In the comments to his post on The Millennium and the Resurrection of the Dead, Steve commented that:
“I think that’s the task of the New Jerusalem Church: our deeds, how we deal with sin and problems in society, whether we take our restored Genesis 1 mandate for dominion seriously — this is Kingdom living. We rely on God to give us the grace, strength, and wisdom to do this.”
Steve’s note touched on a particular interest of mine – God’s original mandate to mankind, the only commandment given in a pre-Sin world:
Genesis 1:28 (NRSV) — God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”
Steve’s thought needs to be read in context that, as a full preterist, he believes that the visions described in Revelation 1-20 represent the complete fulfillment of the promises of the Old Covenant and of the Law as a mediating document between God and Israel. The only thing that exists after the fulfillment of the Old Covenant is the establishment of the Christian age and the Church as Christ’s Bride. The time of New Jerusalem and the New Earth are our current reality (and have been since 70AD); New Jerusalem being the Church and New Earth being the Christian age – the Christian age therefore is without end or at least without the description of an end.
So if we accept Steve’s premise and New Earth is now an eternal reality, what does that mean? Has Creation has been fully redeemed? Has Christ the Son given back His reign to God the Father? Are we in error when we recite a creed that says “I believe that Christ will come again to judge the living and dead?”
This position is actually quite similar to post-millennialism, in that both believe that we are living in the Kingdom and working toward the acceptance of the Church and Gospel message throughout the earth. Post-millennialists look forward, however, to the second coming once that goal is achieved; full preterists look forward to societal transformation and living in full in the Kingdom during our physical lives. Truly, “Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.”
Genesis 1:28 is as clear a statement of God’s original will for mankind as we have – is it the mandate for Christianity as well?
3 Comments
As I responded in the comments of my last post, if the Apostles’ Creed was indeed passed down from the apostles, then it pre-dates the Second Coming, and is thus not incorrect, but fulfilled. “He will come again” was an accurate statement at the time it was first formulated.
I was talking with someone yesterday, when he expressed his unsettled feeling about full preterism in that it doesn’t postulate a final, definite end of all things. He asked me, “If full preterism is true, what is the ultimate goal?” I responded, “What was the ultimate goal for Adam?” There was never any expiration date put on the world for Adam before “Paradise lost” — so why should there be one for “Paradise regained”? With a futurist model, God was thwarted in his original goal for man (dominion over the earth) and He resigned himself to just wiping everything out and taking us all to heaven. With the preterist model, God is the victor, and His original intention will not have been thwarted but only delayed with what will amount to a short detour when taking all of eternity future into account.
Thanks, Steve. The Noah story often gets lost in the eschatological discussion, but one reading is that the Earth actually was redeemed at that point:
Note that in Genesis 3, God never cursed man or woman, but the land/Earth instead (and the serpent). With Noah, the flood waters act as the redemption (the baptism) of the land. God also seems to validate that humans are sinful from creation and were not somehow instantly transformed into wretches by disobeying God and eating the apple.
Given that the vast majority of people believe that Revelation ends with sin, evil, pain and suffering being eliminated from our conscious existence, is this a way that a full preterist would answer the question, why or how is there still evil in the world? The potential for sin was not injected into humanity, but was always there as a base quality… Satan only plies and distorts what already exists rather than actively corrupts… that’s an image of Satan much closer to Mephistopheles than the image we’re more accustomed to – perhaps also closer to more distinct “the adversary” role from the Old Testament.
Interesting stuff to think on…
Well said! I think we tend to view everything as too perfect before the Fall. A perfect human could never sin in the first place. The normal proceedings of the physical universe as we know it, including death, sickness, and natural calamity, was part of the plan. I think we view the Fall as more cataclysmic too nature than Scripture says it was. In fact, death seemed to be the natural state of affairs even for pre-Fall Adam: the death he died as a result was a spiritual death. In fact, the reversal of the Fall pictured in Rev. 14:13 shows that physical death would continue: “Then I heard a voice from heaven say, ‘Write: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on.’ ‘Yes,’ says the Spirit, ‘they will rest from their labor, for their deeds will follow them.’”
The jury on Satan is still out for me. I do know that we give him way too much credit. You are definitely correct that Satan was an “adversary/accuser”, and never the yin to God’s yang (not the “Emperor” from Star Wars). What I’m still trying to tease out is what to do with him as a full preterist. Most full preterists are convinced that his role as an accuser of the brethren in relation to the Law was completed when the Law which caused sin was removed, and that he actually perished when he was thrown in the Lake of Fire (Rev. 20). Now, that passage says he still exists, but is in perpetual torment. I am confident that he has no bearing on the modern believer’s experience — he has lost his role as accuser of the brethren. But is he still an issue for unbelievers (those “outside the city”)? I’m still weighing all evidence on this one.