I am a Preterist in a sea of futurists, but I am good. Oh, I have my Preterist brothers and sisters that I can call on when I need help or to break bread. They are also a great resource for curing my vast ignorance of Biblical doctrines. I love seeing them at the conferences or speaking with them over social media, but they are a minority in my life. Most of my Christian friends are futurists. Now, if you are a Preterist reading this you may be thinking, uh-oh, that can’t be good; however, my futurist brothers and sisters in my life are a blessing in so many ways. Obviously, the biggest negative reaction my futurist friends have to my doctrinal beliefs is not soteriology or the doctrine of faith, it is over the doctrine of last things and the doctrine of eschatology. The idea that Jesus came back in the first century is foreign to most of them. The questions I get asked from my futurist brothers and sisters pertaining to my belief in Full Preterism are valid questions, never a dumb question or a silly response. I believe it is out of real curiosity they ask me about it, but never condescension, nor malice. Well, let me follow that up with a “for the most part” because some do love to make fun and probably think I am a little crazy, but it’s all good. Overall, most of my Christian friends and acquaintances have spent their lives in a church or in a specific denomination and have never heard of Preterism before me. Then there are those rare occasions when I run into a well thought out, studied theologian that can go deep, sometimes deeper than I expect or can follow. A chance to learn is what that is. There was one such man I recently sat down with to discuss the doctrine of eschatology, and he blessed me with a great question. We came together because I had a question that I have been wrestling with and none of my Preterist friends could answer it, so I turned to a Futurist. Someone I respected, someone who continually hungers for the Word of God, but I never got to ask my question. He had questions for me and so I answered them – well, all but one. That one question, I could not answer. I did not know the answer. The question was about Patristics and what the early church fathers believed – wait, what did I just say? Patristics? It is a strange word that means the study of the early church fathers from the period of the Apostles (not including the biblical writers or writings) to around 750 A.D. Although an odd word, here is what he asked, “If Preterism is true, then why didn’t the early church fathers write about it and why didn’t they believe Jesus returned in 70 A.D.?” I had no answer. I couldn’t even fake an answer. I had nothing. I came to the realization that I have never thought about the early church fathers or their writings or their creeds, as it pertained to Eschatology. Why had this never been in my purview? So, here I am after a few weeks of research writing an answer to my brother’s question. I need to thank, specifically, two of my Preterist brothers, Dr. Don K. Preston and David B. Curtis for their wisdom and knowledge in pointing me in the right direction.
I had never considered the early Christian writings and their commentary as a resource to prove the truth of Full Preterism, not because I think their writings hold no values or what C.S. Lewis called “chronological snobbery”. There is absolutely value in reading the ancient writings of the early church. There is also wisdom in those writings, it just never dawned on me to look. I am not a trained theologian from a seminary school who studied Greek and the Patristics. There is that word again. I am just someone who asked God for the truth on the doctrine of eschatology and He gave it to me. Well, I say “gave”, but He merely pointed me in the right direction and gave me the fire to want and to know. Now, here I am 10 years later looking for the first time at what the early theologians in the first century thought about the doctrine of eschatology and I am surprised. Mostly, I am shocked at the fact that there is not that much information about anything from the writers of the early church. Gary Demar writes in his book New Testament Eschatology pg18, “We do not have a complete record of the period. Many of their surviving works are only fragments, fragments or pieces of their writings”. Also, there are translation issues with the early writings and many of the works were lost during and after the destruction of Israel in 70 A.D. What is left, for the most part, has not been translated into English. Because of this, there is a consensus among futurist and Preterist scholars that there could be many documents from the early church, which talk about a 70 A.D. fulfillment. Unfortunately, we don’t have all the writings from these early scholars. As Francis X. Gumerlock says, “It could show the historical development of Preterism, but because so much of the literature from these periods has not yet been translated into English, we are not yet aware of them.” (Gumerlock New Testament Eschatology pg105). This again was a genuine surprise to me, but not all was lost. Could at least one early writer be a Preterist? Maybe Origen or Tertullian would have something to say about the return of Christ in 70 A.D., right? Low and behold, there some written commentaries on this subject, but is there enough written and translated into English for me to make a case and answer my brother’s question – Maybe?
The patristic writers lived and wrote from the time after the destruction of Jerusalem until about the 8th century. Some of the big names we remember from this time are men like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Eusebius, and John Chrysostom. Though these men were wise in Christian thought and helped to formulate a lot of traditions and creeds we hold dear today, the settling of the doctrinal issue of eschatology cannot be put solely on the shoulders of these men. I want to show what they believed about the doctrine of eschatology, but I also want to be careful in using them as a “see Preterism is true”. The Bible is the final word on all doctrines and eschatology is no exception. We can only truly ascertain the truth through exegetical interpretation of the Bible and prayer to the One that holds all truth. To do this well, you need a lot more than just the ability to read the Bible. Letting the Bible interpret itself is the first step, Sola Scriptura. And if any of these early Church fathers did this, then they are worth listening to. There were also misunderstandings from the early church, cultural mores that brought about this misinterpretation. For instance, the church for the first 1,000 years taught that Jesus covered sin only in a sense and the Roman Catholic Church was the only way to full repentance. Martin Luther shattered this belief and proved with scripture that we are forgiven and made righteous only through the belief in Jesus the Christ. In fact, Charles V at the Diet of Worms said to Luther, “One friar who goes counter to all Christianity for 1,000 years, must be wrong.” Without Luther and the truth of scripture, we may have never had the Protestant Reformation. This was a belief at the time that went counter to the church, changing Christianity forever. So, though I want to show how some early brothers in Christ did believe certain prophetic statements in the Bible were fulfilled in the first century, they still did not fully grasp the prophetic language of the Old and New Testaments. It is my belief we are just coming around to understand ancient Hebrew apocalyptic language and the culture of this time. Things we should ask while reading scripture is how did the apostles interpret the Old Testament scripture and what did it mean to them. What did the apostles believe about the prophetic statements? This is crucial in understanding the truth of eschatology. I believe that full Preterism, the belief that all prophecies were fulfilled in 70 A.D., has only begun to become a mainstream doctrine within Christianity. But that is a rabbit hole worth going down on another day. I need to stick with finding first century Christians who wrote and believed in a form of Preterism. This is the matter at hand, so I will continue with that as my main objective.
“The New Testament focus was off the earthly Jerusalem and its temple and on the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb.12:22) and the temple above (Rev. 21:22). The destruction of the temple was a foregone conclusion (Matt. 24; Mark 13; Luke 21). From 30 A.D. to 70 A.D., the resurrection of Jesus was the center of hope and controversy. Paul was on trial for the ‘resurrection of the dead’ (Acts 23:6; 24:21), not the rapture of the church.” New Testament Eschatology pg35,. This was the mindset of the early Christians. It is all the Apostles taught, and we see it throughout the New Testament. The destruction of the temple, and ultimately the destruction of the Israel nation put the emphasis on the new people of God. We can first see this in the writing Epistle of Barnabas, written after the destruction near the close of the first century. The author writes that the destruction of Jerusalem, “the Holy City”, was an indictment against those Jews who refused to acknowledge Jesus as the promised Messiah. It goes further to consider that this destruction was to take place “in the last days”. “For the scripture says, ‘And it will happen in the last days that the LORD will hand over the sheep of the pasture and sheepfold and their watchtowers to destruction.’ And it happened just as the LORD said.” (Epistle of Barnabas 16:5). The Epistle of Barnabas also takes the very undispensational view that Daniel’s 70 weeks motif, a new temple will be built in the name of the LORD (Epistle of Barnabas 16:6-7) by stating the temple is the people of Christ. “By receiving the forgiveness of sins and setting our hope in the name, we became new, and God truly dwells in our dwelling place that is in us.” (Epistle of Barnabas 16:8). The Epistle of Barnabas speaks to the mindset of the Christian in the first century and what their focus was, a temple not made by hands. Another work called The Proof of the Gospel” by Eusebius addresses the “Abomination of Desolation”, the Gospel being preached to the whole world, and Zechariah 12-14 (Futurists believe this will happen after the rapture and during the great tribulation) are all events that happened in 70 A.D. Eusebius writes “and from the time a succession of all kinds of troubles afflicted the whole nation and their city until the last war against them, and the final siege, in which destruction rushed on them like a flood…and all who had conspired against the Savior in their youth were cut off; then, too, the abomination of desolation stood in the Temple.” The Proof of the Gospel” by Eusebius 2:138, 403 (b-c). As for the “World-Wide” preaching of the Gospel Eusebius says, “Not one of them disobeyed His command: but in obedience to His will according to their orders they began to make disciples of every race of men, going from their own country to all races, and in a short time it was possible to see His words realized. The Gospel, then in a short time was preached in the whole world for a witness to the heathen…” The Proof of the Gospel by Eusebius 1:157-158 (137). Clement 30 A.D.-100 A.D., also known as Clemens Romanus, in is his letter to the Corinthians said, “the whole world had been taught righteousness.” This was in alignment with Paul in Romans 1:8. In addressing Zachariah 12:1-2 he says, “the final siege of the people by the Romans, through which the whole Jewish race was to become subject to their enemies.” He goes on to say that “only the remnant of the people shall be saved, exactly describing the disciples of our Savior…everything that had been predicted was fulfilled against them without exception 500 years after the prediction: from the time of Pontius Pilate to the sieges under Nero, Titus and Vespasian…” The Proof of the Gospel” by Eusebius 2:26-27 (285-286). As we can see, Eusebius understood the aspects of what most Christians today see as future events had already happened just a Jesus said they would (Matt 24:34). So, what about the end of the age, the beast, and the great tribulation? Futurists ask the question, “since these men (early church fathers) are only a generation or two removed from the apostolic ear, shouldn’t their insights be invaluable in getting a correct understanding of biblical prophecy?”, especially as it pertains to the beast and the great tribulation. Well, most of the Early Church Fathers did get to a correct understanding of the biblical prophecies pertaining to the end of age, the beast and the great tribulation. “All early Christian writers that wrote on the Apocalypse, from Irenaeus down to Victorinus of Pettau and Commodian in the fourth century. Andreas in the fifth century and St. Beatus in the eighth century connected Nero with the Apocalyptic Beast.” The Earliest Days of Christianity by Canon Farrar p.472. In the Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians around the year 100 A.D. states, “the last times are upon us”. Like what Paul said to the Corinthians that the end of the ages has come upon him and the Corinthian church (1 Corinthians 10:11). In Matthew 24 and the fulfillment during that generation (the generation Jesus was speaking to), from the destruction of Jerusalem to great tribulation, John Chrysostom said this, “For that this took place before the generation that then was and did pass away, hear what He said, ‘Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled’.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew, Homily 76. Clement of Alexandria speaking on the Abomination of Desolation said, “The abomination of desolation is the desolation of the Temple, which has taken place.” Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter 6. St. Augustine of Hippo states, “For it is written that the generation shall not pass away until all be fulfilled; and we see it was fulfilled… those predictions we read to be accomplished in the past.” Augustine, City of God, Book XX, Chapter 5. On and on are quotes from early church fathers about Matthew 24 taking place in 70 A.D. and all was fulfilled just as Jesus had stated. You can see the different quotes by the early church fathers and their sources here.
Looking at the passages and quotations of the early writers and what they believed may not fully cover nor prove they truly believed Christ had returned in the first century. In fact, the more I read and researched most early church fathers did not have a full Preterist view. It is my belief this view is relatively new to Christianity because of the reason I have stated above. But these early Christian theologians did take what Jesus said in Matthew 24 to apply to the generation that was alive at the time He said it. They understood not to eisegetically read into the Olivet Discourse. They understood that Jesus was talking to His disciples and explaining to them what was to take place before their generation passed away. Origen may be an exception and possibly could have taken the preterist view of eschatology. Later in his life and in one of his last writings, he seems to conclude that the prophetic statements and apocalyptic language from the Old Testament were not to be taken literally. In his writing Contra Celsus (Against Celsus), Origen derides the idea that God will come back to earth bringing fire and destruction. Kurt Simmons, in his article Origen was a Preterist, says “Origen believed Christ’s bodily descent with fire at his second coming was to be figuratively understood. And if the ‘fire’ associated with Christ’s second advent was figurative, then the destruction of the world by conflagration was also figurative (non-physical). Furthermore, if its destruction was figurative, then the new heavens and earth were also necessarily figurative (non-physical).” These are logical corollaries from which there is no escape. Simmons says, “Thus, Origen’s late writings evidence a profound paradigm shift away from the literalism normally associated with futurism, to a paradigm more in-line with Preterism.” So, what did Origen write?
In Contra Celsus, IV, xx; Ante-Nicene Fathers IV.
“In the next place, as he represents the Jews account in a way peculiar to themselves for their belief that the advent of Christ among them is still in the future, and the Christians as maintaining in their way that the coming of the Son of God into the life of men has already taken place, let us, as far as we can, briefly consider these points. According to Celsus, the Jews say that ‘(human) life, being filled with all wickedness, needed one sent from God, that the wicked might be punished, and all things purified in a manner analogous to the first deluge which happened.’ And as the Christians are said to make statements additional to this, it is evident that he alleges that they admit these. Now, where is the absurdity in the coming of one who is, on account of the prevailing flood of wickedness, to purify the world, and to treat everyone according to his deserts? For it is not in keeping with the character of God that the diffusion of wickedness should not cease, and all things be renewed.” Origen was a Preterist.
Now, you may be reading that and thinking Origen is talking about the first coming of Christ and not the second. Kurt Simmons makes a good point about this by stating that the Old Testament, nor the prophets, distinguishes between the first and the second coming of Christ, instead “treated the coming of the Messiah as a singular event”. Indeed, as a Preterist, we see that Jesus came back only 40 years after His resurrection in judgement on that generation that pierced Him. Simmons goes on to say, “The scriptures treat Christ’s first and second comings as an historical unit, with no appreciable separation in time or event intervening between them. So closely conjoined were Christ’s comings that it is only by hindsight that we can distinguish them in the prophets; readers in Old Testament times could not have done so.” He further shows this in many of the books of the prophets and says, “to mention but a few examples, Isaiah describes the birth of the Savior to the virgin, his rejection and death, and the destruction of his enemies without anything to distinguish these events in point of time (Isa. 7:14; 9:6, 7; 53; 66:1-6, 15). Similarly, Zechariah describes scenes of Christ’s death and crucifixion in one breath, only to describe his coming in wrath in the next (Zech. 12:11; 13:6; 14:1-3) and Joel, Haggai, Habakkuk, and Malachi omit Christ’s ‘first’ coming altogether (Joel 2:28-32; Hag 2:6, 7; Hab. 2:3; Mal. 3:2; 4:1-6).” Origen was a Preterist.
Origen wrote Contra Celsus to counter Celsus, a pagan philosopher and controversialist, who had written a scathing attack on Christianity around 248 A.D. Origen wrote Contra Celsum at the request of his patron, a wealthy Christian named Ambrose, who insisted that a Christian needed to write a response to Celsus. In his response, he specifically addresses Celsus mocking that God comes down as a “torturer bearing fire”. Origen here shows that the language around fire is to be taken figuratively and not literally.
“But it is in mockery that Celsus says we speak of ‘God coming down like a torturer bearing fire’, and thus compels us unseasonably to investigate words of deeper meaning, we shall make a few remarks, sufficient to enable our hearers to form an idea of the defense which disposes of the ridicule of Celsus against us, and then we shall turn to what follows. The divine word says that our God is ‘a consuming fire’, and that ‘He draws rivers of fire before Him’; nay, that he even entereth in as ‘a refiner’s fire, and as a fuller’s herb’, to purify His own people. But when He is said to be a ‘consuming fire’, we inquire what are the things which are appropriate to be consumed by God. And we assert that they are wickedness, and the works which result from it, and which, being figuratively called ‘wood, hay, stubble’, God consumes as a fire. The wicked man, accordingly, is said to build upon the previously-laid foundation of reason, ‘wood, and hay, and stubble’. If, then, any one can show that these words were differently understood by the writer, and can prove that the wicked man literally builds up ‘wood, or hay, or stubble’, it is evident that the fire must be understood to be material, and an object of sense. But if, on the contrary, the works of the wicked man are spoken of figuratively, under the names of ‘wood, or hay, or stubble’, why does it not once occur (to inquire) in what sense the word ‘fire’ is to be taken, so that ‘wood’ of such a kind should be consumed? For (the scripture) says: “The fire will try each man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abides which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work be burned, he shall suffer loss.” Contra Celsus, IV, xx; Ante-Nicene Fathers IV..
Here Kurt Simmons conducts a survey of the text quoted by Origen to show that Origen is taking some of the passages of the second coming to prove his understanding to be figurative. I think this is Origen understanding the language of the prophets to be apocalyptic and not literal, as it should be interpreted.
Simmons says, “Here we have Origen’s answer to Celsus’ mock that God comes down as a ‘torturer bearing fire’. First, the coming down is figurative; second, the bodily form is merely accommodative, not literal; third, the fire of Christ’s wrath is also figurative. Here is the survey of the texts quoted by Origen and shows all are traditional ‘second coming’ passages: Heb. 12:26-29 – ‘Our God is a consuming fire’. Dan. 7:9, 10 – ‘His throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire. A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him.’ Mal. 3:2, 3 – ‘But who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appeareth? For he is like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s soap.’ I Cor. 3:13 – ‘Every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is’.” Origen was a Preterist.
After confirming that the idea of God coming down bearing fire is Hebrew apocalyptic language and should not be read literally, Origen goes on to say that the world has already undergone destruction by fire and was being renewed.
“We do not deny, then, that the purificatory fire and the destruction of the world took place in order that evil might be swept away, and all things be renewed; for we assert that we have learned these things from the sacred books of the prophets.” Contra Celsus, IV, xxi; Ante-Nicene Fathers IV, pg. 505..
“But according to Celsus, ‘the Christians making certain additional statements to those of the Jews, assert that the Son of God has been already sent on account of the sins of the Jews; and that the Jews having chastised Jesus, and given him gall to drink, have brought upon themselves the divine wrath’. And anyone who likes may convict this statement of falsehood, if it be not the case that the whole Jewish nation was overthrown within one single generation after Jesus had undergone these sufferings at their hands. For forty and two years, I think, after the date of the crucifixion of Jesus, did the destruction of Jerusalem take place.” Contra Celsus, IV, xxii; Ante-Nicene Fathers IV, pg. 506.. Kurt Simmons realizes that Origen is stating that Jesus had already returned in judgement and it was judgement on Israel. “Here, the identical phrase occurs again, showing that he is now explaining what the substance of those ‘additional statements’ was that the Son of God had already been sent within the very generation following Christ’s crucifixion to punish the Jews and destroy Jerusalem.” Origen was a Preterist.
I believe this last writing of Origen shows that he was at least thinking like a Preterist. There is no hard proof that he was a full Preterist, but I do believe he had the right approach when it comes to reading and understanding “last days” passages and the apocalyptic writings of the prophets.
In conclusion to my brother’s question “If Preterism is true, then why didn’t the early church fathers write about it?” I can say that there is no hard proof they were full Preterists, but there is proof that Eusebius, the author of Epistle of Barnabas, Clement, Irenaeus, Victorinus of Pettau, Commodian, Andreas St. Beatus, John Chrysostom, Clement of Alexandria, and, of course, Origen did all understand that a lot of passages that Christian’s today take as happening in the future were accomplished in the first century. Maybe not all the pieces were put together in their minds to arrive at a full Preterist belief in the doctrine of eschatology, but they certainly were on their way to discovering it. As I have stated before, I believe the full Pbelief is just getting started. Christians today are just beginning to understand the ancient Hebrews apocalyptic language and style of writing. The first step in this journey is to truly understand scripture and to acknowledge that the Bible was not written to us, but written for us. All the books and letters in the Bible were written to a particular group, specific person, or church community. The patristic writers that I have mentioned grasped this concept on some level, but I believe they still missed the cultural aspect of the people living at that time. These men of the early church were very Greek thinking men and this could have been what kept them from that paradigm shift to full Preterism. So, I leave where I started with no real proof that the Church fathers were Preterists, but a lot of them sure wrote with certain preteristic observations. Their writings suggest a Preterist view, but I cannot find any writing where any of them excepted full Preterism. With that being said, I say to my futurist friend, I hope the answer of “maybe” is a good enough explanation for now.
Crack A Bible 