A Review of Beyond Creation Science
Introduction
I have spent the past few weeks reading the book, Beyond Creation Science, (hereafter in the review, referred to as BCS). Many chapters I have read at least twice in order to not misunderstand the authors' intention. In attempting to be as objective as possible in reviewing this book, I have not read any other author's reviews, comments, and interpretations of this work. I have submitted a few comments to Tim Martin in a blog concerning a few issues in the book upon preliminary examination of the book. It is in many ways a remarkable book. BCS is an attempt by the authors to integrate two subjects: end-times prophecy and Genesis creation. In this attempt, the authors are to be commended for their contributions on the subjects of preterism, eschatology, local flood vs. global flood, hermeneutics, prophetic fulfillments and covenant theology. The thesis of the book is stated in the forward where we read "Our thesis is that the common mistakes Christians make regarding origins and prophecy are deeply connected". So in essence the book is about these errors and how preterism solves these errors. The main errors that BCS focuses on are young-earth creationism and dispensational futurism. There are two key statements in the books that illustrate this. In their chapter on Worlds Collide, BCS states on page 108, "The reign of young-earth creationism is inescapably tied to the reign of futurism among American Christians." Then, in one of the key chapters of this book, Covenant Creation, BCS states on page 271, "Among many other things, preterism represents an advance in understanding the nature and redemptive function of biblical prophecy. This advance is ultimately rooted in the biblical way preterism handles the prophetic and apocalyptic language we find in Scripture." With these two key statements in mind, the authors' give, what is probably to most Christians, a surprising interpretation of the second coming of Christ. They believe, that the end of the old covenant age (Jewish age from Moses onward) and the beginning of a new heaven and earth, both came about with the second coming of Christ during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The book is a long read with over 500 pages counting notes. It is difficult to adequately review the book without writing a long treatise. I will do this review in three parts somewhat in harmony to the three parts of the book. The first four chapters, while setting the foundation for the rest of the book, basically outlines the author's attempt to use preterism (which comes from the Latin praeter - "past") in explaining that all of the prophetic language of the Old and New Testament were fulfilled in the first century (the past). Since this concept is so important to BCS's thesis, I will spend the first part of my review on these chapters.
First Four Chapters
Chapter one begins with the statement by Jesus to his disciples that some "will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”(Matt. 16:28 and Luke 9:27). On the surface, this appears to be a straight forward statement by Jesus. However it has generated a variety of interpretations and controversy. It has been normally interpreted to mean one of two options: (1) that Jesus was predicting the coming of His Kingdom with power. Mark tells us (9:1) that some of the disciples would not taste death till they see the kingdom of God "present" (NKJV) with power. The Greek here is a perfect active participle indicating completed action. Therefore many translations say "having come". In other words it is better to state that death would not come to some of the disciples until they saw that the kingdom had come and was to continue permanently. Many have suggested this refers to the events of Pentecost, the giving of the Holy Spirit, and the first fruits of the church as recorded in Acts 2. (2) The second option has been the preterist view that Jesus was talking of His coming in judgment on the city of Jerusalem with its destruction in 70 A.D.
However there appears to be at least two other options in interpreting this difficult passage. Before I give these two other options, let us explore further option (1) mentioned above. Now this statement is addressed in context to the twelve disciples because this statement comes after the great confession by Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God (Matt 16:16 and Luke 9:20). Before we go to what Jesus meant by the "Son of Man coming in his kingdom", we must note that at least two of the original twelve did taste death as recorded in Scripture. Judas hanged himself and Herod killed James, the brother of John with the sword (Acts 12:2).
Introduction
I have spent the past few weeks reading the book, Beyond Creation Science, (hereafter in the review, referred to as BCS). Many chapters I have read at least twice in order to not misunderstand the authors' intention. In attempting to be as objective as possible in reviewing this book, I have not read any other author's reviews, comments, and interpretations of this work. I have submitted a few comments to Tim Martin in a blog concerning a few issues in the book upon preliminary examination of the book. It is in many ways a remarkable book. BCS is an attempt by the authors to integrate two subjects: end-times prophecy and Genesis creation. In this attempt, the authors are to be commended for their contributions on the subjects of preterism, eschatology, local flood vs. global flood, hermeneutics, prophetic fulfillments and covenant theology. The thesis of the book is stated in the forward where we read "Our thesis is that the common mistakes Christians make regarding origins and prophecy are deeply connected". So in essence the book is about these errors and how preterism solves these errors. The main errors that BCS focuses on are young-earth creationism and dispensational futurism. There are two key statements in the books that illustrate this. In their chapter on Worlds Collide, BCS states on page 108, "The reign of young-earth creationism is inescapably tied to the reign of futurism among American Christians." Then, in one of the key chapters of this book, Covenant Creation, BCS states on page 271, "Among many other things, preterism represents an advance in understanding the nature and redemptive function of biblical prophecy. This advance is ultimately rooted in the biblical way preterism handles the prophetic and apocalyptic language we find in Scripture." With these two key statements in mind, the authors' give, what is probably to most Christians, a surprising interpretation of the second coming of Christ. They believe, that the end of the old covenant age (Jewish age from Moses onward) and the beginning of a new heaven and earth, both came about with the second coming of Christ during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. The book is a long read with over 500 pages counting notes. It is difficult to adequately review the book without writing a long treatise. I will do this review in three parts somewhat in harmony to the three parts of the book. The first four chapters, while setting the foundation for the rest of the book, basically outlines the author's attempt to use preterism (which comes from the Latin praeter - "past") in explaining that all of the prophetic language of the Old and New Testament were fulfilled in the first century (the past). Since this concept is so important to BCS's thesis, I will spend the first part of my review on these chapters.
First Four Chapters
Chapter one begins with the statement by Jesus to his disciples that some "will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”(Matt. 16:28 and Luke 9:27). On the surface, this appears to be a straight forward statement by Jesus. However it has generated a variety of interpretations and controversy. It has been normally interpreted to mean one of two options: (1) that Jesus was predicting the coming of His Kingdom with power. Mark tells us (9:1) that some of the disciples would not taste death till they see the kingdom of God "present" (NKJV) with power. The Greek here is a perfect active participle indicating completed action. Therefore many translations say "having come". In other words it is better to state that death would not come to some of the disciples until they saw that the kingdom had come and was to continue permanently. Many have suggested this refers to the events of Pentecost, the giving of the Holy Spirit, and the first fruits of the church as recorded in Acts 2. (2) The second option has been the preterist view that Jesus was talking of His coming in judgment on the city of Jerusalem with its destruction in 70 A.D.
However there appears to be at least two other options in interpreting this difficult passage. Before I give these two other options, let us explore further option (1) mentioned above. Now this statement is addressed in context to the twelve disciples because this statement comes after the great confession by Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the son of the living God (Matt 16:16 and Luke 9:20). Before we go to what Jesus meant by the "Son of Man coming in his kingdom", we must note that at least two of the original twelve did taste death as recorded in Scripture. Judas hanged himself and Herod killed James, the brother of John with the sword (Acts 12:2).
And tradition tells us that Peter was killed, probably in Rome, around 67 A.D. Now why are these deaths significant? It confirms my earlier point that some of the disciples would not taste death until they saw the kingdom coming with power and was here to stay. Surely Peter understood this at the time of his death. Furthermore, the authors of BCS are proposing that the Son of Man did come in 70 A.D., therefore, Jesus was stating that some of the disciples would live to see that day. The problem with this is that almost all scholars believe most if not all of the apostles were dead, with the possible exception of John (and we are not sure of this) prior to 70 A.D. Further, those apostles who were possibly still alive in 70 A.D. were not even in Jerusalem. This would mean that the "some" Jesus was talking about would be just John, highly doubtful. Even John was probably not in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. For tradition tells us that he made his home in Ephesus later in his life. Now it is possible that all of these scholars are mistaken and that many of the apostles were still alive in 70 A.D. The key word here is "some". So now we come to our third option which is really an extension of option one. If we interpret the coming of the Son of Man in his kingdom to mean Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father (notice that Stephen sees this in Acts 7:55 and cries out, "Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God", then we can say that some (not including Judas) did see the Son of Man in his kingdom prior to their death and by the time after the death of James, they saw the kingdom established on a permanent basis among the Gentiles (see Acts 15). Peter uses this language in Acts 2 where he states that "this Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. . .being exalted to the right hand of God " (verse 32,32). We see similar language by Jesus to the high priest, where Jesus tells him that you will see "the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven" (Matthew 26:64). In Luke 22:69, we get a little different version, "Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God". The Scriptures are clear that Jesus, when He ascended, went to sit at the right hand of the Father as fulfillment of Psalm 110:1. Furthermore, the high priest who confronted Jesus is also the same one that confronted Stephen (Acts 7:1). Therefore is it possible that the high priest saw with Stephen, as fulfillment of what Jesus told the high priest, Jesus standing at the right hand of God? We don't know, but this is possible. It is not altogether clear the statements by Jesus to the disciples in Matthew 16:28 and to the high priest in Matthew 26:64 are referring to the same event. It is possible that all will see Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father and coming in the clouds before they face the final judgment. So the high priest will rise on that day and actually see Him before facing judgment. Passages such as Romans 2:5,16, 2 Corinthians 5:10, and Philippians 2:9-12 clearly indicate an appearance by all before Jesus Christ to face judgment. Some scholars suggest the you of Matthew 26:64 is not the high priest (you is plural) but rather the Jews that Jesus is referring. So all the Jews will recognize that the Christ, they have reviled and ignored for hundreds of years, will actually be Lord of Lords and King of Kings and they will see at the final judgment Him whom they pierced and all the tribes of earth will mourn because of him (Revelation 1:7).
Our final interpretation of Matthew 16:28 deals with the context of this statement and other Scripture. It is interesting that after Jesus made this statement, six days later, He was transfigured before Peter, James, and John. It is clear that Jesus was glorified at this event. Notice also a cloud descended and overshadowed them and a voice spoke saying, "This is My beloved Son, Hear Him" (Luke 9:35). Peter refers to this event in 2 Peter 1:16, "we made known to you the power and coming (this is the same word as used in Matthew 16:28) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased', and we head this voice which came from heaven when were with Him on the holy mountain". It is possible Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled by the events of the transfiguration. However, I find this view rather weak, especially if we take at face value the statement of Jesus that some would not taste "death". An event that happened some 6 to 8 days later does not seem to fulfill this prediction by Jesus. Still, the language is so similar in 2 Peter, one has to be intrigued by this interpretation.
I will now address the passage written by John concerning his death and Peter's. BCS makes much of this to prove that Jesus was predicting John would be still alive when He would come in 70 A.D. The passage can be read in John 21:18:22. This is proof to BCS of the validity of Matthew 16:28. So John would be part of the "some" who would not taste death. Evidently a saying had gone out among the brethren that from this passage, John would not die. Clearly, John included this passage of Scripture to put this saying at rest. Jesus did not say that John would not die but that "if I will that he remain, till I come, what is that to you". This is clearly a conditional statement suggesting that it is in the power and prerogative of the Savior to decide when and how people shall die and it is not Peter's business. One thing BCS does not explain is how could the brethren misunderstand that John would not die. According to BCS, although the disciples did not know the exact hour or day of the coming of the Lord, they did know that it would happen within a generation (around 40 years). So if the brethren believed that the second coming was to occur in 70 A.D. then John would die afterwards ("till I come"), however the saying went out that he would not die at all!!
BCS wants to compare the localized event of the destruction of Jerusalem and back view it to the days of Noah. Using Jesus' words of "But as the days of Noah, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be"(Matt.24:37) as proof that the flood must have also been a localized event. What we have here is a similitude, but what is the main purpose here of the similitude. The problem is that while the historical facts of the flood are used by Jesus to talk about His coming and judgment, Jesus is talking more of the attitudes and lifestyle of the people of Noah's day and His coming than an actual time sequence or localized event. He tells us that people were doing normal events during the time that Noah was building the ark (possibly at least 100 years) such as eating and drinking and giving in marriage. In other words they had neither concern nor belief in the coming event of the flood until "the flood came and took them all away". Jesus is suggesting that there will be similar attitudes when He comes again. In fact, the whole context of Matthew 24, 25 appears to be disciples who are not watching nor prepared for the coming of their Master. I fail to see any such attitude, historically, by the disciples prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. In fact Paul warns that the Day (of Christ) will not come unless the falling away comes first (2 Thess. 2:3). While the Christians did suffer persecution and some did fall away (Paul states, "Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world”), there is no evidence of a world-wide falling away by the disciples immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Concerning the first letter to the Thessalonians, BCS wants us to believe that the Thessalonians would actually live to see the coming of the Lord. Quoting I Thessalonians 4:17, BCS states, "Why would Paul teach that some of his audience would live to see the coming of the Lord? Again, the answer is rooted in Jesus own promises in passages such as Matthew 16:27, 28, John 21:22,23, and Matthew 24:24. Paul believed that some of his own audience would live to see the coming of the Lord because of the Lord's own teaching." There are two problems with this interpretation. First, the passages that BCS uses to back up their claim that the Thessalonians would live to see the coming of the Lord are addressed to the apostles. Matthew 16:27, 28; John 21:22, 23 and Matthew 24:24 are addressed to the apostles. Now granted it is possible, for example. that when Jesus states "when you see these things, know that it is near - at the door" (Matt 24:33) that He does have in mind all disciples. Still we need to be careful here. A further example of watching the context and grammar is that BCS ignores the personal pronouns "we" that Paul uses, "We, which are alive". This is why I highlighted the word "some" earlier in this paragraph. Paul includes himself in the "we", if I understand grammar at all. How are we to understand the "we" of I Thessalonians 4:17? Paul was put to death around 67 A.D. some three years before the destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of the Lord, according to BCS. Well, BCS decides that the we refers to "some" of the Thessalonians, but has to exclude Paul as part of the we. We either must believe, that this "we" is a futurist "we" referring to those who are alive on the earth when Jesus comes again not in 70 A.D. but an unknown day or hour; or we must further examine what Paul meant by the phrase "which are alive"
Concerning the passage of 2 Peter 3:3,4 (of which I will spend more time in Part Two of my review), BCS refers to the scoffers of this passage who had remembered the words of Jesus concerning His coming and wondering why it had not happened. Interestingly, BCS does not give Peter's explanation. Why does Peter refer to a thousand years being like a day, if the coming of the Lord was imminent? Peter's response to these scoffers are two-fold. God's word is sure and it will happen just as God's word created the heavens and the earth. By God's word the world was destroyed by a flood, and so the present heavens and earth are preserved by the "same word". In other words, this present age is just waiting for God's word. Secondly, Peter tells us that our time sequence is not the same as God's. A thousand years is like a day to the Lord. I fail to understand why Peter would argue such if the day was just a few years hence (Remember according to BCS, Peter must have known that around 70 A.D., the Lord would be coming).
BCS argues that as the day began to come closer and closer, the language of some of the later books of the New Testament reflect this growing urgency. BCS uses the book of Hebrews (10:35 - 37) quoting Hab. 2:3 as proof of this. God did not tarry in judging Judah for soon after Habakkuk gave his prophecy, God sent the Babylonians in 586 B.C. to destroy the temple and Jerusalem. Therefore the writer of Hebrews, in using Habakkuk, is telling his readers that it also would be very soon, not an indefinite time period The understanding of phrases such as "age", generation", "eternal", "day", "hour", "a little while", "Today" "in the last days", "shortly", and "quickly" are important in the study of eschatology. I will not address these phrases in this part of my review. However I must point out that the book of Hebrews quotes another prophet using a similar time phrase. Interestingly BCS nowhere mentions this passage. In Hebrews 12:26, we read, "whose voice then shook the earth, but now He has promised, saying, 'Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven' ". Hebrews is quoting Haggai 2:6. The words "once more" means from the Hebrew, in a little while or soon. Yet, Hebrews almost 500 years later, states that it is yet to be fulfilled. However you interpret Hebrews 12:26, 27, we have to realize that our concept of "a little while" or "soon" is different than God's. Sometimes it might be a small period of time and at other times, it may mean a great period of time. For a thousand years is like a day unto the Lord.
Much of chapter 3 is BCS comparing the historical writings of Josephus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem with the prophetic words of Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and His coming again. To this writer, BCS is very selective and choosy as to which prophecies are to be taken as literally fulfilled in history and which ones were symbolic prophetic "collapsing universe" language commonly used by prophets to describe national judgments. For example, Josephus does not mention a literal sun being darkened nor a moon that does not give a light, nor of stars falling from heaven as stated by Jesus. To BCS they do not have to be mentioned literally since they are symbolic language. Still BCS tries to suggest to us that these signs were fulfilled by the strange signs mentioned by Josephus such as a star resembling a sword which stood over the city and a comet( a star that fell??) that continued for a year. Then there is the "incredible phenomenon" as stated by Josephus of chariots and soldiers in their armor who were seen running in the clouds and surrounding cities.
Concerning chapter 4, I will not spend any time in this part of my review concerning my interpretation of "the last days" or the "end of the age". BCS believes that the end of the old covenant age (Jewish) happened with the destruction of Jerusalem. My concern here is their interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10 - 12, particularly the word "elements". BCS would have us to believe that the word for elements does not mean the hidden components of all life and matter (such as atoms, etc.) in this passage, but rather the regulations of the Mosaic Law. It is true that sometimes Paul uses this word to refer to the Mosaic customs and traditions such as Galatians 4: 3, 9. But BCS goes further. They believe that in every use of this word it means the final end of the old covenant world. Is this true? The word in the Greek, is "stoichion". It signifies any first things, first principles, first in row, rank such as the letters of the alphabet or an element of a speech (See Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). In Col 2:8, Paul uses the word as the basic "principles" of the world. By this Paul means "philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men". Vine tells us that this is the delusive speculations of Gentile cults and of Jewish theories. I have read this passage many times and I do not get that Paul is clearly referring to the end of a covenant age. Another occurrence of this word is in Hebrews 5:12 where the writer admonishes his readers that they need to be taught again the first "principles" of the oracles of God. While an interpretation of this could be the Old Testament, it could also mean the first principles of the new covenant. The context seems to suggest this for the writer of Hebrews does not want to lay again the foundation of repentance, faith, baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment.
Summary
Let us summarize what I have tried to say in this review of the first four chapters of BCS.
1. The authors have basically used the concept of preterism to convince readers that all of the prophecies of the Old and New Testament were fulfilled in the first century. They believe the end of the old covenant age occurred with the destruction of Jerusalem and at this destruction, Jesus came again in judgment.
2. Origins, the story of the flood, and destruction of the Jerusalem must be understood not only historically but also in symbolic, prophetic "collapsing universe" language similar to the language of judgments throughout the Bible and which reaches its final prophetic judgment with the destruction of Jerusalem.
3. It is not as clear as BCS would like for us to think that Matthew 16:28 and similar passages in Mark and Luke refer to only the coming event of destruction of Jerusalem. It could refer to the sitting of Jesus on the right hand of the Father while His Kingdom (the church) was being established in Acts chapter 2 and permanently established with the Gentiles in Acts 15.
4. Some apostles did die before the staying power of the kingdom had been established. We must note that it wasn't until Acts 15 that universal agreement was given by the apostles (whatever you loose, whatever you bind) concerning the Gentiles being acceptable to God. This was after the death of James, the apostle.
5. The fact the disciples believed John would not die suggests the opposite of what BCS would have us to believe. For if the disciples believed that Jesus would come within their generation, John would have to die after He came. However the saying went out that John would not die at all!!
6. I Thessalonians 4:17 is actually a problem passage for BCS, not a proof passage due to the "we". Since Paul died before the destruction of Jerusalem, how are we to understand this "we" since grammatically, it should include Paul. It must be a futurist "we".
7. The fact that Peter gives us the understanding that a thousand years is like a day to the Lord in 2 Peter 3:8, seems to suggest that scoffers, who want a more immediate fulfillment, do not understand God's view of time nor the power of God's word. The fact that God is longsuffering suggests that God is willing to wait a long period of time. It is odd that in this passage Peter does not bring up the fact that this day is soon, in fact a few years away, if BCS's view is correct.
8. Concerning time, BCS fails to mention the prophecy of Haggai 2:6 which the writer of Hebrews states has yet to be fulfilled. Clearly, the concept of soon here is different than our normal concept of soon.
9. BCS is highly selective and choosy as to which passages of Scripture are to be interpreted as literal and historical, and which passages of Scripture are symbolic, apocalyptic language.
10. Stoichion does not always mean in context the end of the old covenant age as BCS would have us believe - particularly with 2 Peter 3: 10. I am convince that the old understanding of this passage is correct. Here Peter is talking about the first principles that make up the earth as being burned up and dissolved; not the end of an covenant age. Therefore this passage is still waiting to be fulfilled.
I know I have been long, but I hope thorough, yet easy to understand. I await comments
Pascal Redfern
Our final interpretation of Matthew 16:28 deals with the context of this statement and other Scripture. It is interesting that after Jesus made this statement, six days later, He was transfigured before Peter, James, and John. It is clear that Jesus was glorified at this event. Notice also a cloud descended and overshadowed them and a voice spoke saying, "This is My beloved Son, Hear Him" (Luke 9:35). Peter refers to this event in 2 Peter 1:16, "we made known to you the power and coming (this is the same word as used in Matthew 16:28) of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: 'This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased', and we head this voice which came from heaven when were with Him on the holy mountain". It is possible Matthew 16:28 was fulfilled by the events of the transfiguration. However, I find this view rather weak, especially if we take at face value the statement of Jesus that some would not taste "death". An event that happened some 6 to 8 days later does not seem to fulfill this prediction by Jesus. Still, the language is so similar in 2 Peter, one has to be intrigued by this interpretation.
I will now address the passage written by John concerning his death and Peter's. BCS makes much of this to prove that Jesus was predicting John would be still alive when He would come in 70 A.D. The passage can be read in John 21:18:22. This is proof to BCS of the validity of Matthew 16:28. So John would be part of the "some" who would not taste death. Evidently a saying had gone out among the brethren that from this passage, John would not die. Clearly, John included this passage of Scripture to put this saying at rest. Jesus did not say that John would not die but that "if I will that he remain, till I come, what is that to you". This is clearly a conditional statement suggesting that it is in the power and prerogative of the Savior to decide when and how people shall die and it is not Peter's business. One thing BCS does not explain is how could the brethren misunderstand that John would not die. According to BCS, although the disciples did not know the exact hour or day of the coming of the Lord, they did know that it would happen within a generation (around 40 years). So if the brethren believed that the second coming was to occur in 70 A.D. then John would die afterwards ("till I come"), however the saying went out that he would not die at all!!
BCS wants to compare the localized event of the destruction of Jerusalem and back view it to the days of Noah. Using Jesus' words of "But as the days of Noah, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be"(Matt.24:37) as proof that the flood must have also been a localized event. What we have here is a similitude, but what is the main purpose here of the similitude. The problem is that while the historical facts of the flood are used by Jesus to talk about His coming and judgment, Jesus is talking more of the attitudes and lifestyle of the people of Noah's day and His coming than an actual time sequence or localized event. He tells us that people were doing normal events during the time that Noah was building the ark (possibly at least 100 years) such as eating and drinking and giving in marriage. In other words they had neither concern nor belief in the coming event of the flood until "the flood came and took them all away". Jesus is suggesting that there will be similar attitudes when He comes again. In fact, the whole context of Matthew 24, 25 appears to be disciples who are not watching nor prepared for the coming of their Master. I fail to see any such attitude, historically, by the disciples prior to the destruction of Jerusalem. In fact Paul warns that the Day (of Christ) will not come unless the falling away comes first (2 Thess. 2:3). While the Christians did suffer persecution and some did fall away (Paul states, "Demas has forsaken me, having loved this present world”), there is no evidence of a world-wide falling away by the disciples immediately prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Concerning the first letter to the Thessalonians, BCS wants us to believe that the Thessalonians would actually live to see the coming of the Lord. Quoting I Thessalonians 4:17, BCS states, "Why would Paul teach that some of his audience would live to see the coming of the Lord? Again, the answer is rooted in Jesus own promises in passages such as Matthew 16:27, 28, John 21:22,23, and Matthew 24:24. Paul believed that some of his own audience would live to see the coming of the Lord because of the Lord's own teaching." There are two problems with this interpretation. First, the passages that BCS uses to back up their claim that the Thessalonians would live to see the coming of the Lord are addressed to the apostles. Matthew 16:27, 28; John 21:22, 23 and Matthew 24:24 are addressed to the apostles. Now granted it is possible, for example. that when Jesus states "when you see these things, know that it is near - at the door" (Matt 24:33) that He does have in mind all disciples. Still we need to be careful here. A further example of watching the context and grammar is that BCS ignores the personal pronouns "we" that Paul uses, "We, which are alive". This is why I highlighted the word "some" earlier in this paragraph. Paul includes himself in the "we", if I understand grammar at all. How are we to understand the "we" of I Thessalonians 4:17? Paul was put to death around 67 A.D. some three years before the destruction of Jerusalem, the coming of the Lord, according to BCS. Well, BCS decides that the we refers to "some" of the Thessalonians, but has to exclude Paul as part of the we. We either must believe, that this "we" is a futurist "we" referring to those who are alive on the earth when Jesus comes again not in 70 A.D. but an unknown day or hour; or we must further examine what Paul meant by the phrase "which are alive"
Concerning the passage of 2 Peter 3:3,4 (of which I will spend more time in Part Two of my review), BCS refers to the scoffers of this passage who had remembered the words of Jesus concerning His coming and wondering why it had not happened. Interestingly, BCS does not give Peter's explanation. Why does Peter refer to a thousand years being like a day, if the coming of the Lord was imminent? Peter's response to these scoffers are two-fold. God's word is sure and it will happen just as God's word created the heavens and the earth. By God's word the world was destroyed by a flood, and so the present heavens and earth are preserved by the "same word". In other words, this present age is just waiting for God's word. Secondly, Peter tells us that our time sequence is not the same as God's. A thousand years is like a day to the Lord. I fail to understand why Peter would argue such if the day was just a few years hence (Remember according to BCS, Peter must have known that around 70 A.D., the Lord would be coming).
BCS argues that as the day began to come closer and closer, the language of some of the later books of the New Testament reflect this growing urgency. BCS uses the book of Hebrews (10:35 - 37) quoting Hab. 2:3 as proof of this. God did not tarry in judging Judah for soon after Habakkuk gave his prophecy, God sent the Babylonians in 586 B.C. to destroy the temple and Jerusalem. Therefore the writer of Hebrews, in using Habakkuk, is telling his readers that it also would be very soon, not an indefinite time period The understanding of phrases such as "age", generation", "eternal", "day", "hour", "a little while", "Today" "in the last days", "shortly", and "quickly" are important in the study of eschatology. I will not address these phrases in this part of my review. However I must point out that the book of Hebrews quotes another prophet using a similar time phrase. Interestingly BCS nowhere mentions this passage. In Hebrews 12:26, we read, "whose voice then shook the earth, but now He has promised, saying, 'Yet once more I shake not only the earth, but also heaven' ". Hebrews is quoting Haggai 2:6. The words "once more" means from the Hebrew, in a little while or soon. Yet, Hebrews almost 500 years later, states that it is yet to be fulfilled. However you interpret Hebrews 12:26, 27, we have to realize that our concept of "a little while" or "soon" is different than God's. Sometimes it might be a small period of time and at other times, it may mean a great period of time. For a thousand years is like a day unto the Lord.
Much of chapter 3 is BCS comparing the historical writings of Josephus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem with the prophetic words of Jesus concerning the destruction of Jerusalem and His coming again. To this writer, BCS is very selective and choosy as to which prophecies are to be taken as literally fulfilled in history and which ones were symbolic prophetic "collapsing universe" language commonly used by prophets to describe national judgments. For example, Josephus does not mention a literal sun being darkened nor a moon that does not give a light, nor of stars falling from heaven as stated by Jesus. To BCS they do not have to be mentioned literally since they are symbolic language. Still BCS tries to suggest to us that these signs were fulfilled by the strange signs mentioned by Josephus such as a star resembling a sword which stood over the city and a comet( a star that fell??) that continued for a year. Then there is the "incredible phenomenon" as stated by Josephus of chariots and soldiers in their armor who were seen running in the clouds and surrounding cities.
Concerning chapter 4, I will not spend any time in this part of my review concerning my interpretation of "the last days" or the "end of the age". BCS believes that the end of the old covenant age (Jewish) happened with the destruction of Jerusalem. My concern here is their interpretation of 2 Peter 3:10 - 12, particularly the word "elements". BCS would have us to believe that the word for elements does not mean the hidden components of all life and matter (such as atoms, etc.) in this passage, but rather the regulations of the Mosaic Law. It is true that sometimes Paul uses this word to refer to the Mosaic customs and traditions such as Galatians 4: 3, 9. But BCS goes further. They believe that in every use of this word it means the final end of the old covenant world. Is this true? The word in the Greek, is "stoichion". It signifies any first things, first principles, first in row, rank such as the letters of the alphabet or an element of a speech (See Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words). In Col 2:8, Paul uses the word as the basic "principles" of the world. By this Paul means "philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men". Vine tells us that this is the delusive speculations of Gentile cults and of Jewish theories. I have read this passage many times and I do not get that Paul is clearly referring to the end of a covenant age. Another occurrence of this word is in Hebrews 5:12 where the writer admonishes his readers that they need to be taught again the first "principles" of the oracles of God. While an interpretation of this could be the Old Testament, it could also mean the first principles of the new covenant. The context seems to suggest this for the writer of Hebrews does not want to lay again the foundation of repentance, faith, baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead and of eternal judgment.
Summary
Let us summarize what I have tried to say in this review of the first four chapters of BCS.
1. The authors have basically used the concept of preterism to convince readers that all of the prophecies of the Old and New Testament were fulfilled in the first century. They believe the end of the old covenant age occurred with the destruction of Jerusalem and at this destruction, Jesus came again in judgment.
2. Origins, the story of the flood, and destruction of the Jerusalem must be understood not only historically but also in symbolic, prophetic "collapsing universe" language similar to the language of judgments throughout the Bible and which reaches its final prophetic judgment with the destruction of Jerusalem.
3. It is not as clear as BCS would like for us to think that Matthew 16:28 and similar passages in Mark and Luke refer to only the coming event of destruction of Jerusalem. It could refer to the sitting of Jesus on the right hand of the Father while His Kingdom (the church) was being established in Acts chapter 2 and permanently established with the Gentiles in Acts 15.
4. Some apostles did die before the staying power of the kingdom had been established. We must note that it wasn't until Acts 15 that universal agreement was given by the apostles (whatever you loose, whatever you bind) concerning the Gentiles being acceptable to God. This was after the death of James, the apostle.
5. The fact the disciples believed John would not die suggests the opposite of what BCS would have us to believe. For if the disciples believed that Jesus would come within their generation, John would have to die after He came. However the saying went out that John would not die at all!!
6. I Thessalonians 4:17 is actually a problem passage for BCS, not a proof passage due to the "we". Since Paul died before the destruction of Jerusalem, how are we to understand this "we" since grammatically, it should include Paul. It must be a futurist "we".
7. The fact that Peter gives us the understanding that a thousand years is like a day to the Lord in 2 Peter 3:8, seems to suggest that scoffers, who want a more immediate fulfillment, do not understand God's view of time nor the power of God's word. The fact that God is longsuffering suggests that God is willing to wait a long period of time. It is odd that in this passage Peter does not bring up the fact that this day is soon, in fact a few years away, if BCS's view is correct.
8. Concerning time, BCS fails to mention the prophecy of Haggai 2:6 which the writer of Hebrews states has yet to be fulfilled. Clearly, the concept of soon here is different than our normal concept of soon.
9. BCS is highly selective and choosy as to which passages of Scripture are to be interpreted as literal and historical, and which passages of Scripture are symbolic, apocalyptic language.
10. Stoichion does not always mean in context the end of the old covenant age as BCS would have us believe - particularly with 2 Peter 3: 10. I am convince that the old understanding of this passage is correct. Here Peter is talking about the first principles that make up the earth as being burned up and dissolved; not the end of an covenant age. Therefore this passage is still waiting to be fulfilled.
I know I have been long, but I hope thorough, yet easy to understand. I await comments
Pascal Redfern
2 comments:
My dear friend Pascal,
We've known each other for about 30years. I agree with you about so much, but I'm afraid we agree about nothing concerning eschatology. If only you had read all the material by Don Preston and seen all the videos I have you would have enjoyed the enlightenment all us full preterists have enjoyed!
I need to write a full reply to you, but I feel like a flea on an elephant - so much area to attack.
I will first start with your last point in the summary. Heaven and earth were burned up in 70 A.D. The Talmud taught that the "rock" in Jerusalem is where cration began. At that location "Heaven & Earth" touch. The Temple was built on that "Rock" and and when the Temple was burned up so were Heaven & Earth and all the elemental things of the O.T. Covenant. Upon Jesus Christ, "THe Rock," the Church was built. The "obsolete" had not yet passed away when Hebrews was written, but was "about ready to pass away" and shortly after Hebrews was written the Temple was destroyed.
I regret I'm having severe problems this morning with my wrists and hands so I can not at this time give you more, but I wanted to throw this out there SOON as you have complained to me nobody has responded to your 1st blog yet, so I hope this is "SOON" enough for you, although I believe you thought it to be a long time.
I will write more with Scripture references etc.
In Christ's love,
David
Hmm!! It appears, my friend, that your comments were too soon. Ha!
Pascal
Post a Comment