|
Biblical Minimalism and
"The History of Preterism" (Parts
One and Two) |
|
By Gary DeMar (garydemar@mindspring.com)
President - American Vision
http://www.americanvision.org/
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. . . . There is
early Preterism in people like Eusebius. In fact, his work The Proof of the
Gospel is full of Preterism in relationship to the Olivet Discourse.1
Tommy Ice. uttered the
above quotation in 1995. As we will see in this and future
articles, Tommy has not taken his own advice.
Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice
have edited a new book dealing with the increasingly successful biblical
criticism of dispensational Premillennialism by Preterist authors.2
Even with millions of copies of Left Behind being sold
and war a factor in the
Of
course, this is not to say that Preterism is competing equally with shelf space
carrying prophecy books in Christian book stores, radio broadcasts predicting
that we are, once again, living in last days, and Bible colleges where
dispensational beliefs are a requirement for graduation.3 Preterist
materials are a mere drop in the bucket compared to the billion-dollar end-time
industry that pads the wallets of failed and poorly studied prophetic
prognosticators.
Even so, Preterist arguments are making inroads. Debates are
being held on a regular basis around the country. I've debated at the
Bible Institute of Los Angeles (BIOLA) and Moody Bible Institute, two
dispensational institutions.4 My book End Times Fiction, an
analysis of
LaHaye's Left Behind series, is in its fourth printing and
can be found in most Christian, secular, and online bookstores along with my Last
Days Madness. LaHaye and Ice must be feeling some heat since they seem
threatened enough to deal with Preterism in a full-length book treatment of the
subject. LaHaye feels safe hiding behind a book dealing with Preterism rather
than engaging in a public debate where he would really have to defend himself.
Pastors are beginning to
reassess their allegiance to the dispensational gods by holding seminars at
their churches to introduce their people to a consistently biblical approach to
Bible prophecy. This would have been unheard of just ten years ago. Radio
audiences are much more sympathetic to Preterist arguments every time I do a
radio interview. I'm amazed at how many people who
call in agree with me or at least are willing to give Preterism a hearing.
The publication of The
End Times Controversy is a great opportunity for Preterists to get out
their message since the authors quote extensively from Preterist works. More astute Christians will follow the trail of endnotes and
books listed in the bibliography and read them. The brighter bulbs in the box
will find Preterist arguments convincing and reject the Dispensationalism of
their youth. Many will be surprised that over the centuries so many sound and
trusted Bible expositors have been Preterists.
To help them along, I will
analyze some of the arguments outlined in The End Times Controversy just
in case they find it difficult find their way through the dispensational swamp.
The Silent History of Dispensationalism
Ice hopes to rebut Preterism
by writing on "The History of Preterism" to show that Preterism
really doesn't have one. The odd thing about End
Times Controversy is that five of the seventeen chapters use historical
arguments to defend Dispensationalism over against Preterism. As anyone familiar with Dispensationalism knows, there is scant
evidence of anything resembling Dispensationalism prior to 1830.5 Certainly
there is no evidence of Dispensationalism among the early church fathers up
until the time of the Council of Nicea (A.D. 325),
which produced the Nicene Creed, a document that says absolutely nothing about
dispensationalism6 or even premillennialism.7 In fact, as
dispensationalist Patrick Alan Boyd concludes, even Premillennialism is hard to
find prior to Nicea.8 As a result of his study, Boyd admonishes his
fellow dispensationalists "to be more familiar with, and competent in
patristics,9 so as to avoid having to rely on second-hand evidence
in patristic interpretation." He suggests that "it would seem
wise for the modern system [of dispensational Premillennialism] to abandon the
claim that it is the historic faith of the church."10
Ice should have followed
Boyd's counsel and the directives of dispensational icon Charles C. Ryrie
before he decided to take on the historical argument against Preterism. Knowing
that Dispensationalism has a recent history, and critics have used its novelty
against the system, Ryrie responds:
The fact that something was
taught in the first century does not make it right (unless taught in the
canonical Scriptures), and the fact that something was not taught until the
nineteenth century does not make it wrong, unless, of course, it is
unscriptural. . . . After all, the ultimate question is not, Is Dispensationalism--or
any other teaching--historic? but,
Is it scriptural?11
Agreeing with Ryrie on this
point, we can ask, "After all, the ultimate question is not, Is Preterism--or
any other teaching—historic, but, is it scriptural?" So even if it could be proved that no form of Preterism can be found in
first-century Christian documents, this in itself does not mean the Bible does
not teach it. Ice knows of this argument, but like so much of The End Times
Controversy, he conveniently leaves out evidence damaging to his position.
William Cunningham's comments on the use of history to establish orthodoxy are
instructive. Although written in the eighteenth century, the following reads as
if Cunningham had Ice in mind:
Where there is not
inspiration, there is no proper authority,--there should be no implicit
submission, and there must be a constant appeal to some higher standard,
if such a standard exist [sic]. The fathers, individually or
collectively, were not inspired; they therefore possess no authority whatever;
and their statements must be estimated and treated just as
those of any other ordinary men. And when we hear
strong statements about the absolute necessity of studying the fathers,--of the
great assistance to be derived from them in interpreting Scripture, and in
fixing our opinions,--and of the great responsibility incurred by running
counter to their views, we always suspect that men who make them are either,
unconsciously perhaps, ascribing to the fathers some degree of inspiration, and
some measure of authority; or else are deceiving themselves by words or vague
impressions, without looking intelligently and steadily at the actual realities
of the case.12
While history is important
and interesting to study, it is not authoritative. Just because someone wrote,
something nearly 2000 years ago does not make him any more of a biblical
authority than someone writing today. In fact, the
case could be made that the average second-year
seminary student has much more material available to him than any of the early
church fathers ever dreamed of having and therefore is better equipped to
evaluate doctrinal issues.
Even proximity to the
apostles is no guarantee of getting it right. There were well-intentioned
people in the period prior to the destruction of Jerusalem who got things wrong
and needed direct counsel to correct them (Acts 10; Gal. 2:11–14). A special
council had to be called in order to clarify doctrinal
issues (Acts 15). Even so, some still didn't get it
(Gal. 1:6–10). Paul had to instruct the Thessalonian Christians on a matter of eschatology
so they would not be "deceived" (2 Thessalonians
2:1–12). Peter writes that some of the things Paul wrote are "hard to
understand, which the untaught and unstable distort" (2
Pet.
Given what we know about
the history of doctrinal issues in the infant church, it's
surprising that Ice wants us to believe that the views of uninspired writers,
of which we know almost nothing, writing decades after the death of most of the
apostles, are to be taken as authoritative. What we do know is that the history
of prophetic speculation has been a persistent embarrassment to the church.13
Many of the writers claimed as prophetic authorities
believed that Jesus was coming back in their day! Ignatius writes around the
year A.D. 100 that "the last times are come upon
us,"14 words that echo those of the Apostle Paul when he writes
that "the ends of the ages" had come upon him and the
Thomas Ice: "Biblical Minimalist"
Ice knows all of this, but
he still plows ahead with an appeal to broad and unsubstantiated historical
claims in his attack on Preterism. As we will see, Ice follows the technique
used by liberal "biblical minimalists":
! Nothing in the Bible can be considered historical unless the depicted person or
event has a parallel history outside the biblical text.
! Biblical stories are
myth, fiction, or legend unless they can proved to be
otherwise by an appeal to non-biblical sources.
! The New Testament does
not present a Preterist interpretation unless we can find non-biblical writers
who interpret prophetic texts in a Preterist way.
Even though history is not
authoritative, I'm willing to take the historical
challenge outlined by Ice. He maintains that since all the
post-New Testament writers of the first century were consistent futurists, Preterism
cannot be true. This is how Ice states the argument:
It is strange that there is
not one shred of evidence that anyone in the first century understood these
prophecies [in the Olivet Discourse and the book of Revelation] to have been
fulfilled when Preterists say they were. You would think that
if a large body of Bible prophecy were meant to relate to a specific
generation, as Preterists contend, then the Holy Spirit would have moved in
such a way so that first-century believers would have reached such an
understanding.16 However, there has not yet been found any evidence
that indicates that the first-century church viewed Bible prophecy this way.
This fact provides a major problem for Preterism, which thus far has proved
insurmountable.
* * * * *
There is zero indication,
from known, extant writings, that anyone understood the New Testament
prophecies from a Preterist perspective. No early church writings teach that
Jesus returned in the first century.17 If
we as God's people are to understand the prophecies of New Testament in this
way, you would think that the Holy Spirit would have left at least one written
record of this.18
I don't
know about you, but I don't need some uninspired, non-canonical document to
tell me what the Bible already says! As we've seen,
this is the argument of "biblical minimalists": I won't believe what's
in the Bible unless you can show me the same material "outside the New
Testament."19 Of course, when evidence is
found, the minimalist will claim, "It's not enough; it really
doesn't prove the point; that's not the way I would interpret it." Jesus
made it absolutely clear that He would return in judgment to destroy the
temple, judge Jerusalem, and come on the clouds of heaven before the generation
to whom He was speaking passed away (Matt. 24:34). When the Bible tells Ice and
his fellow dispensationalists what was to transpire within a generation, and
they do not believe it, then why would they be convinced
by some uninspired document written decades after the fact? Ice sounds like the
rich man who wants Abraham to raise Lazarus from the dead and send him to his
brothers to warn them about the perils of Hades:
"‘I beg you, Father,
that you send [Lazarus] to my father's house--for I have five brothers--that he
may warn them, lest they also come to this place of torment.’ But Abraham said, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let
them hear them.’ But he said, ‘No, Father Abraham, but
if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!’ But he said to him,
‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be
persuaded if someone rises from the dead’" (Luke
If Ice does not listen to
Jesus and the New Testament writers on this subject, neither will he be
persuaded if some early church father interprets certain passages from a Preterist
perspective. Like the rich man's brothers, biblical minimalists all, Ice will
find some excuse by demanding even more evidence. Once I supply the shred of
evidence that he says does not exist, Ice will set a new higher standard of
evidence. Ice wants to use the murky waters of history to divine what the Bible
makes crystal clear.
for Part 2 click here
End Notes
1. Thomas Ice,
"Update on Pre-Darby Rapture Statements and Other Issues": audio tape
(December 1995).
2. A Preterist
understands prophetic passages as being already fulfilled. "The term ‘Preterism’
is based on the Latin preter, which means ‘past.’ Preterism refers to
that understanding of certain eschatological passages which holds that they
have already come to fulfillment. Actually, all Christians--even
dispensationalists--are preteristic to some extent. This is necessarily so
because Christianity holds that a great many of the Messianic passages have
already been fulfilled in Christ's first coming." (Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.,
He Shall Have Dominion [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics,
1997], 162–163).
3. None of the
contributors to The End Times Controversy teaches at any of the mainline
dispensational seminaries. Two are Ph.D. candidates at Dallas Theological
Seminary. But DTS is a mixed bag eschatologically these days. Not only must Ice
and LaHaye's brand of Dispensationalism compete with Preterism in the free
market of ideas, it must also deal with "progressive Dispensationalism"
within its own camp.
4. These debates are
available at www.americanvision.org.
5. Ice confronted me
after our debate at BIOLA (February 2002) about Francis X. Gumerlock's
statement in his The Day and the Hour (2000), a book published by
American Vision and edited by me, that "The Dolcinites held to a
pre-tribulation rapture theory similar to that of modern Dispensationalism"
(Day and the Hour, 80). If Ice wants to claim the Dolcinites as
proto-dispensationalists, he can have them. Gumerlock quotes the Historia
Fratris Dolcini Haeresiarchae in an end note (the English translation is
Gumerlock's): "Again, [he believed, preached, and taught] that within the
said three years Dolcino himself and his followers will preach the coming of
the Antichrist; and that the Antichrist himself would come into this world at
the end of the said three and a half years; and after he had come, Dolcino
himself, and his followers would be transferred into Paradise, where Enoch and
Elijah are, and they will be preserved unharmed from the persecution of
Antichrist; and then Enoch and Elijah themselves would descend to earth to
confront the Antichrist, then they would be killed by him; or by his servants,
and thus Antichrist would reign again for many days. ‘Once Antichrist is truly
dead, Dolcino himself, who would then be the holy Pope, and his preserved
followers will descend to earth, and they will preach the correct faith of
Christ to all, and they will convert those, who will be alive then, to the true
faith of Jesus Christ" (91–92).
6. "An intensive
examination of the writings of Pretribulational scholars reveals only one
passage from the early fathers which is put forth as a possible example
of explicit Pretribulationalism." (William Everett Bell, "A Critical
Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture Doctrine in Christian
Eschatology" [School of Education of New York University, Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, 1967], 27). Emphasis added.
7.
8. Alan Patrick Boyd,
"A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology of the
Post-Apostolic Fathers (Until the Death of Justin Martyr)," submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Theology
(May 1977), 90–91. In a footnote, the author states: "Perhaps a word needs
to be said about the eschatological position of the writer of this thesis. He
is a dispensational Premillennialist, and he does not consider this thesis to
be a disproof of that system. He originally undertook the thesis to bolster
the system by patristic research, but the evidence of the original sources
simply disallowed this (91, note 2)." Emphasis added.
9. Relating to the
church fathers (pater) and/or their writings.
10. Boyd, 92. In a
footnote on this same page, Boyd questions the historical accuracy of the
research done on the patristic fathers by George N. H. Peters in his much
referenced three-volume work, The Theocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids, MI:
Kregel, [1884] 1988). Boyd sides with the evaluation of the Amillennialist
Louis Berkhof when he writes that "it is not correct to say, as
Premillenarians do, that it (millennialism) 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." (Berkhof, The History of
Christian Doctrines [London: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1937) 1969], 262).
Boyd demonstrates with his research that dispensational author John F. Walvoord
was wrong when he wrote that "The early church was far from settled on
details of eschatology though definitely premillennial." (Walvoord,
The Rapture Question [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1957], 137).
11. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism,
rev. ed. (Chicago: Mood Press, 1995), 62.
12. William
Cunningham, Historical Theology: A Review of the Principal Doctrinal
Discussions in the Christian Church Since the Apostolic Age, 2 vols.
(Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1862] 1979), 1:175
13. Dwight Wilson, Armageddon
Now! The Premillenarian Response to
14. The Epistle of
Ignatius to the Ephesians, chapter 11, in Ante-Nicene Fathers,
15. The
Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle 55.
16. Those who read the
Olivet Discourse did understand what the Holy Spirit was saying: "For all
who were owners of land or houses" sold them because Jesus had told them
that Jerusalem would be destroyed within a generation (Acts 4:34), and those
who remained in Judea when Jerusalem was surrounded by armies fled to the
mountains (Matt. 24:15–22).
17. Ice equivocates on
the meaning of "returned." Partial preterists believe that Jesus’ return to judge Jerusalem in
A.D. 70 was a coming similar to the way He promised to come in judgment against
the churches in Asia Minor in Revelation (2:5, 16; 3:3) and the way
"coming" is used to describe Jehovah's coming in Judgment against
Egypt (Isa. 19:1), Babylon (13:6–10), and Israel and
Samaria (Micah 1:2–4). These passages do not refer to a future physical
and visible "second coming." The dispensationalist has Jesus coming
invisibly in a "rapture" then again at the
end of the tribulation period. This type of two-stage coming was
certainly not taught in the early church.
18. Thomas Ice,
"The History of Preterism," The End Times Controversy: The Second
Coming Under Attack, eds. Tim LaHaye and Thomas
Ice (
19. "Most New Testament
scholars and other historians of ancient times look to extracanonical Christian
writings with serious interest, and some scholars seem to place a higher value
on them than on the canonical writings." (Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction
to the Ancient Evidence [
Thomas Ice does not
understand why so little (he says "zero") is said
about the destruction of
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
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 focused or localized 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 fulfillment of the covenant promise, ‘I will be their God
and they shall be my people’ (I Corinthians 3:16–17; 2 Corinthians 6:16); and
Paul had also shown that in a secondary sense each individual believer is the
temple of the indwelling Holy Spirit (I Corinthians 6:19). In this ark
of Christian theology, too, the foundations of later developments, such as the
teaching of Eph.
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 first-century writers to prove his unique brand of futurism used
these passages. 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
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
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
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
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
"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" (
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.
End Notes to Part One
1. Thomas Ice, "Update on Pre-Darby Rapture Statements and Other
Issues": audio tape (December 1995).
2. A Preterist understands prophetic passages as being
already fulfilled. "The term ‘preterism’
is based on the Latin preter, which means
‘past.’ Preterism refers to that understanding of certain eschatological
passages which holds that they have already come to fulfillment.
Actually, all Christians--even dispensationalists--are preteristic
to some extent. This is necessarily so because Christianity holds that a great
many of the Messianic passages have already been fulfilled in Christ's first
coming." (Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., He Shall Have
Dominion [Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1997], 162–163).
3. None of the contributors to The End Times Controversy teach at any of the mainline dispensational seminaries. Two
are Ph.D. candidates at Dallas Theological Seminary. But
DTS is a mixed bag eschatologically these days. Not
only must Ice and LaHaye's brand of dispensationalism
compete with preterism in the free market of ideas,
it must also deal with "progressive dispensationalism"
within its own camp.
4. These debates are available at www.americanvision.org.
5. Ice confronted me after our debate at BIOLA (February 2002) about Francis
X. Gumerlock's statement in his The Day and the
Hour (2000), a book published by American Vision and edited by me, that
"The Dolcinites held to a pre-tribulation
rapture theory similar to that of modern dispensationalism"
(Day and the Hour, 80). If Ice wants to claim the Dolcinites
as proto-dispensationalists, he can have them. Gumerlock quotes the Historia Fratris Dolcini Haeresiarchae in an
end note (the English translation is Gumerlock's):
"Again, [he believed, preached, and taught] that within the said three
years Dolcino himself and his followers will preach
the coming of the Antichrist; and that the Antichrist himself would come into
this world at the end of the said three and a half years; and after he had
come, Dolcino himself, and his followers would be
transferred into Paradise, where Enoch and Elijah are, and they will be
preserved unharmed from the persecution of Antichrist; and then Enoch and
Elijah themselves would descend to earth to confront the Antichrist, then they
would be killed by him; or by his servants, and thus Antichrist would reign
again for many days. ‘Once Antichrist is truly dead, Dolcino
himself, who would then be the holy Pope, and his preserved followers will
descend to earth, and they will preach the correct faith of Christ to all, and
they will convert those, who will be alive then, to the true faith of Jesus
Christ" (91–92).
6. "An intensive examination of the writings of pretribulational
scholars reveals only one passage from the early
fathers which is put forth as a possible example of explicit pretribulationalism." (William
Everett Bell, "A Critical Evaluation of the Pretribulation Rapture
Doctrine in Christian Eschatology" [School of Education of New York
University, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1967], 27). Emphasis
added.
7. Gary DeMar, The Debate Over Christian
Reconstruction (Atlanta: American Vision, 1988), 99–101.
8. Alan Patrick Boyd, "A Dispensational Premillennial Analysis of the Eschatology
of the Post-Apostolic Fathers (Until the Death of Justin Martyr),"
submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master
of Theology (May 1977), 90–91. In a footnote, the author states: "Perhaps
a word needs to be said about the eschatological position of the writer of this
thesis. He is a dispensational premillennialist, and
he does not consider this thesis to be a disproof of that system. He
originally undertook the thesis to bolster the system by patristic research, but
the evidence of the original sources simply disallowed this (91, note
2)." Emphasis added.
9. Relating to the church fathers (pater)
and/or their writings.
10. Boyd, 92. In a footnote on this same page, Boyd
questions the historical accuracy of the research done on the patristic fathers
by George N. H. Peters in his much referenced three-volume work, The
Theocratic Kingdom (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel,
[1884] 1988). Boyd sides with the evaluation of the amillennialist
Louis Berkhof when he writes that
"it is not correct to say, as Premillenarians
do, that it (millennialism) 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." (Berkhof,
The History of Christian Doctrines [London: The Banner of Truth Trust,
[1937) 1969], 262). Boyd demonstrates with his research that
dispensational author John F. Walvoord was wrong when
he wrote that "The early church was far from
settled on details of eschatology though definitely premillennial."
(Walvoord, The Rapture Question
[Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1957], 137).
11. Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Chicago: Mood
Press, 1995), 62.
12. William Cunningham, Historical Theology: A Review
of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church Since the
Apostolic Age, 2 vols. (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, [1862]
1979), 1:175
13. Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now! The Premillenarian
Response to Russia and Israel Since 1917 (Tyler, TX: Institute for
Christian Economics, 1991) and Francis X. Gumerlock, The
Day and the Hour: Christianity's Perennial Fascination with Predicting the End
of the World (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2000).
14. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians,
chapter 11, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:54. Quoted in LeRoy Froom, The Prophetic
Faith of Our Fathers: The Historical Development of
Prophetic Interpretation, 4 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald,
1950), 1:209.
15. The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle 55.
16. Those who read the Olivet Discourse did understand what the Holy Spirit
was saying: "For all who were owners of land or houses" sold them
because Jesus had told them that Jerusalem would be destroyed within a
generation (Acts 4:34), and those who remained in Judea when Jerusalem was
surrounded by armies fled to the mountains (Matt. 24:15–22).
17. Ice equivocates on the meaning of "returned." Partial preterists believe that Jesus’
return to judge Jerusalem in A.D. 70 was a coming similar to the way He
promised to come in judgment against the churches in Asia Minor in Revelation
(2:5, 16; 3:3) and the way "coming" is used to describe Jehovah's
coming in Judgment against Egypt (Isa. 19:1), Babylon
(13:6–10), and Israel and Samaria (Micah 1:2–4). These passages do not
refer to a future physical and visible "second coming." The
dispensationalist has Jesus coming invisibly in a "rapture"
then again at the end of the tribulation period. This type of two-stage coming was certainly not taught in the early church.
18. Thomas Ice, "The History of Preterism," The End Times
Controversy: The Second Coming Under Attack, eds.
Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003), 37, 39.
19. "Most New Testament scholars and other historians of ancient times
look to extracanonical Christian writings with serious interest, and some
scholars seem to place a higher value on them than on the canonical
writings." (Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus
Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence [Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000], 3).
End Notes to Part Two
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 (
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
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.