|
Biblical Minimalism and
"The History of Preterism"
Searching for "Shreds of
Preterist Evidence"
An Answer to Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice, The End Times Controversy
Part 2
(Click here for Part
1)
By Gary DeMar (of American
Vision)
|
Thomas Ice does not understand why so little
(he says "zero") is said about the destruction of
Jerusalem in first-century documents. He wants to know why
the temple's predicted destruction was not used by the early
church to prove the Christian case against Judaism and vindicate
Jesus as a prophet. As has already been pointed out, there
is very little in terms of published documents that has survived
through the centuries. In addition, prior to the destruction
of the temple in A.D. 70, "Jewish Christianity, as well
as Gentile, had by this time established its own identity.
. . . During the war and in the ensuing three or four decades
. . . the separation of the Jewish Christians from Judaism
became complete."1 The earliest Christian documents were
written to and for Christians who had some knowledge of the
gospel through preaching and teaching (2 Thess. 2:5), letters
that have been lost (1 Cor. 5:9), and/or copies of what we
know today as the New Testament. Why repeat what was common
knowledge? There’s a lot that these documents do not
mention.
G. W. H. Lampe argues that "the main
principles of the Christian position had been established
against Judaism well before the first Jewish war ended,"
that "the decisive event which vindicated Jesus as the
Christ, the Lord, the Son of God, was not the destruction
of his enemies but his resurrection from the dead and his
exaltation to God's right hand."2 The New Testament focus
was off the earthly Jerusalem and its temple and on the "heavenly
Jerusalem" (Heb. 12:22) and the temple above (Rev. 21:22).
For forty years, from A.D. 30 to 70, the resurrection of Jesus
was the center of controversy. Paul was on trial for the "resurrection
of the dead" (Acts 23:6; 24:21). With the passage of
forty years, the temple was no longer relevant. Lampe continues
his argument:
From the letter to the Galatians Christians
had learned that they were children of the Jerusalem which
is ‘above’, the community which, because it enjoys
the freedom of the Spirit, stands over against its antithesis,
the earthly Jerusalem which is in servitude to the Law (Gal.
4:25–6, cp. Phil. 3:20). The foundations, once again,
had been laid for the later development of the theme of the
‘heavenly Jerusalem’ in Hebrews (12:22), the ‘new’
or ‘holy’ Jerusalem which, according to the Revelation
of John (3:12; 20:9; 21:2), is to descend from heaven and
in which the presence of God will not be focussed or localised
in any temple, and for the reinterpretation by the Fourth
Evangelist of the idea of a holy place, established by God
for worship, in terms of community which worships in the Spirit
and truth (John 4:21–3). Paul had already taught that
the holy temple of God, indwelt by the Spirit, is the congregation
of Christian people, the temple of the living God in which
his presence assures the fulfilment of the covenant promise,
‘I will be their God and they shall be my people’
(I Cor. 3:16–17; 2 Cor. 6:16); and Paul had also shown
that in a secondary sense each individual believer is the
temple of the indwelling Holy Spirit (I Cor. 6:19). In this
ark of Christian theology, too, the foundations of later developments,
such as the teaching of Eph. 2:21 and I Pet. 2:5, and, through
a combination of the themes of the ‘temple of the Spirit’
and the ‘body of Christ’, of John 2:21, had been
firmly laid in the years before the Jewish war.3
Ice gives the false impression to his readers
that there is a large body of written material on the subject
of eschatology composed by first-century writers. It's odd
that Ice never quotes from one of these first-century documents
to prove his point. In fact, he never tells us what first-century
documents he has in mind or their subject matter. Of course,
the reason Ice doesn't quote these documents is that they
do not teach what he needs them to teach.
Contrary to what Ice claims, some dispensationalists
are honest enough to admit that it's "not an easy task
to piece together a picture of what early Christians thought
about the end times. . . . [since] our sources for their thought
in this area are relatively limited."4 In reality, there
are only four first-century 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 1:7,5
and 19:11–21 as fulfilled in A.D. 70."6 Ice doesn't
offer a shred a evidence that these passages were used by
first-century writers to prove his unique brand of futurism.
In fact, a study of the documents of the period will show
that none of them quotes Matthew 25:31, Acts 1:9–11,
or Revelation 1:7 and 19:11–21. In the end, Ice's argument
from history is an argument from silence. "As every good
student of history knows, it is wrong to suppose that what
is unmentioned or undetailed did not exist."7
What follows is an analysis of first-century
writings that address the topic of eschatology. Ice does not
deal with any them in his chapter on "The History of
Preterism."
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 literature. It claims to have
been written by the twelve apostles, but this cannot be proved.
While the full text of the Didache was not rediscovered until
1873, there are references to it in Clement of Alexandria's
Miscellanies,8 Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History,9 and
Athanasius’s Festal Letter.10 The Didache quotes five
verses from Matthew 24 (4, 10, 11, 24, 30). The crucial time
text of Matthew 24:34 ("this generation will not pass
away") is not quoted, but 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). The verses are obviously used to describe
future events. 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. Sure enough, a number of 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).11
The definitive work on the Didache was written
by the French Canadian J.-P. Audet who concluded "that
it was composed, almost certainly in Antioch, between 50 and
70."12 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."13
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."14 So then, if the Didache was written prior to
the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, as a number of scholars
suggest, then its use of Matthew 24 to describe events that
were yet to take place, including the coming of the Son of
Man on the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 24:30), makes perfect
sense given a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.
Ice has his "shred of evidence."
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 lead 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. When James was called on by a group of Scribes
and Pharisees to set the 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."15 Hegesippus is quoting what "James
the Just" said to a group of Scribes and Pharisees who
believed that people were "led astray after Jesus was
crucified": "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."16
The Greek word mellow, "about to,"
"communicates a sense of immediacy."17 "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."18 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."19
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.
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.
John A. T. Robinson is sympathetic to George Edmundson's evidence
that 1 Clement "was written in the early months of 70."20
The strongest argument for an early A.D. 70 date is that Clement
states that temple sacrifices were being offered in Jerusalem
at the time of its writing. 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).
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 (5.1–17. Emphasis added.).
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 in the 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).
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]).
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, the testimony of James, the brother
of Jesus, and 1 Clement demonstrate that preterism's history
is a first-century history.
As time and opportunity permit, I will deal
with Ice's other claims on the history of preterism even though
they are rather inconsequential to the debate. Ice leaves
out so many outstanding preterists that one wonders if he's
trying to hide something from his mostly dispensational audience.
Notes
1. G. W. H. Lampe, "A.D. 70 in Christian
Reflection," Jesus and the Politics of His Day, eds.
Ernst Bammel and C. F. D Moule (London: Cambridge University
Press, 1984), 156.
2. Lampe, "A.D. 70 in Christian Reflection,"
157.
3. Lampe, "A.D. 70 in Christian Reflection,"
157–158.
4. John D. Hannah, Our Legacy: The History
of Christian Doctrine (Colorado Springs, CO: NAVPRESS, 2001),
305. Hannah is department chairman and distinguished professor
of historical theology at Dallas Theological Seminary. Hannah
still popularizes the canard that "the Fathers embraced
a premillennial understanding" of future events (306).
Apparently, Hannah is not aware of Boyd's study of the period.
Contrary to Hannah's assertions on premillennialism, Louis
Berkhof concludes after his study of the period, "But
it is not correct to say, as Premillenarians do, that it
was generally accepted in the first three centuries. The
truth of the matter is that the adherents of this doctrine
were a rather limited number. There is no trace of it in
Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Tatian, Athenagoras,
Theophilus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Dionysius, and
other important Church Fathers." (Louis Berkhof, The
History of Christian Doctrines [London: The Banner of Truth
Trust, (1937) 1969], 262).
5. LaHaye and Ice, End Times Controversy,
39. Revelation 1:7 is only quoted three times in the entire
ante-Nicene corpus, none from first-century writings.
6. LaHaye and Ice, End Times Controversy,
39.
7. Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside
the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence
(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 14.
8. (Miscellanies, 1, 20, 100).
9. (Ecclesiastical History, 3.25).
10. (Festal Letter, 39).
11. Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic
Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, rev. ed.
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, [1992] 1999), 247–248.
Emphasis added.
12. John A. T. Robinson, Redating the
New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976), 323.
13. Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Apostolic
Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their Writings,
2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992), 247.
Holmes references J.-P. Audet, La DidachP: Instructions
des Apôtres (Paris: Gabalda, 1958), 187–206.
14. Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of
Thomas and Jesus: Thomas Christianity, Social Radicalism,
and the Quest of the Historical Jesus (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge
Press, 1993), 173.
15. Boyd, A Dispensational Premillennial
Analysis of the Eschatology of the Post-Apostolic Fathers,
288. Boyd cites Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.33.
The correct reference is 2:22. The account is also told
in William Cave, Antiquitates Apostolicae: Or, the History
of the Lives, Acts and Martyrdoms of the Holy Apostles or
Our Saviour, and the Two Evangelists, SS. Mark and Luke,
2 vols. in 1 (London: R. Norton for R. Royston, Bookseller
to His most Sacred Majesty, 1677), 1:193
16. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History,
"The martyrdom of James, who was called the brother
of the Lord," 2.23 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1958),
77-78. The same account can be found in volume 8 of the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, 763.
17. Boyd, 28.
18. Boyd, 28. See A Greek-English Lexicon
of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature,
trans. William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 4th rev.
ed., s.v. mellow, I.c.a., 502. This understanding of mellow
refutes Ice's claim time words are used "as qualitative
indicators (not chronological indicators) describing how
Christ will return." (End Times Controversy, 35).
19. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History,
"The martyrdom of James, who was called the brother
of the Lord," 2.23 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1958),
77-78. The same account can be found in volume 8 of the
Ante-Nicene Fathers, 763.
20. Robinson, Redating the New Testament,
329.
|
