The Early History of Preterism: Part Three

My preterist friends have not been able to find any early preterists in the early church. I would never say that there is no one in the early church who taught preterism. . . . Don't be foolish enough to say that nothing is out there in church history, because you never know. . . .[1]

Since Ice does not quote from any first-century documents to make his case that none of them offer a "shred of evidence that anyone in the first century understood these prophecies to have been fulfilled when preterists say they were,"[2] I am left to speculate how Ice might argue his case if he had placed first-century documents into evidence. It’s hard to interact with phantoms, but I am left with no choice.

In reality, there are only four first-century Christian writings available for study today: The Didache, 1 Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas, and the Shepherd of Hermas. Of the four, only 1 Clement and the Didache allude to Matthew 24. Ice demands that a "preterist has to prove that the early church writings interpreted passages such as Matthew 24:27, 30, 25:31, Acts 1:9–11, Revelation 1:7,[3] and 19:11–21 as fulfilled in A.D. 70."[4]  They may not, as he suggests, prove preterism, but they certainly do not prove dispensationalism. In fact, a study of the documents of the period will show that only selected prophetic texts are quoted, not enough to offer dogmatic support any prophetic position. Even so, Ice assumes that these documents (which he never cites) cannot be used to support preterism because they do not quote certain passages. Are we to assume, following Ice’s logic, that if a writer during this period did not comment on Matthew 1:23, a passage dealing with the virgin birth, that he did not believe in the virgin birth? In the end, Ice’s argument from history is an argument from silence.

Much of the debate over preterism comes down to when a document was written. This is especially true for the book of Revelation.[5] If a document was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in A.D. 70, then any statement about future prophetic events could be a reference to that event. The burden of proof is on the futurist to prove otherwise.

A "Shred of Evidence" from the Didache

The Didache, also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," is probably the oldest surviving extant piece of non-canonical, extra-biblical literature that the church has to study. It claims to have been written by the twelve apostles, but this cannot be proved.[6] While a copy of the full text of the Didache was not discovered until 1873, there are references to it in Clement of Alexandria’s Miscellanies,[7] Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History,[8] and Athanasius’s Festal Letter.[9]

In Didache 16, there are 12 references to Matthew 24–25 (24:4, 10–13, 21, 24, 30, 31, 42, 44, and 25:31). The crucial time text of Matthew 24:34 ("this generation will not pass away") is not quoted, but a form of Matthew 24:30 is: "The Lord shall come and all His saints with Him. Then shall the world see the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven" (16.7–8). John F. MacArthur, whose chapter in The End Times Controversy uses the Didache as a defense for futurism, claims that the "document proves that those who actually lived through the events of A.D. 70 regarded Matthew 24:29–31—and the entire Olivet Discourse—as yet-unfulfilled prophecy."[10] Nothing in the Didache says anything about "living through the events of A.D. 70." Nothing in the Didache indicates that the destruction of the temple has taken place.

The verses quoted from Matthew 24–25 in Didache 16 obviously refer to future events from the perspective of the author(s). Of course, if the Didache was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, then preterists have their "shred of evidence" that Ice says does not exist. MacArthur maintains that "most scholars believe it was written near the close of the first century, most likely after A.D. 80."[11] He does not offer a source for his assertion. The dating of the Didache, like many of these very early documents, is debatable. But there is good reason to place its composition early, prior to the destruction of the temple.

Didache authority Kurt Niederwimmer, after a thorough study of the document, concludes that "the date of the Didache is a matter of judgment."[12] In addition to MacArthur’s "most scholars," none of whom he cites, other scholars believe that the Didache was composed before A.D. 70. In the authoritative work The Apostolic Fathers, we read the following:

A remarkably wide range of dates, extending from before A.D. 50 to the third century or later, has been proposed for this document. . . . The Didache may have been put into its present form as late as 150, though a date considerably closer to the end of the first century seems more plausible. The materials from which it was composed, however, reflect the state of the church at an even earlier time. The relative simplicity of the prayers, the continuing concern to differentiate Christian practice from Jewish rituals (8.1), and in particular the form of church structure—note the twofold structure of bishops and deacons (cf. Phil. 1:1) and the continued existence of traveling apostles and prophets alongside a resident ministry—reflect a time closer to that of Paul and James (who died in the 60s) than Ignatius (who died sometime after 110).[13]

The definitive work on the Didache was written by the French Canadian Jean-Paul Audet who concluded "that it was composed, almost certainly in Antioch , between 50 and 70,"[14] "contemporary with the first gospel writings."[15] In an earlier edition of The Apostolic Fathers we read a similar conclusion: "In his very thorough commentary J.-P. Audet suggests about A.D. 70, and he is not likely to be off by more than a decade in either direction."[16] Even liberal scholars, who tend to date all New Testament documents late, acknowledge the evidence for an early date for the Didache. For example, Stephen J. Patterson comments that the trend is to date the document early, "at least by the end of the first century or the beginning of the second, and in the case of Jean-P. Audet, as early as 50–70 C.E."[17] Andrew Louth writes that many scholars would date the Didache "earlier than the New Testament itself."[18] Aaron Milavec’s 1000-page study of the Didache also places its composition sometime between A.D. 50 and 70.[19]

So then, if the Didache was written prior to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, as many scholars suggest, then its use of Matthew 24–25 to describe events that were yet to take place, including "the Lord coming upon the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 24:30), makes perfect sense given a preterist interpretation of the Olivet Discourse. Ice has his "shred of evidence."

But let’s follow MacArthur’s assumption of a post-A.D. 80 date. All that could be said is that the unknown author(s) of the Didache believed that the events of Matthew 24:29–31 refer to as yet-unfulfilled prophecy. When we don’t know who wrote the Didache, when it was written, or where it was written,[20] it is flimsy evidence indeed to claim so much authority for the document. To call these early writers "some of the most astute students of Scripture," as MacArthur does, shows little familiarity with the entire corpus of their anonymous works. For example, MacArthur quotes Justin Martyr as someone "who was probably born in the first century and certainly knew many believers who had lived through the events of A.D. 70."[21] Justin was obviously a futurist, but to say that he knew many who lived through the events of the destruction of Jerusalem is highly speculative seeing that he wasn’t born until around A.D. 100 and didn’t become a Christian until around A.D. 130, sixty years after the Roman siege of Jerusalem. This is another argument from silence. We only know what Justin wrote, and even that’s a matter of interpretation.

But is MacArthur willing to accept Justin’s views on the church as the true Israel , a devastatingly anti-dispensational position? In his Dialogue with Trypho (c. 160), Justin argued:

For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed.[22]

Justin argued later in the same work that the prophets foretold the removal of Israel and the blessing of another Israel .[23] Again, "As . . . Christ is the Israel and the Jacob, even so we, who have been quarried out from the bowels of Christ, are the true Israelitic race."[24] Justin explicitly said that the promise of land made to Abraham is fulfilled in the Church’s inheritance of heaven: "along with Abraham we shall inherit the holy land, when we shall receive the inheritance for an endless eternity, being children of Abraham through like faith."[25] These early writers and their documents are a mixed bag doctrinally.

A "Shred of Evidence" from 1 Clement

Clement (A.D. 30–100), also known as Clemens Romanus to distinguish him from Clement of Alexandria who died in the third century, is noted for his letter to the Corinthians (1 Clement). The letter is commonly dated around A.D. 96, but there is good reason to date it earlier. George Edmundson, in his Bampton Lectures for 1913, writes "that the probable date of the epistle is the early months of 70 A.D." [26] The strongest argument for an early A.D. 70 date is that Clement states that temple sacrifices were still being offered in Jerusalem. This means the temple, which was destroyed in late A.D. 70, was still standing when Clement wrote his letter: