed for this document. . . . The Didache may have been put into its present form as late as 150, though a date considerably closer to the end of the first century seems more plausible. The materials from which it was composed, however, reflect the state of the church at an even earlier time. The relative simplicity of the prayers, the continuing concern to differentiate Christian practice from Jewish rituals (8.1), and in particular the form of church structure—note the twofold structure of bishops and deacons (cf. Phil. 1:1) and the continued existence of traveling apostles and prophets alongside a resident ministry—reflect a time closer to that of Paul and James (who died in the 60s) than Ignatius (who died sometime after 110).[13]
The definitive work on the Didache was written by the French Canadian Jean-Paul Audet who concluded “that it was composed, almost certainly in Antioch , between 50 and 70,”[14] “contemporary with the first gospel writings.”[15] In an earlier edition of The Apostolic Fathers we read a similar conclusion: “In his very thorough commentary J.-P. Audet suggests about A.D. 70, and he is not likely to be off by more than a decade in either direction.”[16] Even liberal scholars, who tend to date all New Testament documents late, acknowledge the evidence for an early date for the Didache. For example, Stephen J. Patterson comments that the trend is to date the document early, “at least by the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, and in the case of Jean-P. Audet, as early as 50–70 C.E.”[17] Andrew Louth writes that many scholars would date the Didache “earlier than the New Testament itself.”[18] Aaron Milavec’s 1000-page study of the Didache also places its composition sometime between A.D. 50 and 70.[19]
So then, if the Didache was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, as many scholars suggest, then its use of Matthew 24–25 to describe events that were yet to take place, including “the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven” (Matt. 24:30), makes perfect sense given a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. Ice has his “shred of evidence.”
But let’s follow MacArthur’s assumption of a post-A.D. 80 date. All that could be said is that the unknown author(s) of the Didache believed that the events of Matthew 24:29–31 refer to as yet-unfulfilled prophecy. When we don’t know who wrote the Didache, when it was written, or where it was written,[20] it is flimsy evidence indeed to claim so much authority for the document. To call these early writers “some of the most astute students of Scripture,” as MacArthur does, shows little familiarity with the entire corpus of their anonymous works. For example, MacArthur quotes Justin Martyr as someone “who was probably born in the first century and certainly knew many believers who had lived through the events of A.D. 70.”[21] Justin was obviously a futurist, but to say that he knew many who lived through the events of the destruction of Jerusalem is highly speculative seeing that he wasn’t born until around A.D. 100 and did
n’t become a Christian until around A.D. 130, sixty years after the Roman siege of Jerusalem. This is another argument from silence. We only know what Justin wrote, and even that’s a matter of interpretation.But is MacArthur willing to accept Justin’s views on the church as the true Israel , a devastatingly anti-dispensational position? In his Dialogue with Trypho (c. 160), Justin argued:
For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.[22]
Justin argued later in the same work that the prophets foretold the removal of Israel and the blessing of another Israel .[23] Again, “As . . . Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race.”[24] Justin explicitly said that the promise of land made to Abraham is fulfilled in the Church’s inheritance of heaven: “along with Abraham we shall inherit the holy land, when we shall receive the inheritance for an endless eternity, being children of Abraham through like faith.”[25] These early writers and their documents are a mixed bag doctrinally.
A “Shred of Evidence” from 1 Clement
Clement (A.D. 30–100), also known as Clemens Romanus to distinguish him from Clement of Alexandria who died in the third century, is noted for his letter to the Corinthians (1 Clement). The letter is commonly dated around A.D. 96, but there is good reason to date it earlier. George Edmundson, in his Bampton Lectures for 1913, writes “that the probable date of the epistle is the early months of 70 A.D.” [26] The strongest argument for an early A.D. 70 date is that Clement states that temple sacrifices were still being offered in Jerusalem. This means the temple, which was destroyed in late A.D. 70, was still standing when Clement wrote his letter:
Not in every place, brethren, are the continual daily sacrifices offered, or the freewill offerings, or the sin offerings or the trespass offerings, but in Jerusalem alone . And even there the offering is not made in every place, but before the sanctuary in the court of the altar; and this too through the high-priest and the aforesaid ministers (41.2).
T. J. Herron, at the Tenth International Conference on Patristic Studies in Oxford , “challenged the traditional date of 95–96, which has been based almost entirely on the testimony of Eusebius. . . . Clement’s use of the present tenses in chapters 40–41 is taken by Herron to signify that the temple in Jerusalem was still standing when Clement wrote.” [27]
To give further support for an early A.D. 70 date is Clement’s comments about what was taking place in “our generation,” specifically the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. Keep in mind that Clement was born around A.D. 30 and would have been forty years old in A.D. 70, making him a part of the “this generation” of Matthew 24:34:
But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience. [28]
Remember Ice’s criterion for establishing preterism in the first century: All we need is “a shred of evidence.” There are a couple of items in this section of Clement’s letter that point to a pre-A.D. 70 fulfillment. As opposed to “ancient examples” to make his case, Clement instead dwells on “the most recent spiritual heroes,” in this case, Peter and Paul who “suffered martyrdom” during the Neronic persecutions of the mid-60s. These are “noble examples furnished in our own generation,” Clement writes.
Jesus predicted in the presence of Peter: “They will deliver you to tribulation, and will kill you. . .” (Matt. 24:9; cf. John 21:18–19). Edmundson summarizes the argument by asking why Peter and Paul are cited as examples of martyrdom “if Clement had just passed through the persecution of Domitian” in the mid 90s? Why didn’t Clement mention well-known Christian martyrs from his own era who suffered? “Is it conceivable that none of their examples should have been brought forward, but only those of an already distant persecution, whose memory more recent events must have tended to throw into the background?” [29]
Of Paul, Clement writes, “After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west.” It was Paul’s plan to go to Spain (Rom. 14:24 , 28). Compare this statement to what Jesus says in Matthew 24:14, a verse that LaHaye and Ice maintain has not been fulfilled.
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.”
Clement, following the language of Jesus and Paul, states that the “whole world” (kosmos) had been “taught righteousness.” Paul writes to the Romans that their “faith is being proclaimed throughout the whole world [kosmos]” (Rom. 1:8). At the end of Romans we read that the gospel “has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith” ( 16:26 ). To the Colossians we learn that, according to Paul, the gospel “was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister” (Col. 1:23; cf. 1:6 [kosmos]).
A “Shred of Evidence” from James the Brother of Jesus
In Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, written in the fourth century, we learn of an incident that led to the martyrdom of James the brother of Jesus. The original story comes from the second-century historian Hegesippus who wrote his notes on the history of the church between A.D. 165 and 175. As the story is told, when James was called on by a group of Scribes and Pharisees to establish what they believed was the truth of the claimed Messiahship of Jesus, Hegesippus reports James as stating that Jesus “is about to come on the clouds of heaven.” [30] James continued: “Why do you ask me respecting Jesus the Son of Man? He is now sitting in the heavens, on the right hand of great Power, and is about to come on the clouds of heaven.” [31]
The Greek word mellow, “about to,” “communicates a sense of immediacy.” [32] “If the author had not wished to stress the immediate aspect of Christ’s coming, he could still have stressed the certainty of Christ’s coming with erketai, thereby omitting the immediate factor.” [33] After hearing James’ obvious allusion to Matthew 26:64, the officials of the temple cast him down from the “wing of the temple” and later stoned him and beat out his brains with a club. “Immediately after this,” Hegesippus writes, “Vespasian invaded and took Judea .” [34] James the brother of Jesus believed that Jesus’ coming was “about to take place.” Hegessipus identifies the coming of Jesus “on the clouds of heaven” with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.
Conclusion
Ice and LaHaye get off on the wrong foot in their analysis of preterism. The historical argument is a death blow, or to use Mark Hitchcock’s metaphor from his chapter on the
dating of Revelation, “A Stake in the Heart” to their brand of futurism. The earliest historical sources, the Didache, 1 Clement, and the testimony of James, the brother of Jesus, demonstrate that preterism’s history is a first-century history.For WJ
WorshippingJesus said:
Quote This should concern you Jack since Preterism didn’t appear until the 1500s! Keith.
Read OP here.Jack
Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 01 2009,05:21) For WJ WorshippingJesus said:
Quote This should concern you Jack since Preterism didn’t appear until the 1500s! Keith.
Read OP here.Jack
JackFor short.
The above proves nothing IMO.
Why? Because, there is no direct quote by any Church Father that Jesus has already come in the clouds.
All you have is shreds of evidence that point to his soon arrival!
It was believed by the Apostles that Jesus was coming in their generation just as it was believed by the 12 that Jesus had come to restore the Kingdom back to Israel.
Peter once again makes it known that God is “longsuffering” and to him a day is a 1000 years and a 1000 years a day.
They believed the day was soon but Jesus had clearly told them that the times and the seasons was in the Fathers power!
Paul who said “rest with us” died! Peter also died! and John who lived after 70 Ad did not miss his coming in the clouds because he never came. He came on Penticost when he poured out his Spirit on all flesh and the Spiritual Kingdom took residence in the believers heart, but that is not his literal physical coming in which the heavens and the earth will melt with fervent heat and the heavens and the earth will be folded up like a garment.
WJ
WorshippingJesus said:
Quote All you have is shreds of evidence that point to his soon arrival! It was believed by the Apostles that Jesus was coming in their generation….
Keith,
Thank you for admitting that the apostles believed that Christ would come in their own generation. Not only did they believe it but they prophesied it. Do you side with C.S. Lewis who said that they prophesied falsely? Lewis said that they prophesied falsely and that they got their false notions fom Jesus Himself.You gave an admission here that is very damaging to futurism.
thinker
WorshippingJesus said:
Quote Peter once again makes it known that God is “longsuffering” and to him a day is a 1000 years and a 1000 years a day. Keith,
The futurists misapply Peter's statement. And they do not apply this statement consistently. Peter said that a thousand years is as one day. This means that I can say that there is no literal millennium because a thousand years is as one day. The sword cuts both ways.Peter was replying to the scoffers. He was NOT saying that that God equivocates when He speaks to His people about the timing of events. God told Ezekiel to warn Israel about postponing the fulfillment of the visions he received.
Quote Ezekiel 12:21-28 (New King James Version) 21 And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 22 “Son of man, what is this proverb that you people have about the land of Israel, which says, ‘The days are prolonged, and every vision fails’? 23 Tell them therefore, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “I will lay this proverb to rest, and they shall no more use it as a proverb in Israel.” But say to them, “The days are AT HAND, and the fulfillment of every vision. 24 For no more shall there be any false vision or flattering divination within the house of Israel. 25 For I am the LORD. I speak, and the word which I speak will come to pass; it will no more be postponed; for IN YOUR DAYS, O rebellious house, I will say the word and perform it,” says the Lord GOD.’”
26 Again the word of the LORD came to me, saying, 27 “Son of man, look, the house of Israel is saying, ‘The vision that he sees is for many days from now, and he prophesies of times far off.’ 28 Therefore say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “None of My words will be postponed any more, but the word which I speak will be done,” says the Lord GOD.’Yet the futurists rob Ezekiel's generation of fulfillment and shift it far off in the nebulus future. One day is as a thousnad years TO THE LORD but not to us. When God tells His people He will do something within a certain time frame it must be done within that time frame.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Nov. 05 2009,11:27) WorshippingJesus said: Quote All you have is shreds of evidence that point to his soon arrival! It was believed by the Apostles that Jesus was coming in their generation….
Keith,
Thank you for admitting that the apostles believed that Christ would come in their own generation. Not only did they believe it but they prophesied it. Do you side with C.S. Lewis who said that they prophesied falsely? Lewis said that they prophesied falsely and that they got their false notions fom Jesus Himself.You gave an admission here that is very damaging to futurism.
thinker
JackNo admission at all.
The Apostles didn't prophesy a time or season did they?
If they did then they disobeyed the Lords own counsel.
Peter said that the Lord was long suffering and that a 1000 years is as a day to the lord.
The problem that the Preterits have is they have no recorded testimony of any of the Apostles, (including John that lived after 70AD) saying that Jesus had already returned.
All you have is they believed as we do today that the time was near.
Ignatius, Polycarp, Eusibus, and many other church Fathers never mention that he has returned.
The burden of proof is on you that he has returned, bro.
WJ
Worshippingjesus said:
Quote The Apostles didn't prophesy a time or season did they? If they did then they disobeyed the Lords own counsel.
Keith,
On the contrary. Paul said to Felix that the judgment was “about to happen.”“…and he reasoning concerning righteousness, and temperance, and the judgment that is about to be, Felix, having become afraid, answered, `For the present be going, and having got time, I will call for thee;' Acts 24:25 YLT
Paul used the Greek “mello” which necessarily indicates the near future. It means “about to be.” The prophet Agabus used this word to indicate the famine which was about to come upon the world.
Quote 27And in those days there came from Jerusalem prophets to Antioch, 28and one of them, by name Agabus, having stood up, did signify through the Spirit a great dearth is about to be throughout all the world — which also came to pass in the time of Claudius Caesar — Acts 24:25 YLT
Note that Agabus said that the famine was “about to be” and Luke says that it “came to pass.”
This is also the word Jesus used of the immediacy of His betrayal.
Quote `Lay ye to your ears these words, for the Son of Man is about to be delivered up to the hands of men.' Paul clearly put the judgment in the immediate future which by implication puts the coming of Christ in the immediate future. Jesus simply meant that the disciples did not know the exact occasion of His return. The translation “season” is questionable.
thinker
Hi TT,
Futurism is sunk anyway.
Otherwise your hopes have died too.
The door to the kingdom shuts when the bridegroom returnsQuote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 06 2009,05:19) Hi TT,
Futurism is sunk anyway.
Otherwise your hopes have died too.
The door to the kingdom shuts when the bridegroom returns
No Nick,
The door to that generation of Jews shut when the bridegroom returned. The statement to which you refer was against Israel alone. The shutting of the door to them meant its opening to all men. This is what the Lord taught.thinker
Hi TT,
You seem to have your own special glasses to wear when you read scripture applying your own timelines to this and allegorising that to make the ship seem to float.But you should not apply your own interpretations[2Peter 1] but let scripture speak.
Hey Wj: Jesus said where two or three are gathered in my name there I am in their midst! Where is Jesus?
I you tell someone that all they need to do to have a personal relationship with Jesus is accept him in their heart. Where is Jesus?
Can you personally pray or speak to Jesus right now where you stand? Where is Jesus.
If Jesus and God have come and made their abode within us, where is Jesus?
If we can walk with him and talk with him and share life with him where ever we are, then Jesus is here, now, forever ruling his love out to the entire world because it is better that he be spirit within all at the same time than in one physical body in Jerusalem.
I say Jesus is here now! Spiritually and physically! Bless you, TKHi TK,
Where does scripture say we need to accept Jesus in our heart and that brings us into relationship with him??Quote (Tim Kraft @ Nov. 06 2009,10:15) Hey Wj: Jesus said where two or three are gathered in my name there I am in their midst! Where is Jesus?
I you tell someone that all they need to do to have a personal relationship with Jesus is accept him in their heart. Where is Jesus?
Can you personally pray or speak to Jesus right now where you stand? Where is Jesus.
If Jesus and God have come and made their abode within us, where is Jesus?
If we can walk with him and talk with him and share life with him where ever we are, then Jesus is here, now, forever ruling his love out to the entire world because it is better that he be spirit within all at the same time than in one physical body in Jerusalem.
I say Jesus is here now! Spiritually and physically! Bless you, TK
Your last sentence says that Jesus is here both physical and Spiritual.
But where is the prove? I believe that Jesus is still seated next to the Father on His Throne. Since we have God's Holy Spirit we can have a personal Relationship with Jesus. He is our Mediator to go to the Throne and ask the Father in His name. And if it is the Fathers will to give it to us, He will.
IMO we will have to wait yet, to be physical with Jesus. And hopefully we are found worthy to do that. IMO the Saints that died for Christ by the hands of the Romans first, and then by the Catholic Church, will be worthy to be with Jesus in the Millennium.
Peace and Love Irene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
