Trouble with Toothpaste…

It has long been a common saying that you “cannot put toothpaste back into the tube” and that is exactly the situation would-be detractors of preterism find themselves in today.  This is especially the case as it pertains to those “former” preterists who wish they could simply forget what they know deep within the innermost parts of their being to be true–that Jesus came again, just He promised in those events connected with the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

A logics professor once gave his students a simply puzzle to ponder:  If a dog has four legs and a tail and you call the tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have?  The answer is:  four.  Just because you call a tail a leg does not make it so.  Likewise, with preterism.  Just because a person wishes that the teachings were not true does not make it so.  To date nobody in the “former” preterist (anti-preterist) camp has presented logical argumentation that refutes the very basis upon which preterism stands.

In defending the premillennial position John Walvoord observed that it is not simply an argument over the interpretation of one chapter in the book of Revelation, but that the teaching is found from Genesis to Revelation.  His concept was that premillennialism itself affected every aspect of one’s theology from beginning to end.  This is also the case with preterism.  It is not just an argument about the so-called “time statements” of Scripture, but rather it is about the totality of the eternal purpose of God from beginning to end.  For one to simply “walk away” from the teaching implies the necessity of going back to the theological “drawing board” and starting over again.  While some within the Reformed community would deny that preterist teaching has any affect on the other great doctrines related to total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irrestible grace, or perseverence of the saints (T.U.L.I.P.) those who are honest with themselves and with the Scriptures understand otherwise.  I realize this statement runs counter with the thinking of many Reformed people, and it is certainly not my intention to be offensive to any of them, it is, nevertheless, true.  The fact remains that John Calvin did not see the “big picture” as it pertained to salvation-history and the consummation of the ages in A.D. 70.  This is not to imply that John Calvin was wrong in his systematic theology, only that parts of the puzzle were not evident to him at the time.

Preterists must be careful at this particular stage of development to steer clear of drawing conclusions based upon other theological preconceptions–right or wrong.  Long before the time of Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Wesley and a host of others, believers were “just Christians”–nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.  The Bible was, and is, the standard from which “all truth” arises and no systematic theology is 100% correct.  The writings of the “Church Fathers” ought to be examined and respected for the contribution each made in the quest to honor and preserve the truth.  However, none were inspired then, nor are the “internet theologians” of today inspired.  If we had accepted ONLY the writings of the “Church Fathers” and the “Reformers” then no place for preterism could be found.  Why?  Because the study of eschatology was not their central focus.  The church was battling other issues such as “works based” salvation, the exaltation of the virgin Mary, denial of the doctrine of the Trinity etc.  The study of Bible prophecy would have to wait until much later for the truth to be discovered and the message proclaimed.

The “former” preterists are getting a collective “pat on the back” from futurists who welcome them back into the fold with open arms.  This, however, does not imply that these “born again” futurists have discovered anything of substance that refutes their former position.  Every book written to refute preterism is full of logical contradictions and misapplications of Scripture.  Many futurist scholars would like people to just ignore what the Scriptures teach on the basis on their reputation alone.  “Preterism is wrong BECAUSE WE SAID SO” is not a valid argument and people such as Tim LaHaye are biting off far more than they can chew when encountering a preterist who knows the Scriptures.

Believers should allow sound hermeneutics to determine their systematic theology and not the doctrines and traditions of men.  A verse can never MEAN what the verse never MEANT is a good starting point in the quest for truth.  I am not saying that people should throw away the contributions of great Reformers such as Calvin and others, only that we do not allow our theology to be shaped by the opinions and writings of others who may or may not be right.  We honor the greatness of those who have gone before us and at the time same we press forward in our hunger and thirst for righteousness.  The slogan “Always Reforming” must mean something.  If the great Reformers were standing alongside us here today, what would be their position?  Would they have hearts open to the truth?  Would they sacrifice everything to spread the message far and wide?  I think so.

Preterism is divided on many fronts–some of which is determined by our past endearment with certain forms of systematic theology.  Each of us needs to be willing to study the word of God separate and apart from our “favorite” theologians in order to see the bigger picture.  There is a current spirit of critical and judgmental thinking of those who take issue with either Calvinisits or Arminians and speak negatively of each.  Truth is too important for us to look down our theological noses at others with whom we disagree.  The questions transcend Calvin and others.  God is no more a Calvinist than He is a SF 49er fan.  This reminds me of the Republicans and the Democrats who insist on dragging God into the political areana and asking Him to choose sides.  God is a political “independent” who transcends our silly elections and cheerleading efforts for the candidates.

The preterist toothpaste is out of the tube and those who helped to squeeze it out cannot now turn around and try to put it back into the tube.  Too late.

[The statements made above about Calvinism and other doctrines were not mean as an attack against those who subscribe to every aspect of his theology.  John Calvin was a good man with a humble heart and a willingness to take stand on his convictions.  I apologize in advance for those who may be offended by the observations--they are mine alone.  I believe in the Sovereign grace of God, election, predestination, etc as is taught in the Scriptures and not because these doctrines fall into any particular category.--Larry Siegle]

Resurrection Realities (II): Death and Hades

In the first installment of this series we established some important principles related to the death of Jesus on the Cross, the “death” that came as the result of the entrance of sin into the “world” of Adam (Rom. 5:12), and likewise the “death” that was brought about by disobedience within the Covenant represented by being “cut-off” from the community (Gen. 17:14; 12:15, 19; 30:33, 38; 31:14: Lev. 7:20, 21, 25, 27; 17:4, 9, 10, 14; 18:19; 19:8; 20:3, 5, 6, 17, 18; 22:3; 23:29; Num. 9:13; 15:30, 31; 19:13 et al).  Jesus, as one “born of a woman” and “born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4) paid the price, dying a physical death according to the terms of the Covenant into which He was born, and also experiencing spiritual death–separation from the presence of God because of the sin of Adam.  Jesus “became sin” in order that believers might “become the righteousness of God in Christ” (II Cor. 5:21).

The book of Revelation pictures the glorious defeat of sin and death with Jesus as, “the first and the last, the living One.  I died and behold I am alive forevermore and I have the keys of Death and of Hades” (Rev. 1:17, 18).  It is the victorious Christ who descended into the realm of captivity through the shedding of His blood on the Cross and conquered sin in the very depth of Hades itself and then, three days later, ascended and “led captivity captive” (Eph. 4:8-10).  Jesus was put to death “in the flesh” (according to the terms of the Covenant world into which He had been born), but was made alive “in the spirit” (according to the terms of the New Covenant word into which He had been “born again”) (I Pet. 3:18; Heb. 1:3-8).  The mission of Jesus was “that through death He might destroy him who has the power of death, that is the devil” (Heb. 2:14) and to bring about “deliverance” to those who would share in this great victory (Heb. 2:15).  Few of us have come to appreciate fully all that Jesus accomplished through His death, descention into Hades, and glorious resurrection from the dead!  The “power” of the Cross was demonstrated and manifested by the “power” of His resurrection and His Sonship (Rom. 1:4).

Having grown up in a family and living four years with a relative who was a Jehovah’s Witness I heard non-stop presentations on the meaning of Sheol, Hades, Gehenna and the Watchtower theology of “soul-sleep” and “second chance” salvation in a “soon” coming new “system of things.”  In an effort to vindicate the character of God by turning a garden hose on Hell, Jehovah’s Witnesses have cheapen the very price Jesus paid for our redemption.  Sheol and Hades did not represent “the common grave of all mankind” as was suggested, but rather the place or state of being where humanity would remain “cut-off” or separated from the presence of God until the Redeemer would come and release those held captive because of “sin and death.”  Those waiting in Hades were not unconscious as to their condition of spiritual separation from God as illustrated in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31).  Both the “righteous” in the bosom of Abraham and the “wicked” in “torment” understood their condition completely–Hades was a place of separation for both.  The blood of animal sacrifices was unable to pay the price for sin and therefore entrance back into the presence of God–heaven itself–was not possible apart from the redemptive work of Jesus Christ (Heb. 9:24).  Righteous people such as David did not ascend “into the heavens” (Acts 2:34), but were consigned to remain in Hades until the time of the resurrection.  Only Jesus could provide the remedy and come away with the “keys” of both “Death and Hades.”

Some mistakenly see no distinction between “death” (spiritual separation from the presence of God)–as a condition, and “Hades” as the placewhere the condition is enforced (according to the terms of covenant-death) until the time of the resurrection.  The spiritual separation Jesus Christ experienced in His death paid the price for the sin of Adam while the act of shedding His precious blood paid the price required according to the covenant to open the “gates of Hades” to release those who had died.

Redemption from Genesis to Revelation is about a community–humanity lost “in Adam.”  It is also about the community entering into covenant with God through Abraham and the eventual bringing of Jesus Christ into both aspects of the community (“in Adam”) and (“in the Old Covenant”).  The stance of the individual before God is determined by his life as defined by the “world” or covenant into which he was born.  Those who were born Gentiles lived according to the requirements given to them on that basis.  Those who were born into Israel lived according to the requirements given to them on that basis.  God dealt with people according to the “world” into which they were born.  Gentiles tried to plead ignorance before God, but Paul argued that they were guilty of sin and thus stood condemned before God because they did not walk in the light and knowledge to which they had access (Rom. 1:18-32).  Jews attempted to justify their “righteousness” before God because they had been given the Law and were in Covenant with God, but Paul argued that they were also guilty of sin and thus stood condemned alongside the Gentiles who did not have the Law (Rom. 2:1-29).  The concluding argument of Paul is that neither group was exempt from the wrath of God because of sin.  “All have sinned (Gentiles and Jews) and have fallen short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23).  The sentence for both was “death” (Rom. 6:23).  The teaching about the resurrection of the dead was to consummate the redemption of both Jew and Gentile in the “one body” of Christ.

Most of our lives we hear sermons about the “me” aspect of salvation–the personal relationship a person must have with the Lord Jesus Christ, and certainly this is true.  Salvation is not a group insurance policy that protects the community without consideration for the condition of the individual.  Salvation is as personal as individual sin is.  The New Covenant is the realm where grace to the individual is applied.  The New Covenant community of faith is a “body” (collectively) and yet God deals with each of us individually on the basis of that Covenant.

It was the resurrection of the collective (community) that ushered in the new “world” in which individual believers would have a standing with God.  When “death” and “Hades” gave up their “dead” (Rev. 20:13), the people collectively stood before God–resurrected to stand and to receive the end result of the process–”life” or eternal “condemnation” (Rev. 20:11-15).  The judgment was collective and covenantal in nature with individual ramifications for those belong to both groups standing before the throne.

Many believers waste far too much energy seeking to ascertain whether or not the punishment of Gehenna (Hell) is literal or figurative.  A careful study of the subject quickly reveals that the word pictures used by inspiration to describe the condition (state of being) for those “outside” the presence of God is one of sorrow, pain and misery of their own making.  The consequences of sin are “eternal” in both scope and duration.  Perhaps the worst part of Hell is in knowing that God did everything possible to prevent people from the need to be there.  The rejection of Jesus, the Cross, and the glorious resurrection from the dead stands forever as the supreme testimony to the patience, longsuffering and goodness of Almighty God.

In the third part we will examine some of the reasons why the resurrection cannot be divided into two separate aspects–one at conversion and another at the point of physical death, as some might suggest.  We will also explore some of the reasons why some believers in the first century may have been confused about the time of the resurrection–thinking that it had already past when in reality it was still in process–one that lasted forty years in duration.  By the end of these articles it is the hope of this writer that each of us will have a greater appreciation for all that God has accomplished on our behalf.