Pages

Monday, March 26, 2012

"Evangelical" preterism

I’m going to quote and comment on a major plank of Ken Gentry’s case for preterism:

The closer we get to the year 2000, the farther we get from the events of Revelation. This claim, as remarkable as it may sound, summarizes the evangelical preterist view of Revelation. “Preterism” holds that the bulk of John’s prophecies occur in the first century, soon after his writing of them. Though the prophecies were in the future when John wrote and when his original audience read them, they are now in our past (37).
The inspired apostle John clearly informs his original audience nearly two thousand years ago that they should expect the prophecies to “take place” (Rev 1:1) in their lifetime (41).
That is, a number of the historical, geographical, and political allusions in the letters show that John does in fact, have in view the specific churches he addresses. He would be taunting them mercilessly if he were discussing events two thousand or more years distance (42).
The preterist understanding of Revelation is rooted in sound hermeneutical and theological principles–and receives surprising historical verification. It takes seriously the temporal remarks of Revelation (1:1,3; 22:6,10,12), observes carefully Revelation’s historical setting (chaps. 2-3)… (91).
The weaknesses of futurism include the following: It almost totally removes the relevance of Revelation from John’s original audience, especially at a time of their great suffering (92).

C. Marvin Pate, ed. Four Views of the Book of Revelation (Zondervan 1998).

i) In this post it’s not my primary intention to present or defend my own interpretation of the same data. Rather, I’m going to mainly consider if preterism succeeds on its own terms.

That said, I will make one simple observation: The temporal marker in Rev 1:1 (“quickly”) is an allusion to Dan 2:28. As such, the significance of the temporal marker is relative rather than absolute. It’s not something to be understood in isolation, but in contrast to its Danielic counterpart.

What John has done is to update Dan 2:28. He’s substituted “quickly” (or “shortly,” “soon”) for “latter days.” That’s because Daniel was writing in the 6C BC whereas John is writing in the 1C AD.

The point of this comparative usage is that Daniel, back in the 6C BC, wasn’t writing in the latter days. The latter days hadn’t arrived.

Therefore, this is John’s way of telling his audience that, unlike Daniel, they now are living in the latter days. In other words, John’s temporal marker (“quickly”) is a synonym for “latter days.”

Consider two different statements:

a) These things will happen when the latter days arrive.

b) When will these things happen in the latter days?

(a) Gives you the general timeframe. These things will happen sometime during the latter days. But it doesn’t specify when they will happen within that latterday timeframe. Just that they will happen at some point in the course of the latter days. It could be sooner or later within that laterday timeframe. It’s a mistake to confuse (a) with (b).

ii) But my primary concern is to consider how well preterism solves the problem it poses for itself and rival positions. Gentry doesn’t think futurism (or idealism) can do justice to the data he cites. But unless his alternative has greater explanatory power, it fails on its own grounds. So I’m going to measure preterism by its own yardstick.

iii) Gentry says the futurist interpretation renders the prophecies of Revelation irrelevant to the 1C generation of readers. But by parity of argument, the preterist interpretation renders the prophecies irrelevant to later generations. If what was future to them (the original audience) is past to us, then they are anticlimactic to us. That’s passé. Not something we look forward to. Not something that changes our current situation.

iv) Gentry says “I do believe Christ will come personally, visibly, and gloriously to end history with the resurrection of the dead and the great judgment of all humanity…the Second Coming is found in Mt 24:36-25:46 and Rev 20:7-15. (46n25).”

a) Yet the Olivet Discourse uses similar, stock eschatological language and imagery. So it’s unclear how Gentry can interpret Revelation preteristically, but Matthew futuristically.

b) Even more to the point, if he generally interprets Revelation preteristically, but makes an exception for Rev 20:7-15, which he interprets futuristically, then why stop there? Seems like he’s arbitrarily carving out an exception for Rev 20:7-15. But how does he draw the line? If he can construe Rev 20:7-15 futuristically, why can’t amils and premils interpret other prophecies in Revelation futuristically?

v) Gentry says “The original audience…should expect the prophecies to ‘take place’ (Rev 1:1) in their lifetime” (41).

Isn’t that an overstatement? What if one or more church members of the seven churches died before 70AD (Gentry’s terminus ad quem)? Wouldn’t their situation be analogous to futurism?

vi) Gentry says futurism “almost totally removes the relevance of Revelation from John’s original audience, especially at a time of their great suffering.”

But how is consigning the fulfillment to 70 AD relevant to their suffering? Christians were persecuted by Rome before 70 AD, and they were persecuted by Rome after 70 AD. Indeed, persecution intensified over time.

How does the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD directly (or even indirectly) improve the plight of persecuted Christians living in Asia Minor? After 70 AD came and went, how was their situation any better in 71 AD than it was in 69 AD? What changed?

If anything, wouldn’t that worsen their situation? As long as Judaism was a religio licita, and the Roman authorities associated Christianity with a sect of Judaism, it enjoyed a measure of protection (e.g. Acts 18:12-16). But once Judaism fell into official disfavor (i.e. the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD), wouldn’t Christians be even more vulnerable? Wouldn’t that aggravate their legal jeopardy? 

11 comments:

  1. As I've looked at this issue, the interpretation of Revelation is important, but not their most important tool of argument. To deal with these folks is first to deal with Matthew 24.

    It's even worse with Hyper-preterists. For these folks, Matthew 24 becomes the center of the Scripture- that which interprets all else.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gentry states:

    The preterist understanding of Revelation is rooted in sound hermeneutical and theological principles–and receives surprising historical verification.

    I think in practice for Preterists this often works the other way:

    History becomes the interpreter of what particular passages mean, then hermeneutical and theological principles are brought in to justify the conclusions.

    I've always found it ironic that Preterists say they use Scripture to interpret Scripture, yet when it comes to interpreting many passages in the New Testament, it's historical events outside of the Bible which serves as the interpreter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If you step back from all the details of eschatology and try to read the New Testament straight through with fresh eyes, it becomes impossible not to recognize that those who wrote the documents expected fulfillment of eschatology in that generation - even if very late in that generation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike,

    Are you a hyper-preterist?

    ReplyDelete
  5. (Mr, Dr or whatever is appropriate)Hays just for the record what do you believe is the most appropriate view of Revelation?

    ReplyDelete
  6. James Swan,

    I don't know. What I do know is that all Bible prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Eric,

    I favor the idealism/futurism of Beale & Poythress.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike Gantt, quit acting in a deceptive manner and beating around the bush. Answer Swan's question for goodness' sake! But since you won't do that, I'll expose who you really are. Yes, you are what most people would define as hyper-preterist. You believe the second coming of Christ occurred in 70AD. You are a universalist. You've made it explicitly clear that you are a universalist and that you believe everyone is going to heaven. So, according to Christian orthodoxy, you're a heretic.

    At least be honest about who you are and what you believe.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mike,

    There was nothing dishonest in what I wrote. I've never studied preterism per se (nor universalism for that matter) and therefore cannot easily distinguish "hyper-preterism" from any other form of preterism. Morever, I do not believe that the Second Coming of Christ occurred in 70 AD. The Scriptures indicate that His coming would be subsequent to that, even though in the same generation.

    As for what I believe on this and other issues, I have a blog (for which a link can be found when my name is clicked on), so I'm obviously not trying to conceal my views. On the contrary, I'm quite eager to make them more widely known. On someone else's site, however, I believe I should try to stick to the topic and answer only questions that are asked of me.

    As for whether I am heretic or whether I am proclaiming truth, I submit to God's judgment. He knows.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'm a bit sensitive to Hyperpreterism these days, ever since an old acquaintance of mine is moving up through the Hyperpreterist food chain.

    I wasn't at all looking for any sort of debate, only clarification.

    Steve says in his entry above,

    "Gentry says the futurist interpretation renders the prophecies of Revelation irrelevant to the 1C generation of readers. But by parity of argument, the preterist interpretation renders the prophecies irrelevant to later generations. If what was future to them (the original audience) is past to us, then they are anticlimactic to us. That’s passé. Not something we look forward to. Not something that changes our current situation."

    I would locate myself squarely on the coattails of Mr. Hays. One of the problems I have with Preterism is its sometimes implicit overlooking of any purpose of God to communicate to his church through Scripture beyond AD 70.

    The original audience (whatever that means) becomes those people for whom the scriptures were for. This is a blatant problem with at least, the Hyperpreterist position. They are a bit like a clanging gong, as their only message is: Hyperpreterism. That is, they have one topic, AD 70.

    ReplyDelete
  11. James Swan,

    For reasons I've given, I can't speak for "Preterism" or "Hyper-Preterism." However, the notion that a first-century fulfillment of the Bible's eschatological promises renders Scripture mute to those who live afterward has two major problems. First, it would mean that any promises made and fulfilled in Old Testament times would have had no ability to speak to anyone who lived afterward. Yet it was precisely because the prophets of Israel had accurately foretold of the fall of ancient Israel, which occurred in the 6th Century BC, that Jesus could invoke that example in the condemnation of His own generation. Second, it would mean that Jesus and all the apostles were wrong about the timing of the coming of the kingdom of God - a point which they stressed as important repeatedly and in variety of different ways. It's hard to say they are right about much else if they were wrong about that.

    As for 70 AD, if that's what the preterists are camping on, they are missing the point. The great fall in the Second Coming was the fall of Satan's power from heaven that enabled the transition from the polytheism that was so prominent in ancient times to the monotheism that has come to dominate since. The Second Coming of Christ was not an earthly event. It was a heavenly (spiritual) event with earthly consequences. Because all God's promises have been fulfilled we can study and practice them for all eternity.

    ReplyDelete