Gary DeMar shows the failure of John Murray's "Historical Idealism"
(Contrasted with Modern Idealism - the native hermeneutic of PreteristArchive.com. MI is to Historical Idealism as HP is to HyP.)
Relations and the Book of Revelation By
(Futurist: 1979-1996; Full Preterist: 1996-2006; Idealist: 2006-Eis tous aionios ton aionion)
Preterist-Idealism: The Wintery Flight (1876) "All who believed in Jesus Christ remembered what He had said, and left their homes hurriedly, and fled to a little town called Pella, on the other side of the river Jordan. Not one Christian perished in the siege of Jerusalem. The Jews who had refused to believe in Jesus, trusted to their strong walls, and their weapons, and stayed in the city.. Now, my children, I have not told you these things only as a chapter of history. I want you to learn some very important lessons from these words. For us there is an escape, a flight, to be undertaken, and for us there is a place of refuge like Pella. "
When Our House is Torn Down
By Marcus Booker
"the law is done away on an individual level (not to the exclusion of the historical passing away of the Law of Moses). What I am presenting in this article is a more systematic development and exploration of this idea. "
Some Preterists, dare I
say hyper-Preterists, so over-emphasize the historical completion of
eschatological events that they fail to acknowledge individual and
recapitulatory eschatology (a concept that I will explain herein). These
Preterists deny Idealism and, with it, the power of Preterism. What these
Preterists say, in effect, is that on every possible level, sin, death and
the law are done away. What I hope to show plainly is that the same concepts
that applied in the dissolution of the law apply uniquely toward individuals
What you will see drawn out of the text is that the following concepts (normally understood as one-time eschatological events) recur anew in the lives of individuals:
Before continuing further, I must say that my old approach disallowed diverse usage in the text of the Scriptures. Or, at the very least, I was inconsistent is recognizing diverse applications. In the effort to be consistent and systematic, I actually became reductionistic. So too do I think that many of my brethren have shared in my folly.
For instance, I was trying to assume that any contrast of "this age...age to come" spoke of the dispensational difference between the historical law of Moses and the inception of the grace and truth in Jesus Christ. In short, I assumed that the "this age...that age" distinction was the same everywhere Christ and the apostles employed it.
So too did I try to reconcile seemingly divergent ideas concerning the "kingdom." One seemed mystical, operating inside the individual. Another seemed historical and outwardly manifest. My effort was to square these things under one "consistent" understanding.
In some areas it was simply too strained to attempt this reconciliation. These "anomalies" opened the door for a better explanation. One of these door-openers, which I had simply held as an anomaly, was in 2 Corinthians 5. It is #1 on my above list.
In this text is a clear contrast, in certain language, between 1. an earthly tent, a house which is torn down and 2. a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
Of course, the historically-minded Preterist (who doesn't also regard the theoretical and idealistic) and who hadn't seen this text before would immediately jump and say that this passage must refer to a.d. 70. They would also say, "It is fulfilled." "The temple has been torn down, never to happen again," is what they would cry.
Yet it is plain that Paul is speaking of "the body" as the house that is torn down. Jesus also spoke of his body as a temple that was destroyed but made to rise again. Also, Paul elsewhere calls the individual's body a "temple of the holy spirit" (1 Cor 6:19).
In this 2 Cor 5 text, Paul says also, "For indeed, while we are in this tent we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life." This quote touches upon my #8 above.
The point that Preterists maintain is that death has already been destroyed, the victory already won. Maybe so! Indeed, maybe so on a visible historical scale in reference to the Mosaic economy and the Temple of Herod. Yet maybe not so quite yet with reference to the individual.
Judgment too is something that some might claim is entirely past (#2). Yet even on the individual level is there an eschatological judgment. The Scriptures say that "it is appointed unto men once to die and after this judgment" (Heb 9:27) So, judgment not only came at the culmination of the law of Moses but at the end of life, after men die. Of course, Christians have always maintained this doctrine.
Before continuing down the list, I might mention that this fusion of Preterism and Idealism would help make sense of many things. One is the "already...not yet" language or instances where something, in one text, is said to be done or past and, in another place, is left to the future.
2 Tim 1:10 says that Christ "abolished death," yet Revelation looked at that abolishment as future saying "there will no longer be any death." Salvation, the kingdom, and other concepts also fall under this umbrella.
Making matters even more complicated, these concepts aren't only relegated even to two things; they don't just apply to a.d. 70 and to the individual at his death. Truly, we need to consult the immediate context of a passage to see how the language is employed.
But...on with the list.
Salvation is #3. It was something, in one sense, attached to the events of a.d. 70 ("salvation is nearer than when we first believed."). Yet in many (if not most) places, it is individual and personal. Should I say, like the evangelical, that Christ must be our "personal Savior"? It's not the language I am accustomed to using because I think corporately and historically. Yet I will henceforth not shy away from its use.
The next matter that is historically eschatological but also individually applicable is the kingdom (#4). A.D. 70 may be regarded in many ways as the ushering in of the kingdom. The kingdom of this world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ. Christ, in his judgment, comes in his kingdom. Yet the kingdom comes privately and personally as well. It is more than eschatological. Christ, of course, speaks of the difficulty by which men enter the kingdom of heaven. He does not mean the post-a.d. 70 world. He also says, "The kingdom of God comes not with observation, nor will they say 'behold, here' or 'there, behold', for the kingdom of God is within you." Most of Christ's talk about the kingdom concerns personal righteousness and trust in the power and working of God. The coming is only a particular manifestation and outworking of the kingdom.
Regarding resurrection (#5), Paul speaks of it individually in writing the Philippians. He speaks of "being conformed to his death; in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead. Not that I have already obtained it or have already become perfect, but I press on...." Hereafter, he says that the Lord Jesus Christ "will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of his glory." Whether Paul speaks here of a transformation in this life or afterwards is a question for debate. In other places, Paul speaks of regeneration in terms of a death and resurrection. Yet it would be odd for Paul to speak of himself as unregenerate, though he does speak of himself as dying daily (presumably to rise again each day to a better resurrection). Yet another possibility is that the contrast between "the body of our humble state" and "the blody of his glory" parallels Paul's contrast in 2 Cor 5, which was between the earthly tent in which we groan (our present body) and the heavenly dwelling (our body of resurrection).
Another area in which eschatological language may not entirely be confined to pre/post a.d. 70 is in the "this age...that age" distinction (#6). I will not spoon-feed on this point, partly because I have yet to fully discern which passages speak in which sense. Nevertheless, it seems that some places might contrast the two dispensations and other places contrast earthly life and the hereafter. I am not certain that it makes sense to say, with pre/post a.d. 70 in mind, that blasphemy of the holy spirit will not be forgiven in this age or in the age to come.
Incidentally, comprehensive grace folks could not allow it to refer to pre/post a.d. 70 lest they say that even post-a.d. 70 (i.e. the age to come) there are sins not forgiven. Yet CG also cannot accept idealism and the individual recapitulation of the Preterist story in the lives of the saints lest it mean that individuals too might face the twofold possibility of inheriting eternal life or corruption and the lake burning with fire. Indeed, the same test that applied to those in the first century, to accept or to reject, would be revisited in us individually. We know that "our temple" will be torn down. We know that judgment will coincide with this event. Will we receive salvation? Will our temple's destruction, because we serve it (i.e. the flesh) bring shame and abhorrence to us? Or will it bring an even greater glory, a temple not made with hands, because we regard the spirit? Will death be swallowed up in life? Will we live again in our bodies the Preterist story? If so, there are two sides to that story, one of shame and one of glory. Let us individually win the victory that was won in a.d. 70!
Now, my article is not about comprehensive grace. A response to it will be forthcoming. In the meantime, I will continue.
The distinction between old and new is #7. We already know the historical change-over from the old and new covenants. Yet this same language applies individually, especially in Paul's epistles. He speaks of putting off the old man and putting on the new. In any case, it is inadequate to relegate all old/new distinctions to pre/post a.d. 70. The outworking is individual too. For this reason, there is still "old" today.
I have already spoken about #8 during my discussion of #1. Heaven is last, #9. Many Christians have spoken of "heaven" as the hereafter (in particular for the rigthteous). Preterists note that heaven is now, that the imagery of heaven speaks of present spiritual realities. Nevertheless, I wonder if the two are not mutually exclusive. Heaven is a real place. Angels and saints do dwell there. So the question then becomes whether it is merely a metaphor of spiritual truths that had come to light in Christ. I would say that the answer to that question is no. So, the traditional view of heaven is correct after all. At least, it tells part of the story. Preterists tell the rest.
Thinking about the above, I cannot help but have a renewed excitement. We do actually get to live the Preterist story! Wow! We can also become mini-futurists. There is still an earthly house to be torn down! There is still a future expectation of judgment! There is yet a resurrection to attain. I am overwhelmed with the thought of it.
This understanding also makes sense to me in light of a concept with which I wrestled in studying the law and prophets. The concept with the breaking (and keeping) of the covenant. Indeed, most places spoke of the covenant in entirely corporate or national terms. It was kept and it was broken on a national level, not merely individually. For instance, when Judah was in captivity, it was not as if Daniel's individual faithfulness kept him personally out of exile. No! The whole nation went into captivity regardless of personal faithfulness.
Nevertheless, there are also places that speak of individual keeping and breaking of the covenant. Circumcision is an example. The man (i.e. individual) not circumcised has broken God's covenant. Also, the psalms speak of faithfulness with respect to the covenant individually in places.
It would seem as if the same idea is at work with this historical/preteristic v. theoretical/idealistic understanding. The events of a.d. 70 seem to have been national in scale. So too was the atonement national. Yet there is still the scale of the individual at work. Also, there are sacrifices other than the atonement. The atonement never made subsequent sacrifices unnecessary.
One last notion that I will add here at the end, for further explanation, is the concept of the law. Indeed, I usually think of the law, historically (in terms of the law of Moses, which was caused to pass away). Yet I wonder if Paul spoke more individually when he mentioned the law that worked in our members and the law of sin and death. He may have idealized the law of Moses and took it out of history and into our flesh. If so, the Reformed Churches of centuries past and federal theology, with its "covenant of works" in Adam and "covenant of grace in Christ," may be more correct than I had thought. This system holds a development of Luther's Law/Gospel distinction, which posits the two against one another not historically but in idealistic terms in the lives of individuals. Luther's "law" is the Calvinistic (though not from Calvin himself) "covenant of works." Luther's "gospel" is the Reformed "covenant of grace."
My intention in this article was not to vindicate Reformed theology. Actually, at this point in the article, I am thinking aloud. In any case, there is much more to consider in this matter. Idealism may be compatible with Preterism. Particular history may be compatible with general theory/ideals/principles. Themes may be recurring. If anything makes Preterism relevant and compelling for today, this teaching is it.
What do YOU think ?
This is a very good thought provoking article. Since becoming a Preterist, I
have a spent a lot of time re-reading the New Testament to determine,
contextually, what were specific events or promises for the first century
Church vs. eternal principles for all of us in the New Covenant age.
anyone was wondering, what I meant by "hyper" was unbalanced. A
hyper-Calvinist is someone who rejects anything that even, on the surface,
sounds Arminian. They cannot reconcile all the passages together. They might
not be able to accept the idea that God works "in" and "through" men.
Because they are so focused on "God does it all", they set up a false
dichotomy between what men seem to accomplish (which may really be done by
God) and what God does.
"On one hand,
that is entirely true. Yet there is another level on which that belief is
not true. If they recognized and acknowledged that level, there would be
greater balance in their doctrine."
The great power of this approach
is that it presents preterism, not as a foe to traditional Christian
theology and spiritual application, but, indeed, a servant. The wider non-preterist
church of Jesus needs preterism to rightly get the historical foundation of
the "experiential" elements of sin, judgment, salvation and resurection, et
al. Preterism does not necessarily deny these things, it illuminates them.
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996