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 today.
What I will present is a Preterism modified by Idealism. I received hints of
the necessity of this modification from Tim Martin, who has always claimed to
like both Preterism and Idealism. Also, "PretMan", Jonathan, gave me a hint when I wrote on
Adam and Christ as Federal (Covenant) Heads. He spoke of a mini-Preterism going
on in the lives of individuals. His idea, basically an
old Reformed one, was that 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.
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:
1.
earthly
house torn down and replaced by a house not made with hands, eternal in the
heavens
2.
judgment
3.
salvation
4.
kingdom
5.
resurrection
6.
this
age...that age
7.
old/first...new/second
8.
death
swallowed up in life
9.
heaven
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
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
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
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.
Marcus Booker
as of 2-2007