The Nature of Christ: The Dilemma of Chronology

By Nathan DuBois
Nate 4 One Nation

Jesus was Messiah from the foundation, He did not become the Messiah only after He did the work. He did the work to reveal Himself as Messiah.. Are we really putting the "Type" as being the purpose and fulfillment over the "anti-type" to which they pointed?

Full Preterism vs. Idealism - Part One : Introduction | Part Two - Full Preterism's Achilles Heel | Part Three - Full Preterism's "New" Gospel | Full Preterism vs. Idealism: Part Four : Full Preterism's Single Dimension Focus

My Thoughts and Understanding of Preterist Idealism | God, The Judge of the Heart | Why I Needed to Repent: A Letter to a Friend... Among Friends | The Nature of the Christ: The Dilema of Chronology | Scripture Interprets Scripture: Part One - The Covenants, The Jerusalems, The Flesh and The Spirit | Response to "Expectations Demand a Rapture" | Nate4OneNation

We are creatures of time and space. The hardest part of trying to understand an infinite God is breaking away from the realm of what we know. The reason the letter was death, and the temple system a millstone, is because it trapped human beings into a system of the flesh. This system of the flesh was there for God's purposes, but the people who were in it, and in charge of it, got caught up in it's physical nature.

The temple was the temple, so how could Christ declare that He was the temple? Clearly a dilemma that the Jews did not understand. Do we? And in declaring He was the temple, was He the temple before or after He tore it down and resurrected it in 3 days?

The law was the law, so how could Christ declare that by following the letter of the law, they were imprisoning men and keeping mankind away from the kingdom? What right did Christ have for adding to the law? "But I tell you..." Can we say He was really adding to God's law?

In looking at things through physical occurrences and timelines, we tend to stress the importance of those timelines in place of the truth that was being revealed in them. Christ was the temple of Revelation 21. Was He the temple of Revelation 21 before or after His death, resurrection, and coming in glory? Depending on the stress and importance put on the timelines of the events we will see different answers.

The reason I think this discussion is important is because it goes to the heart of Christ's true nature vs. our nature. His image vs. our image. Did He become a man in the image and likeness of sinful flesh, or did He BECOME sinful flesh. The answer to this question is critical. If He became sinful flesh, then was He ever qualified to bring life to ours? How can a spotted lamb suffice as the sacrifice? Secondly, did He BECOME the light of the world because of His accomplishments, or did He reveal His light to mankind THROUGH His accomplishments?

These are important questions and go back to my "Chicken or the Egg" discussion.

John stresses the importance of understanding that Christ was from the beginning. He was the Word from before the foundation, He WAS the foundation!

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word (Christ); and the Word(Christ) was with God, and the Word (Christ) was God. 2 He (Christ) was with God in the beginning. 3 All things were created through Him (Christ), and apart from Him (Christ) not one thing was created that has been created. 4 In Him (Christ) was life, and that life was the light of men.

Here we see that Christ was the light of men. John appears to show that He was such from the beginning, however a chronological view will only attribute that truth to after the AD 70 revealing. Some even might do it at the cross, but either way, neither timeline is "the beginning."

Revelation 21:22 I did not see a sanctuary in it, because the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its sanctuary. 23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, because God's glory illuminates it, and its lamp is the Lamb. 24 The nations will walk in its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.

The only chronological aspect to this truth is the idea that all the nations will bring their glory into it. Christ did not become the light because He accomplished His work. By His nature and through His will He always WAS the light, but now that light is being revealed to men. John the Baptist seems to preach this way also.

John 1:5 That light shines in the darkness, yet the darkness did not overcome it. 6 There was a man named John who was sent from God. 7 He came as a witness to testify about the light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but he came to testify about the light. 9 The true light, who gives light to everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was created through Him, yet the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own people did not receive Him. 12 But to all who did receive Him, He gave them the right to be children of God, to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God. 14 The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We observed His glory, the glory as the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 (John testified concerning Him and exclaimed, "This was the One of whom I said, 'The One coming after me has surpassed me, because He existed before me.' ") 16 For we have all received grace after grace from His fullness. 17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God. The only Son-- the One who is at the Father's side-- He has revealed Him.

John the Baptist understood that he was the messenger of the One who always existed. John the Baptist was there to point to the One, and reveal to His contemporaries that the One had come.

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Here is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the One I told you about: 'After me comes a man who has surpassed me, because He existed before me.' 31 I didn't know Him, but I came baptizing with water so He might be revealed to Israel."


Again, John declares that Christ was before Him, eternal. That his purpose for baptizing the Messiah was for revelation. We can see Christ put it His own way.

Matthew 3:14 But John tried to stop Him, saying, "I need to be baptized by You, and yet You come to me?" 15 Jesus answered him, "Allow it for now, because this is the way for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed Him to be baptized.


Someone looking at chronology only would understand that Christ was baptized, because if He had not done so, then He would not have met the letter of righteousness.  This is a passage they might get that from. But if that is the case, then Christ is also saying that water baptism is the way to fulfill all righteousness...which is NOT what He is saying. Christ was not "fulfilling something, He was following those traditions because He was to be revealed as the fullness of those traditions. He did not BECOME the fullness because He did them, that is backwards! Because it was to reveal Him who is from the beginning, that those traditions existed in the first place!

Are we really putting the "Type" as being the purpose and fulfillment over the "anti-type" to which they pointed?

Which is first, the will or the work?

Which is the point, the work completed or that will that brought that work into existence in the first place?

Let me give one example from Paul. When discussing the righteousness of Abraham, he draws the line between the work (performing righteousness) vs. the will (being made righteous by the declaration of God) .

Romans 3:10 How then was it credited--while he was circumcised, or uncircumcised? Not while he was circumcised, but uncircumcised. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while still uncircumcised. This was to make him the father of all who believe but are not circumcised, so that righteousness may be credited to them also. 12 And he became the father of the circumcised, not only to those who are circumcised, but also to those who follow in the footsteps of the faith our father Abraham had while still uncircumcised. 13 For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith.

And likewise, Christ did not BECOME righteousness because He DID the things of the law, but rather He did the things of the law to show that only IN CHRIST does righteousness dwell. All that He did was only to reveal the truth of Himself. He was from the beginning. Jesus was Messiah from the foundation, He did not become the Messiah only after He did the work. He did the work to reveal Himself as Messiah.

This is the same rule that applies to AD 70. Christ was not the light of the world BECAUSE He returned and revealed Himself in glory, He revealed Himself in glory because He was the light of the world. 

I understand the difficulty in breaking the paradigm of thought we have carried in our systems. This may rub some theologians the wrong way, and to you I apologize. But I can no longer say those things like "thank God for the cross, because if it wasn't for the cross, I would not have salvation." Rather, thank God for His mercies. Because He willed Himself to be merciful to me, He wrote my name in the book and I was saved. I was declared saved the moment He willed it. It was settled before the world was made. Praise God for His eternal goodness.

He did not have to prove Himself in History, he chose to do what He did ONLY for the purpose of revelation to me! He chose to require blood for redemption, NOT BECAUSE HE DID NOT HAVE THE POWER TO REDEEM ME OTHERWISE, but to show me the depth of transgression that I had committed.

What a humbling way to view it. Yes, He did die for me, not because He had to, but because he wanted to reveal Himself to me, Nathan, a pitiful little finite nobody.

God Bless
Nate

Date: 05 Dec 2006
Time: 08:50:49

Comments:

Nate,

You write that salvation (along with all other fulfillments in Christ) *always WAS*. I cannot see my way to remove salvation from history, as you have done. I am listening to you guys, but you have a long way to go to convince me that there is any Scriptural basis for ignoring redemptive history, which in my opinion is **the** story the Bible tells us, from Genesis to Revelation.

I am *so* onboard with your criticisms of how the preterist view has focused on external shows as if they were the substance, and ignored the spiritual realities: the real substance, and "the true." I am *so* tracking with you guys on that! And I do understand the disallusionment that a shallow, fleshly view of fulfilled eschatology can create. I myself would never have stayed engaged with a study which didn't move beyond a historical argument (so what?) to pierce my heart with greater truths.

But it was the cross which *performed* the mercy promised to the fathers. The cross was not just an outward manifestation of something that had already happened, or had always been. Christ stepped out of eternity, and *into* our time....into human history...TO SAVE US. He came to save us. We weren't saved...until He saved us! (Quiet obviously, I do *not* subscribe to the "reformed" view of regeneration. ;))

What has washed away my sin? Nothing but the blood of Jesus.

Luke 1:68 Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; for he hath visited and redeemed his people, 69 And hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David; 70 As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began: 71 That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; 72 To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant; 73 The oath which he sware to our father Abraham.

I continue to follow this discussion with great interest, and I haven't, as has been suggested that some preterists have done, planted a flag which can't be uprooted...I'll never stop learning and growing. And I want to always submit to the authority of His Word. It is in that spirit which I share my thoughts with you here.

in Christ,
Tami

Date: 05 Dec 2006
Time: 12:26:12

Comments:

Tami,
God bless. And I appreciate the spirit in which you have always discussed things with me or others.

I have submitted to Todd another writing addressing this exact issue. I hope it helps explain my focus. I do not beg you to agree, just to see the thought behind the direction I have been taken.

I have it on my blog, but would rather not post the link becuase either on this site or others that might post it, gives it the best chance to be discussed.

God Bless
Nate

Date: 05 Dec 2006
Time: 15:54:29

Comments:

Nate - I don't understand how you see this as only Pret-Idealist.

In other words. No one I know ever thought that this stuff had not been declared from the foundation of the world (this is a very calvinistic understanding).

Nevertheless they still had to occur in time.

Also, if the revealing occurred. Which we agree that it did. But wasn't his wrath also revealed.

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,5But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.

In other words Christ reveals judgment too, to those not "in him". So to try to hold that people oustide of Christ still in the Mosaic in some respect would be to deny that "revealing" to them as well.

Which is why I still hold that there can be unbelievers in the "age to come" etc.

Anyway, just some thoughts. Still working on some of this and not shooting down everything you say. But I think it is a stretch to have the Mosaic Covenant still in existence in any way, on men. I also object to the idea of making prohecies mean whatever you want them too (Example: The Gal 4 text = hearts). But no one is rejecting your thoughts completely. MB
 

Date: 05 Dec 2006

Comments:

Mike,
Thanks for writing. I lost my original response to you, and the latter half of this second attempt is an edited copy of part of a response elsewhere, but since it specifically addresses your question, please accept this to you as well.

I believe that the judgment needed to occur as a part of the revelation, also. My only hangup is that we separate the covenants of Adam and Moses. I do not believe the Mosaic law was anything but an "in part" representative of the fullness of God's law, which is ongoing. I have heard you refer to it as "Christ's Law." I believe the Mosaic covenant had the same law, but only revealed in part.

So my issue is that removing what was "in part" to reveal the fullness did not put under or do away with the law. It was a copy, and only in part, of the full law. It's removal in time was for the purposes of revealing the fullness of Gods law to mankind.

So the way I try to explain it is, since those things were never the full and true law in and of themselves, having them pass away is not the same as saying that the "law" passed away. For that law existed from the beginning of time.

Also, I too agree that God did things in time, for us. I think that was the point of the end of my post. But I have a problem saying that He did them in time to make them "true." He created us in time, chose to reveal Himself and His truth in time, and therefore doing the things He did was His method for revelation.

But again, it was only revelation. The revelation of those things are not what made them true.

Mike,
Also I responded to your Jerusalem and Galatians 4 remark, but that is found here: Scripture Interprets Scripture

God Bless
Nate

Date: 05 Dec 2006
Time: 17:47:22

Comments:

Nate,

I want to echo Tami's comments above. I am very open to the directions you and Todd have presented. But, like Tami,I have some difficulty following the reasoning in this post.

I sense that pret-idealism will always be a kind of spectrum, and I want to avoid an action-reaction dynamic because ditches on the left or right are not where I want to spend my time.

Here is my question in regard to your post. How can you reconcile your above points with Paul in Romans 13:11-14?

I can see very clearly that passage has a universal application. There is nothing special about the moral directives Paul gives, because, from the earliest times of redemptive history Israel understood her calling to "be holy" as God is holy.

The difficulty I have is that Paul does very clearly seem to place his and their salvation in chronological time. As a preterist, the implication is hard to escape, especially when I consider that all the rest of the New Testament believers seem to be waiting very explicitly for something to come to pass. How does this jive with your above post?

The Eastern Orthodox universalize this chronological setting and apply it to our experience. To them, the "end" of the age is a type of the end of each of our lives. So it remains true that we only enter the kingdom through suffering and persecution. This approach, though leaves the salvation of the believer incomplete until the point of death - which seems to stand against what we already understand about the present emphasis of preterism.

In other words, I'm having difficulty getting to where you are in light of the many texts Romans 13:11-14 represents.

Could you help me on this?

Tim Martin

Date: 06 Dec 2006
Time: 01:04:34

Comments:

Hello Tim!

I would actually say that those things that Paul admonished them to do, are eternally applicable.

Romans 13:8 Do not owe anyone anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 The commandments: You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and if there is any other commandment--all are summed up by this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Love, therefore, is the fulfillment of the law.
11 Besides this, knowing the time, it is already the hour for you to wake up from sleep, for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. 12 The night is nearly over, and the daylight is near, so let us discard the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk with decency, as in the daylight: not in carousing and drunkenness; not in sexual impurity and promiscuity; not in quarreling and jealousy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no plans to satisfy the fleshly desires.

These things Paul asked them to do were not BECAUSE the end was near so NOW they had to do them. Those were things they should always be doing. I think the only way in which they applied to the chronologial events that were to come was the idea of glorification.

"1 Peter 1:4-9 and into an inheritance that is imperishable, uncorrupted, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, 5 who are being protected by God's power through faith for a salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. 6 You rejoice in this, though now for a short time you have had to be distressed by various trials 7 so that the genuineness of your faith-more valuable than gold, which perishes though refined by fire-may result in praise, glory and honor at the revelation of Christ. 8 You love Him, though you have not seen Him. And though not seeing Him now, you believe in Him and rejoice with inexpressible and glorious joy, 9 because you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls."

"1 Peter 2:12 Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that in case where they speak against you as those who do evil, they may, by observing your good works, glorify God in a day of visitation."

Verse 12 says it exactly. The glorification of Christ, by His saints, is due to their vindication. Evil was done to them all around the empire, most notably by or because of the Jewish persecution. With the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, which 2 Thess 1:9 references, the victims of persecution would be vindicated, their testimony proven true, and Christ glorified as the true Messiah.

"1 Peter 4:13 Instead, as you share in the sufferings of the Messiah rejoice, so that you may also rejoice with great joy at the revelation of His glory."

Peter encourages those being persecuted to rejoice. He says they would rejoice with "great joy at the revelation of His glory." The revelation of the glory of Christ would produce "great joy." How could it not produce joy when those who were being persecuted had been relieved from that persecution through the judgment and affliction on those who had "afflicted" them (2 Thess 1:6-10)?

Even today, as the revelation of Christ is brought to knew members of the kingdom, those Christians they witnessed throughout their lives, on their journey to sonship, stand out. You can look back and thank, hold in high esteem, lift up, those who may have impacted your journey. We, as Christians, share Christ's glorification when we do honorably in the midst of those who persecute us, and then witness the vindication of our Lord in our lives even today.

So from my standpoint, which is the fullness or fulfillment? That at AD 70 they were to shed the deeds of darkness because the temple was about to fall? Or that we are to shed the deeds of darkness because as the old man crumbles, we are the glory and revelation of Christ. We are His body?

God Bless
Nate