An Analysis and Critique of
“Taken
to Heaven in A.D. 70: Blessings Expected at the Parousia”
(IPA, Inc., 2005).
When
a book is hailed as “a classic in our time” and is expected to be
one of the “most influential and significant Preterist books to be
published in the last two centuries” then, as a Preterist scholar, I had
to take a look.
I must, however, take a positive approach to the contents of this book before I take a negative approach. Readers who are not familiar with scholarly definitions, and who are more or less inclined to political correctness, will find the word “negative” as somehow meaning that I am an crusty old man with nothing better to do than criticize things. Well, let the reader understand that in scholarship, “analytical” “critical” and “negative” are not emotional terms. They are academic terms and nothing else. When a person shows up on your doorstep to offer you the latest “product” that will clean your carpets, are you “accepting” and non-inquisitive? Or are you “critical” and a little “skeptical” before you buy his spiel? In short, I will disagree with this book in many areas, but this is a critical analysis coming from a scholar that is quite optimistic about the Preterist future within Evangelicalism.
There is an increasingly surfacing division current within Preterist studies between the “heaven now” denomination and the “heaven when you die” one. Such is to be expected. Ian D. Harding has recently penned Taken to Heaven in A.D. 70 (335 pp.), published by Ed Stevens’ publication arm, International Preterist Association, Inc. The book is endorsed by Arthur Melanson and Walt Hibbard on the back cover. It is important to the Preterist movement because it is the first major work on noting the differences within the Preterist camps.
Harding assumes the Preterist framework, so the reader is not going to get “another” exposition on Matthew 24, Josephus and “this generation.” Rather, as Harding himself states, the book is directly written to those Preterists who hold to what has been called the “heaven now” view (Harding, xiv). This view, in his words, if true “takes away all meaning of language” (107). It is to be admitted that the view expounded upon by Max King in Cross and Parousia of Christ and the view represented here are two completely different approaches within Preterism. They both operate from the same framework, of course, but the agreement ends there and this book makes it clearer than any other I have read.
The way the book is laid out is very useful. It is a systematic treatment of the issues at hand. One complaint I have, though, is that there are no indexes in the back. This is frustrating to the reader who wants to note certain passages of Scriptures, or an author that is being quoted. Most, if not all, of the authors quoted in this book are Reformed in theology (Matthew Henry, John Gill, David Chilton, etc.). Indeed, Walt Hibbard wrote in the Forward that Mr. Harding adheres “to the doctrines of the Reformed faith.”
The book does not pretend to be a “scholarly” piece. The author never quotes authors like King and others that espouse the opposing view. He simply interacts with the other view by stating something like, “[s]ome Preterits say that the glorification promises were fulfilled at the Parousia in the living pre-Parousia Christians while they remained on earth” (107). That would be the view of Max King, more or less, and those who align themselves with his approach more or less. There is not much discussion about the meaning of “body” from its corporate aspect. Indeed, much of what Harding does is simply assume that “glorification”, “made alive” and “catch away” are robbed of meaning if not taken literally. Whether or not he proves this is another thing.
Another point about this book is that it is, refreshingly, straight up and plain in its approach and meaning. Immediately the author clarifies that his view represents an “experiential” definition of glorification over and against a “non-experiential” one (xi-xiv). Glorification was experienced when the saints then living were quite literally “changed” into a new body. That is, tens of thousands of then living saints vanished “in a flash” when Jesus returned a second time. Harding calls this the “Preterist taken to heaven view” (xiv).
After having defined his terms, the book goes into what it perhaps its strongest appeal to me. Part 1, chapters 1-3, divides up the scriptures in such a fashion between “already and not yet” aspects of Paul’s thinking that one cannot fail to be impressed. Harding quotes the verses and the reader can plainly see the divisions of the already and the not yet aspects of new covenant eschatology. He does not seek, at this point, to prove his case as far as to the extent of what “glorification” means. He assumes it in most cases in this section. The later parts (2-4) are left for that task.
The point of starting with the already/not yet aspects of new covenant eschatology is meant to demonstrate that already these saints had some aspect of the coming new covenant fullness. But these things are enjoyed on earth. The fullness of the new covenant realities cannot be enjoyed on earth, so the argument goes. Therefore, these saints, who were not expecting more of the same of what they already had, got more when Christ returned. They were “taken to heaven.” Literally.
This is a strong argument and needs to be presented again. If the heavenly blessings had already been given to the saints as a deposit, then the deposit cannot look the same as the coming guarantee, so Harding believes. But, this is not necessarily true. I may deposit money with the hope of a guarantee of increase on my money that results in more money. It’s still money. The difference is between not a lot, and a lot. One could argue, then, that the spiritual blessings began spiritually (as Harding would agree), and ended spiritually (in which Harding disagrees). The saints received more of the same of which they had already partaken. In short, this is a persuasive argument Harding makes, but it is not a logically necessary argument. For Harding to make his case, of course, he has to appeal to the exegesis of the Bible.
Another major part of Harding’s thesis is also found in this section and continues throughout the book. Typically, “the age” and the “the age to come” are seen as two distinct periods of time. In futurist eschatology they have overlapped one another forcing the dichotomous “already/not yet” tension (a term coined by George Ladd). Harding sort of does the same thing. His take is that the “not yet” comes when the Christian physically dies and enters into heaven with a new spiritual body. However, he also agrees that the “end of the age” was in 70 A.D. and the new covenant dispensation is what we are currently living in. In futurism the “not yet” ends with the Second Coming and Resurrection of the Dead. So, Harding has blended the already/not yet aspects of futurist eschatology within a full Preterist framework.
Harding appeals to Jesus’ words found in Mark 10.29-30 and Luke 18.29-30. These are parallel passages, so I will only quote Mark: “Jesus said, "Truly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or lands, for my sake and for the gospel, who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life (ESV). Harding does not take the usual interpretation of this passage to refer to two “ages” but to two “phases” or “aspects” (75) of the believer’s life. Yes, Harding insists that we are in the “age to come” but takes Jesus’ words, “in this time” to refer to the earthly phase of the believer and the “age to come” as the eternal phase (75). That is, the new covenant age to come has two phases, a “in this time” phase and a consummate (upon death) eternal phase, and it is this that Jesus is talking about here.
The general consensus of scholars, however, follows what Luke Timothy Johnson represents. Commenting on Luke 18.29-30 Johnson wrote, “in this time: the word used is kairos, which has the sense of “season” or “set period of time” (see 12:56; 19:44). Here because of the implied contrast with “the coming world,” it is equivalent to ha olam ha zeh (“this present world”)….The language of “this world” and “the world to come (ha olam ha ba)” is part of the apocalyptic and rabbinic world-view” (Sacra Pagina: The Gospel of Luke, The Liturgical Press, 1991, 279). Harding has imported, however, two phases of the new covenant age; a “this time” present existence of the already and an entrance into the fullness of the “world to come” at death. The believer is already in the age to come now, but not its fullness.
In my estimation, Harding’s exegesis is forced. The Greek construction of the passage is obviously a contrast between “now in the this time” and the “in the age, the one that is coming” as Johnson has stated. For Harding, however, eternal life has a present phase already enjoyed by believers on earth, but also has a not yet experienced aspect. The not yet experienced aspect cannot be applied to the believers on earth simply because they are not eternal; they are still subject to death. Eternal life, in Harding’s argument, is not gained until we receive new spiritual bodies. It is this interpretation that he believes Jesus is explaining.
One begins to see that Harding’s definitions of what we do not have yet is rooted in an empirical bias. That is, we can’t “see” it, so it cannot be so. We still suffer, we still die, we still groan and we still are subject to error when it comes to seeing God. In fact, Harding has reduced theology while on earth to “vague spiritual and mental conceptions” (322). That is, “There is in the present, the perception an acknowledgment of true and good things – the things of God, and the person of Christ, etc., but the perception is unclear, obscure, puzzling” (321). In heaven we will see God “face to face” but on earth our knowledge is “very imperfect” (321) of God.
Since Harding carries with him, admittedly, futurist definitions of “glorification” “perfection” and seeing God “face to face,” and since he is also a Preterist, then he is logically forced to view the rapture and glorification of ten of thousands (at least 144,000) of Christians in traditional futurist terms. What he is also left with, then, is a traditional futurist soteriology.
Soteriology is the study of the things pertaining to salvation (soterios in Greek). That is, the futurist soteriological paradigm is that the believer is saved, is being saved, and shall be saved at the Second Coming. Harding agrees with this entirely. However, within a Preterist framework, his view is that the believer is saved, is being saved and shall be saved when he dies physically: “we who are believers into Christ Jesus the Lord, have been saved from the guilt of sin, are being saved (sanctification) from the power of sin, and shall be saved from the presence of sin” (35-36). In other words, Reformed theology, of which he supposedly advocates, has it all backwards. “Progressive sanctification” happens after the Second Coming of Christ! But, if Harding is agreeing on futurist soteriological definitions, then why does he not also agree with the general consensus that Paul’s view of sanctification ends with the Second Coming? The “age to come” has always been understood as an eternal age where the need for continued perfecting ceases because those in that age are perfected. In order to get around this, Harding, as I have noted, introduces two “phases” in the age to come, which appears to me to be smuggled in.
What Harding is arguing against must be kept in mind at all times. I accept the futurist view that the age to come is an age of perfected saints, not saints who are still in need of perfection. But, this would make all believers after the Parousia of Christ immediately perfected upon faith in Christ, and this is what Harding is explicitly against. His objection is rooted in empirical thinking: we cannot be said to have full perfection because we still sin and we still die and our theology can hardly be called perfect. In other words, on earth we do not experience (one of his key words) full perfection, and since we obviously (to the senses) do not experience full perfection and sanctification, then we cannot say that we are perfect. We are still being made perfect and will be made perfect when we die.
Another feature of Harding’s soteriology is that he does not deny completed justification by faith. “Let me make it clear that I am not saying that their justification or pardon was partial or that the atonement made on their behalf was incomplete” (27). Rather the full experienced “effects flowing into their lives from the completed atonement and their justified state before God were far from perfected or fully manifested” (27). Further, the first Christians “had been saved and justified by God through Christ Jesus by faith and set apart by God as his own children, [but] they were not able to enter into the fullness and consummation of the blessings comprising the new covenant salvation” (27-28). However, on pages 37-38 he notes that righteousness (justification) was already received and had a future application as well. Justification before God is included as one of the “blessings comprising” new covenant salvation. If this is followed out, then believers on earth today do not and can not say that they are “justified by faith” before God in the fullest sense simply because they are still alive on earth! Harding is forced to deny one of the cardinal tenets of the Reformed faith: full pardon and justification by faith. That is, justification along with all the other “blessings” were only “potentially theirs in Christ, [but] were not yet and experiential reality for the first Christians” (26).
In
the alternative view justification, sanctification, glorification and adoption are
all fully and immediately applied to the believer through the gift of
faith. It is not merely potentially ours, it is ours, fully.
However, Harding is absolutely correct to acknowledge the futurity of applied
righteousness (justification) to the believer at the Parousia. He is
correct to state that the first Christians had a positional standing,
but not a fully realized standing before God. The eschatological
dimension of justification by faith is often missed by futurist
theologians. At the Parousia, believers were “declared” to be
“sons of God” (Rev 21.7) in the fullest sense (and the
historical events surrounding the fall of
Harding tries to soften the impact of what he is saying because, I think, he realizes that I have no real different “experience” than David, Moses or Jeremiah. In fact, they had even greater experiences than I have had! Harding writes, “Before the time of the Parousia of Jesus, all believers who died had to wait until the Parousia before the way into the holiest was manifest experientially and before they could enter glory with Christ. However, since the Parousia those who die are blessed in that they don’t have to wait for glorification like the pre-AD 70 believers and all the old testament saints had to, but are immediately resurrected and glorified to be with Christ for ever” (107). It appears that Harding is saying that because we do not have to wait when we die, then Jesus has given us a greater victory. Now, you just have to “wait” until you die to get the full victory!
In
the alternative paradigm, the believer “waits” for nothing to be
applied for him. He is perfected, sanctified and saved to the
uttermost. He is entirely justified and redeemed by being made a member
of the Body of Christ, the “fullness of Him who fills all
things.” If anything, what believers await is the full
experience of the full salvation that he already has.
The full experience, however, upon death adds nothing in terms of ones
standing before God. Harding states that because we do not fully
experience salvation in an empirically defined way, then we do not have full
salvation. King, more or less, states that just because we do not fully
experience salvation now, it does not follow that we do not have that which
cannot be seen in the first place. In other words, experience is not the
“test” as Harding has made it to be to determine whether or not I
am saved to the uttermost now. To make experience the test is, at
bottom, empiricism. Experience, in King’s view, adds nothing to the
believer than just that, experience. I can know all about
For example, Jesus stated that “where I am, there you shall also be.” Harding interprets this, of course, as referring to a real location. Since he is a Preterist, those saints that he addressed in that generation must have been raptured (“taken to heaven”). And, since they were taken to heaven, that is what full salvation looks like, which we, today, obviously (to the senses) do not have. However, must one experience full salvation in order to say that he has it? What prevents one from believing that he has it regardless of his experience? Isn’t this faith? According to experience, Abraham’s body was as good as dead, but according to faith Sarah had a child.
However, Harding does believe in a non-experiential, covenantal understanding of being in heaven, for he acknowledges that believers “already” are “seated in heavenly places.” But this is only spiritually not fully or experientially. This immediately has the effect, though, of making the spiritual application of the promises less than the experiential application.
In
a growing number of Evangelical scholars’ works, Paul’s language is
to be viewed under the framework of covenantal contrasts. That is, under
the old covenant “corruption” “dishonor”
“vanity” and the like are terms used to describe those under that
covenant. In short, Paul’s language is not rooted in experience at
all, but in covenants in contrast. The term “flesh” for Paul
is not rooted in flesh that is experienced (tissue. Our exoskeleton), but is a
term used to denote life under the Torah. The same can be said for
“body,” “the body of the Sin,” “the body of the
Death,” and “the old man.” Tom Holland, and Evangelical
scholar and non-Preterist, speaks in this fashion in his newly published book, Contours
of Pauline Theology: A Radical New Survey of the Influences on Paul’s
Biblical Writings (
An example of this is also found in Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology In Reformed Perspective: Collected essays and book reviews in historical, biblical, and systematic theology (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000):
Once the
cosmic-corporate point of view is established Paul proceeds to discuss the
personal aspects of sin and death. Elect
Harding, as noted above, still has the believer under the “power of sin.” But, within the covenantal framework noted above, Paul’s understanding of “the power of the Sin” (Greek) is “the Torah”. “And the sting of the death is the sin, and the power of the sin the law” (Young’s Literal Translation). For Paul, “the Torah” here is the Torah as it functioned under the old covenant, and as it functioned in the Garden of Eden with Adam (Rom 5.12-ff). To still consider ourselves under the power of sin means, for Paul, that the Torah (the old covenant that was added to highlight Adam’s failure) is still giving it its power. Further, “the Sin” is what gives “the Death” its “sting.” Paul is saying nothing different here than what he elaborated on in Rom 5.12-8.1-ff. Harding is reading individualistic, experiential definitions into what many now consider to be covenantal, corporate definitions. In other words, the issue over how to define Pauline eschatology is no longer being waged within Preterist camps of “heaven now” and “taken to heaven” views, but is going on in American, Evangelical theology and abroad as well. The Preterist must interact with theological movements abroad.
If one were to take, for example, the paragraph of Mark Karlberg above and read it into I Corinthinas 15, the differences between Harding’s exegesis and this one would be quite different indeed. Essentially, King has done just that (and myself as well, largely following King, in my book, Exegetical Essays on the Resurrection of the Dead, Truth Voice Publications, 2004).
Harding, in pages 153-162, exegetes I Corinthians 15, but his methodology runs into the same problems faced by futurist exegesis. One example of this is where he states, “Being made alive at the Parousia means receiving the image completely of the heavenly Man, receiving a body of incorruption, of glory, of power, of spiritual life – just like Jesus’ heavenly body” (157). But it is not like Jesus’ heavenly body because Jesus was raised in the same body he had in the tomb. Harding believes that we receive a new spiritual body when we die, whereas the corpse in the casket remains. The analogy between Jesus’ resurrection and our own fails here and our critics are always eager to point that out.
Another problem is that Harding believes that, “the still-living saints would bypass the normal procedure of death” at the Parousia (159). That is, they would not die. But this flatly contradicts Paul: “You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies” (ESV 15.36). In order to come to life one must first die. In Paul’s mind, one cannot be raised, made alive, or changed to life and unless one first dies. If Paul has in mind here physical death (which I do not believe that he does), then no one can “bypass” death. However, since Paul insists on the necessity of death in order to come to life, then what does he mean when he said, “we shall not all sleep” (physically die – 15.51)? Is Paul contradicting himself? Or, is another covenantal definition (and very real) of “death” at work in 15.36, but in 15.51 Paul is saying that they will not all physically die? That is, for Paul there was a necessity of dying on one hand, and non-necessity of dying on the other. If one understands the necessity of death (15.36) as being death through the body of Christ’s death (which is necessary indeed!), and that not all need to experience physical death (15.51) in order to be wholly transformed in Gods’ presence, then Paul is explicitly denying what Harding explicitly teaches: the believer does not have to die physically in order to be completely changed spiritually. In fact, Jesus represented this when he appeared to them in glory but was still in his same body he had on earth. The full revelation of Jesus’ resurrection was this: you can still be in the same body and glorified with eternal life at the same time. In this way believers are united and identified (and made into his “image”) with Christ because they, too, are still in their physical bodies walking on earth and have eternal life with God at the same time. One is seen, the other is not seen.
One final error, I believe, Harding makes in this section is that he defines “corruption” as “a description of the natural, material, fallen human body” (160). Obviously, from this standpoint, believers today are still corrupted. Paul wrote, “So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is being sown in corruption; it is being raised in incorruption (my translation – 15.42). The “dead” represents “the seed” that is sown since Paul is answering the question, “how are the dead raised?” Greek has a word for corpse, but they are not asking “how are dead corpses raised?” They are asking about the dead ones; a specific group of people which would not be included in the resurrection. “It is being raised” refers back to the singular “seed” in the analogy since “the dead ones” is plural. That is, Paul does not say, “they are being sown in corruption; they are being raised in incorruption.” But, that is what he means because “the seed” (“it”) refers to “the dead ones” (plural) as a singular entity. Question: if “corruption” refers to the material, physical body, how can those who are already “dead” be sown into corruption? It appears here that the sowing takes place while they are in a state of corruption. “The dead are being sown while in corruption, and are being raised, at the same time, in incorruption.” Secondly, the same subject that is being sown is that which is to be raised. That is, the force of the Greek and the normal reading of the Greek is that the “it” of the first clause is the same “it” of the second clause. But, in Harding’s view this is not the case. The material human body (that which is “corrupt” in his view) is not raised at all. It is not changed. It is sown (at birth, he believes – 156), but it is not raised! But Paul is plainly defending the fact that what goes in is the same thing that comes out, only better because “it” is transformed.
Paul’s answer to the question, “how are the dead ones being raised?” uses a “seed” to stand for “the dead.” These already dead ones stand in need of being sown in order to die (“unless it dies”) again so that they can be raised to the imperishable life in the Body of Christ. They must die a cross-centered death (to borrow King’s phrase) in Christ in order to enter the resurrection of the Body of the Christ at his Parousia. They are sown as under the corruption of Adam’s guilt, brought about through the Law, which is the power of the Sin that came through Adam. Corruption hardly means here physical corruption. The dead, those very same ones who were being denied, are raised by the power of God since the Torah is being fulfilled, the death is being swallowed up, and the sin is being put away. It was the will of God to subject them to corruption in order to raise them in redemption. When they are raised, “corruption shall put on incorruption.” If corruption here means the physical body, how is it in Harding’s view does the physical body “put on” a new spiritual body when the physical body is left behind?
There are many, many other things that can be pointed out in this book, but I think I have covered some of the more major arguments Harding has put forth. In brief, Harding has combined futurist soteriology (old wine) into a Preterist framework (new wine) and it does not hold. Futurist soteriology was worked out with a view towards the Second Coming. It is based on that premise. To take, then, this and weave it into a Preterist framework is, in my estimation, impossible. It basically leaves us with the same, traditional soteriology except for the fact that when we die, then we get it all, whereas in the futurist paradigm, you have to wait. You still have wait in Harding’s view, too, and I fail to see any real difference while living on earth between futurist soteriology and Hardings.
In fact, they appear to be the same thing. Both are rooted in an experiential and individualistic appeal when defining terms. The alternative, of course, is to proclaim now the full forgiveness of sins and redemption and the full son ship of believers. Some might think that this diminishes what is to come, but this hardly diminishes it all. If we can proclaim believers as fully saved while on earth, imagine the experience of it when our physical hearts runs out of beats and we actually see it! What it is that we will experience is so powerful that it can be proclaimed as being obtained by faith today on earth! That is, while on earth, with all of its trappings and residue of the Great Battle, this full salvation can be proclaimed regardless of what we see. It is in that proclamation that it can transform even what we see (and it has). The full salvation that is applied to believers today transcends the earthly trappings of our own doing. This is a much more positive approach in my estimation.
One thing, however, I can
take from this book is that it is representative of an attempt of systematizing
issues other than Mat 24. That is where, I believe, Preterism is
woefully deficient. Harding is to be congratulated in this regard.
I am glad to have read the book. Perhaps, in the best case scenario,
Preterists can start a dialogue/debate over these things that stand between
us. In order to get a firm grasp on the vocabulary of those differences,
this book is a must. It’s another step in the direction of
clarification.
Samuel
M. Frost is the President of Regnum Christi Ministries and is currently working
on his Ph.D. in Hebrew Lexicography.