Gary DeMar shows the failure of John Murray's "Historical Idealism"
(Contrasted with Modern Idealism - the native hermeneutic of PreteristArchive.com. MI is to Historical Idealism as HP is to HyP.)
Relations and the Book of Revelation By
(Futurist: 1979-1996; Full Preterist: 1996-2006; Idealist: 2006-Eis tous aionios ton aionion)
Preterist-Idealism: The Wintery Flight (1876) "All who believed in Jesus Christ remembered what He had said, and left their homes hurriedly, and fled to a little town called Pella, on the other side of the river Jordan. Not one Christian perished in the siege of Jerusalem. The Jews who had refused to believe in Jesus, trusted to their strong walls, and their weapons, and stayed in the city.. Now, my children, I have not told you these things only as a chapter of history. I want you to learn some very important lessons from these words. For us there is an escape, a flight, to be undertaken, and for us there is a place of refuge like Pella. "
All terms are intended solely for the organizational purposes of the website, and are not meant to define the Preterist Movement. A fuller presentation of all the new classifications can be found here and here.
AD30 is chosen due to the Herod date.
By Todd Dennis
Hopefully, readers are starting to get the picture that, so far, the best support for the Hyper Preterist (HyP) view of "time indicators" is assuming the the point in question -- as though AD70 was always in view, even if the fall of Jerusalem is not in the text nor the context.
It was certainly a shock to me once I realized that so much
of what had seemed unassailable was now being recognized as the pure wishful
thinking that it was, being based upon a lot of presuppositions and a
couple of filtered eyes. For those who are willing to see, such has been
revealed with Matthew 10:23 and
In the passage highlighted by Matthew 26:64, there is no justification for using the text or context to refer primarily - and solely - to the fall of Jerusalem in AD70. This is the tendency to consider a verse "troublesome" at best or a "trouble text" at worst when it does not support the presupposed conclusion.
Another method is to see that the entire
Sanhedrin was in view, and that some of them
standing there would not taste of death till
they saw the Son of Man Coming in His
Kingdom in Matthew 26:64.
This would, perhaps, be the "other side of
the coin" for the Son of Man Coming in
His Kingdom in Matthew 16:27-28.
Because Jesus made these proclamations in front of Jew and Christian alike, the demographics of the audience isn't the focal point, so much as the nearness of their experience.
It is the suggestion of this article that the fulfillment of Matthew 26:64 required no Hyper Preterist postponement, but was even then in the full operating mode.
I am not going to spend much time tracing the history of Caiaphas because there are more important considerations (and to do so is to lay myself open to the oft-given charge that secular historians are being relied upon -- an absurd charge to come from Josephus-reliant HyP). Instead, let it suffice for now that there is not one source which suggests that Caiaphas lived very long past his being deposed by the Syrian governor Vitellius in AD37. The most thorough biographer of Caiaphas, Helen K. Bond (Senior Lecturer in New Testament Language, University of Edinburgh), concluded after a decade of studies that, "after eighteen years (as chief priest, Caiaphas was) rather too elderly and infirm" to have done much, and that he "more probably" died soon after that date. (Caiaphas: Friend of Rome and Judge of Jesus, p. 89)
B: METICULOUS BURIAL POINTS AWAY FROM REVOLT
In 1990, the ossuary of Caiaphas was
apparently discovered. This relic has withstood all scholarly attack (so far
as I have seen) on epigraphical grounds, including the petina of the
inscription and whatnot, and has come out certified as genuine. In this
extremely ornate box inscribed with Caiaphas' name lay the bones of a 60
year old man. If it is indeed Caiaphas, and he had lived to see AD70,
then he would have been only 8 years old when he began to reign as chief
priest in Israel, and was only 20 years old when he condemned Jesus... yet
another manifest absurdity.
In reality, there is no question that Jesus was addressing everyone. The power of his proclamation surely immediately impacted all who heard. And this is the point:
The declaration of Jesus regarding the Son of Man Coming in His Kingdom in Matthew 26:64 began to find its fulfillment immediately upon the utterance of the promise/prophecy.
#2 The Holy Spirit reveals Truth immediately.
What is most significant in Matthew 26:64 is the reference to the "son of man coming in the clouds of heaven." If you have read my treatments of Matthew 10:23 and Matthew 16:27-28, then you will be up to speed on the significance of these statements regarding the Holy Spirit's revelation of the power and glory of Jesus Christ in His people and upon His enemies.
The scriptural motif of suffering/reward and revelation/judgment runs throughout the Word of God, and Jesus doesn't skip a beat by imposing the Old Testament prophets' language upon His contemporaries. They would all be held immediately responsible for bearing those words spoken by Jesus Christ. [And yet, to LIMIT the meaning to the first recipients of that prophecy is a mistake that many make, among both futurists and preterists.]
There is no question that the powerful glory of Jesus Christ as Great King ("sitting on the right hand of the Father) was revealed to a great many people in that generation (such as to the centurion who, after beholding the Divine power respond to the crucifixion, said "Truly, this was the Son of God" 27:54). These gentlemen were recipients of that revelation as well. And it pointed to their immediate situation.. not one 40 years in the future!
There is, however, a much weightier matter that must be considered first: That of the "Apo Arti" phrase in the Greek texts of Matthew 26:64.
Though the typically pret-friendly
Weymouth translation would like to make Jesus say "later on, you will see.."
this is not really honest. I would rather say that it was simply a
mistake, but I find it impossible to believe that neither Richard
Francis Weymouth ("If this belief ever obtains general acceptance the
earlier date of the Apocalypse will also be regarded as fully established.
For it will then be seen that the book describes beforehand events which
took place in 70 A.D.") nor Earnest Hampden-Cook (co-editor and
author of "The Christ Has Come") were aware of how important (ironically) a
futurist spin on this passage is to uphold their Preterist assumptions.
However, not only is there no sense of futurity in this very emphatic Greek
phrase, but rather we see quite the opposite.
And yet, when these versions come to the exact same phrase in Matthew 26:64, they translate thusly:
It has been argued (probably soundly)
that the only reason "Apo Arti" has been rendered differently in this
location (as "in the future" or the more ambiguous "hereafter") is that
there would be profound doctrinal consequences to the futurists for making
Jesus' statement in Matthew 26:64 refer to the time then present.
"adverb. of coincidence, denoting strictly present time, as contrasted with past or future, just, just now, this moment."
A very loose paraphrase of Jesus' declaration in this light might be : "You said it, bro. But I'm telling you, player hater, that though you think you've got me now, you'll be seeing plenty of me and my posse getting the best of you and your homies from now until your sorry murderous lives end" (cue Jules' pseudo-Ezekiel rant in Pulp Fiction).
C: R.T. France, in his Commentary of the
Greek Text of Matthew (TNTC)
All of this content is easy enough to
prove... but what is sorrowful here is that Jesus' language being applied to
the revelation of power and glory is not at all outside of the bounds of
typical HyP hermeneutics ; except that, in this case, Matthew 26:64
points away from AD70, and not towards it! In addition, this
passage points to the events of the Passion of Jesus in a direct and
shocking way (hence the reaction). Swords were crossed at that
moment, and many blows were about to be struck.
Also this should be taken as a personal
challenge as well as the national. This declaration is not about some impersonal
corporate concept of Mosaic or national desolation. Nowhere is AD70
mentioned or even hinted at. The only way to make this passage refer to AD70
is by recognizing how THAT revelation of His power and glory, dramatic
though it may be, is on an even plane with other revelations and
manifestations in that generation (such as the stoning of Stephen -- an
event Caiaphas is likely to have participated in. -- ah, a light bulb?). All
of them teach the exact same lesson - that natural power, no matter how
consolidated or brutal, is superseded by the spiritual power of God and of
Jesus (and of those who speak in His name).
In the aftermath of the cross,
Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin would surely have been
terrified by the signs of the pre-crucifixion - culminating in the splitting of the
temple veil and the quakes and signs in the
heavens. Thereafter, the noticeable change in the character of the disciples
of Christ (e.g. their boldness, their bravery, their perseverance and joy
amid horrendous trials even unto death) would likewise have made them see
the power and glory of the Lord. In short, witnessing the unparalleled
phenomenon of all of the divine manifestations in that generation (primarily
in the conversion of Gentiles!) must have been "sights" that Caiaphas would
rather not "see" -- just as the enemies of God would rather not have seen
His power and glory in every subsequent generation.
So, as alluded to in an earlier post,
Matthew 26:64 is NOT a Preterist time indicator . The only way that
this passage could be seen as pointing to AD70 is by assuming that the Son
of Man Coming in His Kingdom" refers to AD70. This is
assuming the very point in question.
Luke 18:7-8 "And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?"
Really, what is most troubling in this regard is that caliber of printed and online literary scholarship is so uncritical in HyP, with a lack (if not intolerance) of peer review where critical investigation of the fundamental AD70 assumption is concerned. Blatant contradictions and textual misrepresentations escape serious rebuke (but are encouraged by those who know better - silence implies consent), so long as AD70 consummation is upheld! No wonder, then, that such a large amount of extreme doctrines likewise surround the HyP system. This is no coincidence. I believe that those who have elevated themselves to positions of teacher/ministry leader owe it to everyone to clearly define what they believe is extreme preterism. As of now, I have only seen three definitions of Hyper Preterism coming from full preterists. [Update 11.21.10 ]
I could quote many sources respected by HyPs, but it really is not necessary. Much more could be said about this passage, such as the important connection with the parallel passage Luke 22:69, but it will have to wait until later.
Frankly, I would be able to tolerate
HyP more if its scholarship was more willing to take a critical look at
itself. If those who have elevated themselves to positions of
teacher/leadership were most willing to admit error (even in the
slightest), then there probably would have been no reason for
the Preterist movement to splinter.
Dave Green on Jesus' Parousia being "from now on" at his trial: "6. Jesus told Caiaphas, the chief priests, the scribes, the elders, and the whole Sanhedrin that "from now on," they would be seeing the Parousia (Matt. 26:64; Mk. 14:62; Lk. 22:69)." (Theology Today, August 30, 2009). Green's Typically Strict AD70 Parousia Date : "Today the condemning old covenant is ancient history and we dwell securely in the heavenly places in our Redeemer. These things are realities today because of Jesus' once-for-all Appearing "for salvation" in A. D. 70." (Q&A 17) & "Thus were the saints "manifested" with Christ in His Parousia, when the worldly sanctuary fell." (Q&A 102) "& "Today, since the Parousia in 70, the Gospel is fulfilled and all believers in heaven and on earth are the living, spiritual Body of Christ and the eternal Tabernacle of God." (Response to McLaren)
What do YOU think ?
Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security
Date: 13 Sep 2012
Jesus said to the high priest "thou hast said." Thou is singular 100% of the time. Then Jesus said, "Ye shall see." "Ye" is plural 100% of the time. The statement about seeing Him in power and coming in the clouds was directed at more than just Caiaphas.
[TD: Are you suggesting that Jesus was NOT speaking to
Caiaphas? Do you see the problem there? You would do well to
investigate instead of dismiss.]
Email PreteristArchive.com's Sole Developer and Curator, Todd Dennis
(todd @ preteristarchive.com)
Opened in 1996