"So Where's Your Proof?"
A Response by Dr. Birks to a letter he recently received...

By Dr. Kelly Nelson Birks

The Questioner asks...

Dear Dr. Birks,

I've just read Hill's chapter in Mathison's work ("When Shall These Things Be?"), and having conversed with "another Preterist author" (after reading his work on the rapture in addition to your brief online review of his work), am considering adopting his 'literal Rapture' hypothesis. So, my question is basically the same as his and Hill's: why weren't people circa 70 AD, if not jumping up and down with joy, at least aware of the Parousia when it happened? I'm not so interested in a refutation of his Rapture theory as much as an alternate, viable response to the "documentation problem".

Thanks for your response on what is a troubling issue for me.

-Bob

Answer from Dr. Birks...

Hi Bob!

Nice to hear from you sir.

Ah, the "documentation problem." I have always wondered why some Christians find such a thing necessary to be addressed. Personally, I could care less because i am convinced by the scriptures alone and that is sufficient for me. But I think folks who are not so convinced need "something" in addition to that. Now, don't take me wrong on this. I'm not saying that you or any other Christian believes the bible to be insufficient relative to what it says. But i do think that we end up falling into a very subtle trap when we feel that in order to receive something to be true biblically, that it must be "historically corroborated" by others outside of the biblical text. This is Interesting regarding the AD 70 parousia because...

-The fact that God personally created the universe cannot be corroborated "historically," but we believe it because scripture says so. (No one was around to see Him do it, so why do Christians take THAT on faith but not the first century parousia of Christ?)

-There exists no "historical" documentation as provided by those "outside" of the scriptures that verifies that Christ was "seen" rising from the dead and actually "coming out" of the tomb. And yet, we take that on faith, and we take on faith the testimony in scripture of those who saw him post- crucifixion.

-No one "saw" Jonah come out of the whale's belly and documented it, and yet....

Keep in mind to that the so called lack of historical documentation works in two directions: On the one hand you ask "why weren't some at least aware of the parousia when it happened?"...But who's to say they weren't aware that it DID happen and it just did not get recorded? Or, it did get recorded but it has not survived in antiquity. (Isn't that at least a "possibility"? In a court of law it's called "reasonable doubt.") As opposed to the unbelieving idea that if it did not get recorded, then this "proves" that it did not happen!?! The last being the classic "argument from silence" and a true double edged sword that cuts both ways. After all, God promised to preserve His Word, but there exists no promise to preserve any non-inspired historical documentation. Actually, there exists more inspired "proof" (the Bible) that the Parousia did happen right on time at the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, right up until the mid-second century. Up until that time, the only real writings that spoke of the timing of the Parousia was the scriptures themselves. There was no "real" competing theorem on the subject until the alternative "futurist" view (mid-second century) of Christ coming at the end of history which began to be postulated by the writings of Justin Martyr, and the authors of 2nd Clement and The Shepherd of Hermas. (The so-called "Postponement Theory.") Please see J.N.D. Kelly's book "Early Christian Doctrines," Pg.'s 459-61... Aland's "A History of Christianity," Vol. 1, Pg.'s 87-102...and Torrance's "The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church," Pg.'s 222-300.

The funny thing about the so called "no documentation problem" as to the parousia of AD 70 is that: (1) It survives on simply not believing the scriptural testimony as to it's veracity that it would occur at the fall of Jerusalem (Olivette Discourse, et al). (2) It makes a slave of the veracity and sufficiency of the scriptures to non- inspired sources. (3) It exists on the "Thomas Philosophy" of Christianity: "Unless I 'see with my eyes,' and put my fingers into his wounds, I will not, not believe." (Double negative in Greek). So the Christian who says "unless I can verify the parousia of AD 70 with something that is tangible (like an independent source verification), then I will not, not believe." But what did Jesus say to Thomas on the night he appeared to him?..."Thomas, you believe because you have SEEN. But blessed are those who have NOT SEEN and yet have believed." (John 20:29! ) Clearly, the greater blessing is available for those who believe in the scriptural testimony of the coming of Christ at AD 70 alone, without any need for further outside verification. So Thomas missed the blessing didn't he? And so do unbelievers in Christ's specifically prophesied AD 70 Parousia. (Why do you think it is that they simply cannot grasp the significance of the AD 70 parousia? Approaching the scriptures and not believing what they say, cuts one off from further revelation therein.- "Therefore take care HOW you listen; for whoever has - because they have listened - to him shall more be given- further understanding- and whoever does not have, even what he thinks he has shall be taken away from him." - Lk 8:18... Mk. 8:38, Mk. 4:24-25!) I fear that Christians who do not believe in the veracity of Christ's own teaching concerning his AD 70 parousia must also join Thomas in his unbelief as to his own failure to believe what others, outside of an independent corroboration, have testified to. When it comes to the AD 70 parousia, men who doubt it or say "no" to it are no better than Thomas was.

In Lk. 17:20-21, Jesus said that when the kingdom of God appeared, it would not be "seen" with the physical earthly eye. He said, "The kingdom of God does not come with an outward (visible) sign. (So much for the 6 foot tall Carpenter being "seen" in the sky... You can't historically "document" what was not seen!) Neither will men say, 'It's over here, or over there,' for behold, the kingdom of God is among you."...The kingdom of God IS among you, whether you see it or not. Do we as "believers", BELIEVE that or not, and if not, how can we rightly refer to ourselves as "believers"? Same thing holds true to the AD 70 parousia. Are we "bible believers" period, or believers in the bible ONLY if it can be independently corroborated through a non-inspired source? The fact is that those who doubt an AD 70 parousia are exercising a secularist mindset that is devoid of the influence of the Holy Spirit speaking in the scriptures.

If historical/ physical corroboration is what some Christians want as to whether they are going to believe in Christ's teaching of the AD 70 parousia and a physical rapture is what is desired by some Preterists in order to try and deal with the "lack of documentation problem," (there was no one around to document the AD 70 parousia because they were all gone!) keep in mind that the literal rapture theory ALSO LACKS any outside documentation to substantiate it! So, if one is tempted to head in that direction because they cannot find historical documentation for an AD 70 parousia, keep in mind that the rapture proposition of AD 66-70 equally suffers from the exact same thing (the lack of historical corroboration)!  So, it is no real option is it?

I just received Mathison's book in the mail, and as soon as i finish reading the books that i have set up right before it, I'll tackle it and write either a rejoinder book or at least a response article to it.

Ok, Lord bless you huge brother!

Dr. Birks
 

---

What do YOU think ?

Send an email with your comments to todd @ preteristarchive.com
Be sure to include the article name.  They will be posted shortly upon receipt
 

---

Date: 07 Aug 2007
Time: 11:28:04

Comments:

well, i see the preterist truth in the 70ad parousia " christ's second coming" to rapture the saints and i see and agree with many of the points addressed in Dr.Birks response to Bob's inquiry.
But i see the position as the temporal vs. the spiritual conclusion ever present on Gods plan.

i.e i see the differnces between the kingom as referred to by Birks in luke 17:20-21 mainly as the 21st verse implies "the kingdom of God is within you" which brings in a universal kingdom, a spiritual kingdom not a temporal one, and surely christ surely isnt talking about the raptured saints of circ.70ad, which i "believe" did happen even without historical documentation from a secular origin. my point is i see the rapture in christs words not in luke 17;20-21 but in another or many other places in scripture-mainly mark 14:62 as christ said " hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power and coming in the clouds of heaven" also found in matt.26:63-64. the word "coming" would mean what it means for 70 ad.

so there is a clear difference in the coming of the kingdom vs. the coming of the son of man, for christ done came back down and went back up the second time but the kingdoms power of grace is still in effect today!
so lets not confuse the rapture with the eternal kingdom which is in you, if they were the same thing, then christ wouldnt need to come back to rapture anyone he would already be in/with the believer.

luke mckee