Here is a great
examination of the frustration many feel towards the
seemingly lawless and utterly subjective forms of historical
idealism, when compared to the seemingly concrete and
perfectly objective forms of preterism and futurism.
I agree with most of what is said in opposition to that sort
of "Historical Idealism" which either blithely throws
multiple fulfillments around, or ignores fulfillment
altogether ; and yet, I would like to offer "Modern
Idealism" an alternative that is true to both biblical
Idealism, as well as futurism or preterism, depending on
which mode of historical referent one prefers in their
eschatology. Comments at bottom. (Thanks
for the thought-provoking article, David! If you'd
like me to remove it, please just let me know : todd@idealistarchive.com.)
They ramble back and forth and you'd have
to be pretty committed to reading them slowly a couple of
times at least for them to make much sense but here are some
thoughts on why idealist readings of Revelation which appeal
to "double fulfillment" or "multiple fulfillment" don't
work. That they started in email exchanges is clear from
time to time.
A. Preterist criticism of idealist readings
We need to distinguish between:
a) referent
b) association
c) application
Take the fall of Babylon as an example.
A preterist would say
a) the fall of Babylon is / is about / has as its referent,
the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70
b) this has many associations - like the tower of Babel, the
Isaiah 13-14 material, the destruction of Tyre in Ezekiel
etc. Because of this it can teach and reassure us in all
sorts of ways - which have to do with how God works by
patterns and habits
c) this is turn means that there will be many applications
so that when Christians after A.D. 70 see false religion /
covenant-breakers / proud Christ-rejecting privileged groups
etc. giving the bride a hard time then they can declare with
confidence, “God showed us in A.D. 70 with the fall of
Babylon that this sort of thing will be dealt with”.
An idealist, in my view, collapses this so that the
associations and applications are confusedly reckoned to be
referents. The idealist says either
a) that the fall of Babylon is / is about / has as its
referent two, five, five hundred distinct and separate
occasions within history or
b) that the fall of Babylon is itself a higher level thing
and that specific occasions (such as A.D. 70) are just
manifestations or examples of the fall of Babylon.
The trouble with the first is that it means the answer to
the question “has Babylon fallen in the Rev 18-19 sense?” is
“yes and no” - and at the same level of discourse. But once
you say that then how can you have prophecy and fulfillment
at all?
The trouble with the second is that it is de-historicizing -
it makes God’s realm of action supra-history rather than
history. Some would even call this gnostic. Because it would
say that “Babylon in x manifestation has fallen” but that
this has not had the redemptive-historical impact which
Revelation implies (it’s an event which leads to the
overthrow of beast, false prophet, to the 1000 year reign,
the great judgment etc). So then we wait for “Babylon in y
manifestation” to fall - but this doesn”t do it either. So
it’s not “Babylon” in any “manifestation” which makes the
difference but rather something beyond history. It’s as
though God’s real actions don’t take place upon the stage of
history. (In a previous generation this was linked with “the
scandal of particularity” - people were embarrassed about
the sheer once-off-ness and located-ness of God’s actions.)
To say this another way, if the fall of Babylon is about the
supra-historical reality of which historical realities are
merely particular manifestations, then you are NOT actually
saying that it is about A.D. 70 and A.D. 300 and A.D. 1500
(or whenever). You cannot at the same time and in the same
way say that Babylon refers to a supra-historical general
reality AND that it applies (in the same way) to an
intra-historical particularity.
Thus the “double-referent” idea is inherently unstable. And
- again - this is because it fails to see that referent/
association/ application are distinguishable (though not
ultimately separable).
Remember, also, the very specificity of much of the book
- has Jesus “come” in the way he promised or not?
- has the male child been born yet (or is this a timeless
principle with multiple referents?)
- has the dragon been cast out of heaven?
- has the beast turned against the harlot? (has Babylon
fallen?)
If this is going on through all history then has heaven been
opened or not? Have the kingdoms of this world become the
kingdom of our God and of his Christ?
To say “in this manifestation, yes, but in this
manifestation, no” is actually to say, “in terms stated by
the text (unique, climactic, unrepeatable), no”.
Bottom-line:
If you are preterist (or indeed futurist) then you have
single referent and multiple association and application.
If you are idealist and try to have multiple referent then
you lose
a) ability to communicate about unique events
b) seriousness about historical particularity
c) ability to recognise that a prophecy has been fulfilled,
and therefore
d) ability to declare a given interpretation (designation of
referent) right or wrong.
The idealist’s desire to be inclusive and general results in
incoherence. And, funnily enough, you’ve lost coherence in
an attempt to gain something which you think the preterist/futurist
lacks when in fact they (so long as they do their
association/application thing seriously) not only have it
but are the only ones who have grounds for having it and
holding it stably and securely.
B. Question in response to the above
Here's a quote “Because of the typological character of
history, one prophetic oracle may point to more than one
future event, having a near “confirming” fulfillment and
another fuller fulfillment in the New Covenant. A clear
illustration of this is Isaiah 7:1-19, which is immediately
fulfilled in Isaiah 8:3-4, but receives a fuller fulfillment
in Matthew 1.” That is, there is a “confirming” fulfilment
and a “fuller” fulfilment. Doesn’t that mean that the
prophecy has two referents?
C. An attempted answer to the question in B.
I think I think (!) that while someone may rightly say that
prophecy X “is about” or “points to” or even “is fulfilled
by” two distinguishable things, the fact that this is so in
different ways means that we’d do better to find a distinct
way of describing each of them. Let me try to explain. Our
options are
1) complex or extended single referent - which I think is
wholly conceivable (“I will build my church” has a single
referent but it it is realized each time someone becomes a
Christian. The referent then is not to any one conversion
but to the meta-reality of a growing church. The conversion
of each individual is a fulfillment (instantiation) of the
whole meta-reality prophecy - not a “partial fulfillment”.)
Why doesn't this fall foul of my criticism of idealist
gnosticism above? Because that did not deny that a prophecy
may been fulfilled within history over an extended period.
There are "process-fulfillments". It denied that the
referent of a prophecy which is a "point-fulfillment", (for
example a prophecy which includes near time-markers and upon
the single, completed fulfillment of which other, subsequent
things depend) can be lifted out of earthly history into a
supra-historical realm.
2) partial fulfillment - this would mean that after (to use
our example) A.D.70 you could not say that the prophecy of
the fall of Babylon had been fulfilled. You would say that
it had been partially fulfilled. You could only say that it
was really fulfilled once (e.g.) seductive religion had been
destroyed with the return of Christ. The difficulty with
this, as we have observed, is that if there is a unilinear /
sequenced / once-off set of consequences which flow from the
fall of Babylon then you won’t be able to start that until
the prophecy is fulfilled (not partially fulfilled). If you
move to saying, “well, fulfilled in this way (enough to
kick-off the chain of consequences) , but not in that” then
you are not talking about partial fulfillment but either
about distinct prophecies or about 4) below.
3) double fulfillment in the same way at the same level -
this is a non-sense because it is saying that in the same
way and at the same level prophecy X has been fulfilled and
has not been fulfilled
4) double fulfillment in different ways - this is what we
are talking about above
So, I think that the sort of thing you raise in your
question is 4). But if we are talking about double (or
multiple) fulfillment in different ways then I think it is
confusing to use the same word (fulfillment) to describe
them. [No problem for Matthew because he’s not trying to use
terms in a way that divides everything up as tightly as we
try to do when striving for hermeneutical precision - though
see here for what people make of plero-o in Matthew ]. But
it's more of a problem for us. This is presumably why even
in the quotation you give we have some sort of distinction –
the qualifiers “confirming” and “fuller” fulfillment are
introduced. I simply think that it’s less confusing to find
even more distinct vocabulary than that.
Thus far I’ve kept to “referent” (and “association”) and
“application”. Now I want to distinguish a little further by
dividing “application” into two categories.
a) Application 1 – typological echo within Scripture
history. This is an application insofar as it was not the
referent of the prophecy and yet that typological echo may
be a thousand times more important than the original
referent and fulfillment. Think of 2 Samuel 7 or Isaiah 7
for example. The referent of each of these prophecies was
located in the near future and thus the fulfillment of the
prophecies also took place in that same near future.
However, both of these prophecies, fulfilled within not many
years of having been made, had a typological echo in Christ
the importance of which far outweighed the importance of the
actual “fulfillment”.
It is unsurprising if someone wants to say – in view of the
fact that the Christ-centred typological echo is far more
important than the actual near-time referent and fulfillment
– that the prophecy is fulfilled in Christ. Furthermore,
this is actually the way that NT writers sometimes word
things. But in terms of precise understanding of how
prophecy works, it would be misleading to talk about double
or multiple “fulfillments”.
It is unsurprising if someone wants to say – in view of the
fact that the Christ-centred typological echo is far more
important than the actual near-time referent and fulfillment
– that the prophecy was really “about” the massive
typological echo rather than “about” the single initial
referent. But in terms of precise understanding of how
prophecy works, it would be misleading to say, without
qualification, that the prophecy was “about” Christ.
And it is not only “unsurprising”, it is – in motivation,
though not in choice of terminology – often highly desirable
because it is stressing what the NT stresses and what all
Christians should want to stress, namely that OT prophecy is
always (in the loose sense) “about” Christ and “fulfilled”
in Christ. I’d rather have someone asserting those things in
terms which I think lead to confusion when turned into a
theory of double or multiple fulfillment than missing the
NT’s glorious obsession with Christ.
But let's get back to where this started – with a
Revelation-preterist’s criticism of a Revelation-idealist.
It remains the case that as soon as this theory of double or
multiple fulfillment, which arises out of a failure to
distinguish OT prophecies’ near-time referent and
fulfillment from their Christ-centred climactic and glorious
typological application, is applied to the book of
Revelation, all sorts of silliness comes to the surface.
b) Application 2. – application by non-Scripture writers
outside of Scripture-history. This is what we normally call
“application”.
Incidentally, I’ve also come across this set of distinctions
- and you may do so too:
a) “prediction” (my “referent”) and
b) “promise” (my “Application 1”, i.e. a typological echo
within Scripture history, the importance of which far
outweighs that of the actual referent and fulfillment.)
I wonder how much sense this all makes?
Historical Idealism
vs.
Modern Idealism
Todd Dennis
David wrote that we need to distinguish
between a) referent b) association c) application ; however,
it seems to me that all three (and many more) devices are
used in the Word (and in life) to point to a single
substance: Jesus Christ and His eternal and perpetual work.
To make history the referent of history is simply missing
the point. And by referent, I mean "the object or
concept that is designated by a word or expression (or
historical model)."
That is to say, why should we consider
the falls of Jerusalem in different lights? Aren't
AD70 and BC 568 about precisely the same thing?
Consider living between these two events.
Surely, a preterist at that time could look back and say
"and thus it was fulfilled" and be correct : provided that
they were looking at the true kingdom to which Israel
pointed. Whereas those futurists, who saw that there
was still "unfulfilled prophecy" associated with Israel,
would be looking at the historical future. And
such would also be correct ... provided that they were
looking at the same true spiritual kingdom.
However, if the "preterist" said "and thus, and only thus
was it" they would be wrong... just as the "futurist" who
said "and thus, and only thus will it be."
Without question, the Jews after the
Babylonian captivity read the prophets and utterly set their
hopes upon the naive thought that the prophecies of the
Messiah were actually referring to a natural deliverer and
the glorification of their nation. Was it not
precisely this expectation which led them to idolize their
temple and their nation, resulting in absolute desolation --
natural and spiritual? This desolation is
exactly the same for those today, who look either to the
past or to the future historical realm for "thus and only
thus fulfillment." It is this expectation of a
historical referent/substance that leaves so many perplexed,
be they preterists, futurists, or historical idealists.
Now, just because a historical referent,
association & application to which both are looking came to
pass, does that necessitate that the actual substance
to which that "fulfillment model" pointed is bound by time,
or has "been fulfilled," al a Preterism? No. In
fact, the substance was always "at hand" and "within
reach" since before the creation of the world (As Jesus
Himself and His gospel was around from before creation..
His physical advent serving as a "manifestation" of that
eternal reality). The end of the old models must not
be mistaken with the body to which they all linked together
as a chain to reveal. Therefore, we should not
be surprised to see such common language in the fall of
all of these cities (Babylon, Tyre, Jerusalem, Sodom,
Nineveh, etc.)
Therefore, I reject both
assertions about the Idealist view:
a) that the fall of Babylon is / is
about / has as its referent two, five, five hundred
distinct and separate occasions within history or
b) that the fall of Babylon is itself a higher level
thing and that specific occasions (such as A.D. 70) are
just manifestations or examples of the fall of Babylon.
I'm not familiar with the brand of
Historical Idealism that teaches these particularly, but I
don't doubt that there are those that do. The point is
that a) the "separate occasions within history" are not
referents at all.. but associations, applications, shadows,
what have you. And b) the historical outward shows are
not higher level things in themselves, but are all likewise
just manifestation of eternal and spiritual things. At
the risk of sounding blasphemous, I would suggest that the
same is true with the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ.
EVERYTHING He did pointed to something greater in the Father
-- while at the same time serving as a cue or association
for our lives to emulate. This is why He
constantly referred to His collective leadership referring
to His role as that of "son of man" -- just as Ezekiel and
others were called. Certainly, the picture of
Jesus in Revelation 1 is more substance than the picture of
him in Matthew 1. This deals with the
"historical echo" issue.. especially as we look at the
associations made between Christ and Melchizedek, Joseph,
Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon.. and the list goes on to even
more abstract associations, such as the Pascal Lamb.
Therefore, we are able to "acknowledge
history" FULLY, while at the same time not glorifying it
beyond its role as schoolmaster of eternal / spiritual
things. This is why seeing the entire history of
national Israel as a "Prophecy/Fulfillment Model" is so
helpful... and why AD70 is so instructive (being such a
clearly defined bookend to the model). This is
why there are such confusion about how to reconcile a
Christological focus in light of a consistent "grammatico-historical
hermeneutic" (which would see contemporary application -- al
a David's example of Isaiah 7:1-19). Ultimately,
though, the true confusion comes when "Historical Idealism"
tries to say that a future historical return of Christ and
judgment, etc. are the actual focal points of
prophecy. This strikes me as just being a form
of Historicism -- always looking below for the substance,
when that role belongs to the everlasting Christ alone.
That is not to say that the history
itself was somehow "unreal" or not to what the prophets
"horizontally" looked.. but that the imagery and association
given in natural Israel's rise and fall all works together
in order to reveal Jesus Christ as the land of promise and
the consummation of the ages.
A perfect example of this is seen in the
land promises to natural Israel. Though Joshua
declares that every last bit of the promises were fulfilled
("all came to pass" Josh. 21:43-45), we are told by the
greater light of the New Testament that there was still a
land which awaited the people of God, namely Jesus Christ
(Hebrews 13). Now, those "horizontal"
thinkers, who want objective, concrete fulfillment in the
confines of history, may be more inclined to see the
conversion of the Roman Empire to Christ and the resultant
"New (Christian) Jerusalem" as the referent or ultimate
fulfillment here -- and such has been the theology of a good
number of Preterists in church history -- yet, this is
utterly missing the point.
So, we are not intended to think Babylon,
Tyre or Jerusalem "fell" at a particular fixed point in
history... as they are all alike associations of something
which was fully dead and fallen even before history came
into being. What we are rather intended to
realize is that all of these manifestations of that eternal
reality came and went in times past, just as they are in
time present, just as they will in time future... Hence, the
comfort theologians like G.K. Beale have with an Idealism
that includes an eclectic mix of Preterism, Historicism, and
Futurism.
Therefore, there are not "double
fulfillments" or "multiple fulfillments," but only one true
substance to which all of the historical models similarly
point. Though it may be more comfortable
to believe in a single, historical referent, it is missing
the mark, and taking glory away from where all honor and
attention should go - the person and work of Jehovah from
everlasting to everlasting.