Home>2015-30-Main Body-Preterism Idealism

Gary DeMar shows the failure of John Murray’s “Historical Idealism”
(Contrasted with Modern Idealism – the native hermeneutic of PreteristArchive.com.  MI is to Historical Idealism as HP is to HyP.)

Church-State Relations and the Book of Revelation By Todd Dennis, Curator
(Futurist: 1979-1996; Full Preterist: 1996-2006; Idealist: 2006-Eis tous aionios ton aionion)

Preterist-IdealismThe Wintery Flight (1876) “All who believed in Jesus Christ remembered what He had said, and left their homes hurriedly, and fled to a little town called Pella, on the other side of the river Jordan. Not one Christian perished in the siege of Jerusalem. The Jews who had refused to believe in Jesus, trusted to their strong walls, and their weapons, and stayed in the city..  Now, my children, I have not told you these things only as a chapter of history. I want you to learn some very important lessons from these words. For us there is an escape, a flight, to be undertaken, and for us there is a place of refuge like Pella. “

When he finished speaking, he told Simon, “Take the boat into deep water, and lower your nets to catch some fish.” Luke 5:4


Jesus as Focal Point of all Bible Prophecy

The Advent of Jesus Christ is the Centrifuge Which Separates Historical from Spiritual Hermeneutics in Bible Prophecy

2 Cor. 1:20 “For all the promises of God, whatever their number, have their confirmation in Him; and for this reason through Him also our “Amen” acknowledges their truth and promotes the glory of God through our faith.” Weymouth New Testament



Israel’s Transition Points to Our Transition

PRETERIST-IDEALISM (PI, aka Modern Idealism) –  A) Umbrella term covering those who see the true focus of Bible prophecy as the work of Jesus Christ throughout all ages.  Historical fulfillments in the history of natural Israel – notably in the events of Moses’ and Jesus’ generations – are seen as the outward “typological” show of the everlasting work of Christ.  B) Though Idealism has been taught by spiritually minded writers throughout the Christian era (such as the Allegorists, Quakers, Swedeborgians, Medieval Monks, and countless others), very seldom have forms utilizing a “Preterist modifier” been published.   Saint Augustine is considered the father of Idealism, though systems anchored historically by the Preterist view are only now being developed among Modern Preterists.  Those forms of Idealism without the “Preterist modifier” often qualify as Historicism or Futurism  C) The spectrum of known systems range from those more heavily Idealist (looking to Christ for the substance of prophecy) to those more heavily Preterist (looking to history for the substance of prophecy).   (Fundamentally neither preterist nor futurist ; PreteristArchive.com’s native approach ;  More Information Here)

“Here is the salvation that God promises to give to restored Israel; and here is the salvation that is the birthright of every Christian believer: the complete destruction of all sin in the soul, and the complete renewal of the heart ; no sin having any place within, and no unrighteousness having any place without.” (Adam Clarke on Ezekiel 36:27)


  • PuritanBoard: Discussing the “Two Age Model” “Do no preterists wish to offer their views? The two age model contradicts preterism. Preterism depends in part on interpreting some passages about a present age as referring to the age of the Old Covenant, which was to be ended with the destruction of Jerusalem.” (represented in the Idealism of Waldron)

  • Apocalypse brings renewal along with destruction / Armageddon? Been there, done that. “Actually, the world has ended. The Rapture, more or less, already came and went. We just weren’t paying much attention. As usual, it’s all about the Romans.. But the events predicted in the book of Revelation have already happened, just not in the way that most people think.”

  • Planet Pret: Todd Dennis (Scott Thompson, Nate DuBois, et al) and Preterist Idealism (2007) “It appears that there are only a few minor points to which Sam does not agree with Todd and mainly criticizes Todd’s viewpoint in developing another systematic approach which Sam assumes is no different that the Full preterist view. Sam spends more time going after Todd rather than focusing on the major premises of Pret-Idealism. Sam does not quote a single passage of scripture in its entirety! There are only just a precious few references”

 This Age / Age to Come Chart

IdealisticPreterism.jpg by Patrick Stone

“What if Earth
Be but the shadow of Heaven – and things therein
Each to other like, more than on earth is thought!” Milton.

  • The Two Ingredients of an Effective Refutation of Hyper Preterism ; and, Dangrous or Wrong? (2008)

  • The Lord Jesus Christ : Telos and Eschaton (2008)

  • Israel’s History a Type – From Beginning to Very End (2008)

  • Matthew 10:23 is NOT a “Preterist Time Indicator” pointing to AD70 (2008)

  • Matthew 16:28 is NOT a “Preterist Time Indicator” pointing to AD70 (2008)

  • Matthew 26:64 is NOT a “Preterist Time Indicator” Pointing to AD70 (2008)

  • AD70 Storyline Fundamentally Different from Historical Christianity’s (2009)

  • F.B. Meyer – Joshua and the Land of Promise (1893 PDF) “There is, then, a special inner meaning in the Book of Joshua, which cannot be exhausted when we have learned from it the story of the extermination of the Canaanites ; of the partition and settlement of Canaan ; and of the noble simplicity and military exploits of Joshua.  It is impossible to suppose that so much space should have been given to the record of these, unless there had been some deep and holy purpose – similar to that which has given such minute directions for Levitical sacrifice, each of which contained some deep spiritual truth required for the growth of holy souls throughout the ages.  Of the Book of Joshua, as of the Paschal Lamb and the Passage of the Red Sea, it may be said “All these things happened unto them for ensamples.”

  • Frederick W. Robertson – Sermons Preached at Brighton (1850 Sermon) He was then on the Mount of Olives ; beneath Him there lay the metropolis of Judea, with the Temple in full sight; the towers and the walls of Jerusalem flashing back the brightness of an Oriental sky. The Redeemer knew that she was doomed, and therefore with tears He pronounced her coming fate : “The days shall come that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and shall not leave in thee one stone upon another.” These words, which rang the funeral knell of Jerusalem, tell out in our ears this day a solemn lesson ; they tell us that in the history of nations, and also, it may be, in the personal history of individuals, there are three times—a time of grace, a time of blindness, and a time of judgment .  “Therefore, let us know the day of our visitation. It is not the day of refinement, nor of political liberty, nor of advancing intellect. We must go again in the old, old way; we must return to simpler manners and to a purer life. We want more faith, more love. The life of Christ and the death of Christ must be made the law of our life. Reject that, and we reject our own salvation ; and, in rejecting that, we bring on in” rapid steps, for the nation and for ourselves, the day of judgment and of ruin.”

  • F.E. Marsh (1970) “A minister who was talking with a Christian worker said: “Christ came again twenty years ago, when He came into my heart.” Whereupon the Christian worker replied: “I read in my Bible that certain things are to happen when Christ returns, and among them the dead in Christ shall be raised and the living believers in Him will be changed. Have either of these taken place?” The question non-plussed the minister!” (1000 Bible Study Outlines, p. 91)

  • A Statement on “Preterist Idealism” in Bennett’s Apology (2009) “Dee Dee had mentioned that some FP would run with the pic. when she had posted it, which is why I said “couldn’t resist” in my email. At the time they were being very friendly to Pret. Idealism which is “modern” according to TD and still sees the Res. of dead / 2nd Coming etc. as past but ongoing, so really should not be accepted by anyone arguing from the “2000 years of church history” view IMO. I saw it as a way to “kill 2 birds with one stone” so to speak.”   [My view is that the escaton is past, present and future in Jesus Christ.. as in “Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.” and “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” The attitude of earnest expectation for the coming of the Lord and resurrection from the dead which refused to wane even during in the Middle Ages is a discipline worth keeping. The Preterist worldview pinches the ability to perceive the entire field of prophetic fulfillment by an unbalanced dedication to that which can be seen.]

  • Willibald BeyschlagNew Testament Theology (1895) “The common error.. of conceiving the parousia as a single historical event instead of the whole course of Christ’s victory and triumph over the historical world, dominates also the writer of the Apocalypse. But this error marks simply the necessary limits of prophecy, which Paul describes in the words (1 Cor. xiii. 12): “Now we see (in our prophecy) through a glass in a riddle, but then face to face.” To see the things of the future face to face is granted only to the after life ; to him who looks forward the future appears only in the mirror of the present ; the symbol of the future hovers before him in the signs of his time. Hence the conflict of Christian history and the hope of eternal victory were to the writer of the Apocalypse symbolically reflected in the confusions of his time ; and if he saw close at hand the eternal triumph of the kingdom of God, he simply erred in the same way as Isaiah or his greater post-Exilic successor, the former of whom expected that the Assyrian oppression and deliverance from it, and the latter that the Babylonian captivity and deliverance, alone separated them from the Messianic salvation.”

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 2 Corinthians 5:17

Jerusalem as the Heart

Hebrews 12:25-29 And Our New Creation in Christ
(Historically called the “Tropological Sense” of Scripture)

“When Christ was born, all Jerusalem was troubled; so when Christ is born in any man, the soul is in an uproar, and all because the heart is unwilling to yield up itself to Christ to rule it.”
Richard Sibbes, 1577-1635

Jerusalem as the Heart


And in that day living waters will flow out of Jerusalem
Zechariah 14:8
“He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water.'”
Jesus in John 7:38

In chapter four of the letter to the Galatians, Paul equates both views of Jerusalem with heart conditions: liberty vs. bondage of the soul.  By doing so, he has beautifully illuminated the distinctions between the inward states of those with and without Jesus Christ.   This messianic meaning, he declares, was the intended context of that historical “allegory.”  And lest we try to externalize Paul’s intent in Galatians 4, seeking to remove its meaning from our inward transition from darkness to light, earlier in the chapter he gives a clear indication of context:   And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.  With such overt references, its a wonder that anyone could fail to see how the Spirit is likewise fully speaking to us today in the Word through the historical “allegory” of the fall of the old Jerusalem!  Surely, preconceived notions afflict preterists just like they do futurists.

‎”Here is the salvation that God promises to give to restored Israel; and here is the salvation that is the birthright of every Christian believer: the complete destruction of all sin in the soul, and the complete renewal of the heart ; no sin having any place within, and no unrighteousness having any place without.” (Adam Clarke on Ezekiel 36:27)

How doth the city sit solitary, that was full of people!

How is she become as a widow!
She that was great among the nations,
and princess among the provinces,
How is she become tributary!
She weepeth sore in the night,
and her tears are on her cheeks:

among all her lovers she hath none to comfort her.

Lamentations 1:1

“Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem: praise thy God, O Sion”

“O priests, comfort ye, comfort ye my people. Speak to the heart of Jerusalem, and say that she has received of the Lord’s hand double for her sins” (Isa. xl. 1,2, LXX.)

“At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the LORD; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the LORD, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.”

“O Jerusalem, wash thine heart from wickedness, that thou mayest be saved. How long shall thy vain thoughts lodge within thee?”

John Cassian (420) “The tropological sense is the moral explanation which has to do with improvement of life and practical teaching, as if we were to understand by these two covenants practical and theoretical instruction, or at any rate as if we were to want to take Jerusalem or Sion as the soul of man, according to this: “Praise the Lord, O Jerusalem: praise thy God, O Sion.” (Conferences)

Frederic W. FarrarChrist Wails Over Jerusalem (1899) “This incident is an allegory. The soul of each one amongst us is such a Jerusalem. The soul has its history of shame or of faithfulness, and its prophecy of triumph or of doom, just as Jerusalem had. Jerusalem had warnings..  Jerusalem found that it was so, and so shall all men who persist in defying the mercy of God which calleth us to repentance.”

Peter J. Leithart  “”[T]ropologically, the history of Jerusalem can be understood as a model for the history of the soul (secundum tropologiam).  Just as David conquered Jerusalem and set up the Lord’s throne there, so Jesus, His Son, conquers the inner city of the sinner and consecrates him as a saint, a holy one.” (Ascent to Love, pp. 22)

Isaac Pennington (1658) “Now for the sakes of such as have been truly exercised in their spirits by the Spirit of the Lord, (and have felt the powerful work of his grace, and a building raised up by him) and may yet be further exercised, I shall add this. Jerusalem was a type of an inward building in the spirits of God’s people”

Joseph Wood (1906) “Inspiration is that which is of universal application. If any utterance is only for an age, and local in its interpretation, we do not regard it as inspired. The Psalms, for instance, were mostly suggested by local considerations, the trials, the joys, the experiences of David and others, under peculiar circumstances. But, nevertheless, we feel as we read them that they pass beyond the limits of the local and the individual— they belong to humanity—they are true of human nature and life everywhere. Or take Christ’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. It was spoken at Jerusalem about Jerusalem, and in a manner which seemed limited to Jerusalem. But had the prophecy been true only of that city of sorrows, it would never have been regarded as inspired. Whereas Christ’s principle was this : that the doom pronounced on Jerusalem was universally applicable, and that it was but a style and specimen of God’s judgment everywhere. The judgment comes wherever there is evil grown ripe for judgment, wherever corruption is complete. And the gathering of the Roman eagles to the carcase is but a specimen of the way in which judgment at last overtakes any city, any country, and any man in whom evil has reached the point where there is no possibility of cure. We who have lived through the last fifty years have seen the eagles gathered together in Naples, in America, in France, in Bulgaria. The Lord’s judgment on Jerusalem has been fulfilled many times—it was not simply of local but of universal application.” (The Bible, what it is and is not [lects.], p. 97)

Writers on the “Tropological Sense” of Jerusalem

Total fulfillment of all of Israel’s shadows, which are but applications of eternal realities in Christ

Marcus Booker

  • “I agree that the law and prophets spoke of Jesus. It is the way in which they spoke of Jesus which is in question (not whether or not they did speak of him). Jesus was seen in types and shadows. I’ve elsewhere written about how Jesus stood as the substance behind the law (as say Hebrews and Colossians). A shadow cannot exist apart from a body and a light. God’s light upon Jesus cast a shadow upon the earth. That shadow was the law.  We, for our parts, seek and serve the body and not the shadow. God first revealed the shadow and then the body. Even so, the body is preeminent; it supersedes the shadow. It is the true object to which devotion is due.” (22/5/2003 PP Forums)

Todd Dennis


  • Matthew 16:28 is NOT a “Preterist Time Indicator” pointing to AD70 (2008) “Why would we expect the Lord to perform his acts of power and glory just once — be it in the past or the future? What good does that do all the other generations?  It seems to me that all prophecy ultimately finds its accomplishment in Christ internally and personally, as opposed to externally and historically. Even the cross must be received, and each follower must bear it as Jesus said.”

  • Matthew 26:64 is NOT a “Preterist Time Indicator” Pointing to AD70 (2008)  “In short, the usage of “Apo Arti” in Matthew 26:64 [Apo (“from” – Strongs 575) and Arti (“now on” – Strong’s 737)] is highly suggestive of the themes that have been previously offered at this blog ; that is, a series of revelatory recognitions of the power and glory of Jesus Christ’s dominance by friend and foe alike. Though the typically pret-friendly Weymouth translation would like to make Jesus say “later on, you will see..” this is not really honest. I would rather say that it was simply a mistake, but I find it impossible to believe that neither Richard Francis Weymouth (“If this belief ever obtains general acceptance the earlier date of the Apocalypse will also be regarded as fully established. For it will then be seen that the book describes beforehand events which took place in 70 A.D.”) nor Earnest Hampden-Cook (co-editor and author of “The Christ Has Come”) were aware of the importance of this passage regarding their Preterist assumptions. However, not only is there no sense of futurity in this very emphatic Greek phrase, but rather we see quite the opposite.”

  • The Two Ingredients of an Effective Refutation of Hyper Preterism ; and, Dangrous or Wrong? (2008)

  • Hyper Preterism’s AD70 Focal Point is Fundamentally Different From Christianity’s Focal Point of the Cross (2009) “When the life of Jesus was draining away on the cross, He Himself noted that the redemptive work had been accomplished, in saying “it is finished”. Finished (Tetelestai, from the verb teleo) means “to complete, to accomplish”.  Though some HyPs may try to diminish the meaning of the cross and Jesus’ declaration prior to His sacrificial death (which diminishment in itself serves as a litmus test for error), it was of the utmost significance. In fact, in order to maintain continuity with Christianity, it must remain the central focus. To diminish the centrality of the cross for redemptive accomplishment is to fundamentally alter the message that has been handed down and delivered throughout all generations. To diminish the cross event is not just a small matter of end times disagreement; Rather, it is an attack on the very foundations of Christianity.”

  • The Figure used in Hebrews 9 is the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, not Herod’s Temple in Jerusalem (2009)

  • On Leaving Full Preterism After a Decade (2006)

  • An Interview with Virgil Vaduva on Preterist Terminology and Hybrids (2006)

  • Hebrews 12:25-29: Jerusalem as the Heart (2006) “Looking closer at the “promised land,” we can see how the spiritual intent was revealed through fulfilled prophecy in Israel’s day.  Though there was an appearance in the promises to Abraham of an ultimate fulfillment in reference to the everlasting possession of a particular tract of land in history, we know from New Testament revelation that the intent was regarding spiritual things in Christ.  Though the promise found natural fulfillment in “Preterist Israel”, it was given to signify the true, greater fulfillment in “Ideal Israel” — with actual participants from all nations, throughout all generations (including ours).

Nathan DuBois

“However, to this day, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies over their hearts, 16 but whenever a person turns to the Lord, the veil is removed.”

“The old covenant was only a copy of the real thing that blinded them. Ad 70 removal of the temple was only a copy of the true thing that stands in the way between God and man, that veil, that enmity, that law of sin and death which still exists for those outside Christ today.”

  • The Nature of the Christ: The Dilemma of Chronology “Jesus was Messiah from the foundation, He did not become the Messiah only after He did the work. He did the work to reveal Himself as Messiah.. Are we really putting the “Type” as being the purpose and fulfillment over the “anti-type” to which they pointed?

  • Why I Needed to Repent: A Letter to a Friend… Among Friends (2006) “Am I saying full preterists are the Pharisees of today? NO! But I am saying I AM ONE! I was so caught up in the system of things that I could SEE that I was missing, and causing others to miss, the things that can only be seen by the heart. I saw the purpose and will of God in AD 70, the “new” (though very old) law of God being advented, but I missed the heart behind it. I have been guilty of Phariseeism.”

  • God, The Judge of the Heart (2006) “The gospel is living, it is active. Today men are judged righteous or unrighteous by being “in Christ” or not.  Judgment accompanied the kingdom because it was at the “revelation of Christ” in AD 70, to the world, that men were judged by the gospel vs. the law. “

  • My Thoughts and Understanding of Preterist Idealism (2006) “Any theology which looks to the temporal things as its finality, any theology which takes ANY scripture and applies them to the temporal realm, and does not apply them to the spiritual truth behind it for which it was written, is an incorrect theology.”

  • Blog: Nate4OneNation – “Where do we put the value of the truth. In the event? Or the pre-existing fact, kept in secret, from the very beginning. Is it us in AD 2006 seeing the cross made of wood, and the temple made of stone that crumbled, that can boast, because of those events (AD 30-70), that our salvation is true? Or was it true, because God declared it before the foundation of the world ever existed.”

Frederic W. Farrar

  • Christ Wails Over Jerusalem (1899) “This incident is an allegory. The soul of each one amongst us is such a Jerusalem. The soul has its history of shame or of faithfulness, and its prophecy of triumph or of doom, just as Jerusalem had. Jerusalem had warnings..  Jerusalem found that it was so, and so shall all men who persist in defying the mercy of God which calleth us to repentance.”

John Noē – Preterist-Idealist

  • He Never Left “..if you insist on limiting the comings of Jesus to only two times, then this second time occurred, chronologically, when Jesus came and appeared to Saul on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:4-5) or to John on the isle of Patmos (Rev. 1). How do you count or discount those comings of Jesus?—and there are more.”  My working definition for “a coming of Jesus” is this: it’s a personal and bodily intervention and/or manifestation of Jesus into the life of an individual, a group, or a nation on this earth. As we shall see, there are many different types of comings for different purposes, and they occur at different times and places.  Some are visible appearances; some are invisible interventions.”

  • An Exegetical Basis for a Preterist-Idealist Understanding of the Book of Revelation (2007) “The revelation of Jesus Christ” (Rev 1:1) has a fuller significance and deeper character beyond its AD 70 eschatological fulfillment.  Consequently, the preterist notion that it only applies to AD 70 when Christ supposedly came in “finality” is a weakness to be amended.  And in a preterist-idealist synthesis, the strength of idealism remains that it “secures its relevance for all periods of the church’s history.”  But its major weakness—i.e. “its refusal to see a firm historical anchorage”— is removed.  That missing anchorage is supplied by Revelation’s A.D-70 fulfillment.”

Dr. Israel P. Warren

  • The Parousia, A Critical Study of the Scripture Doctrines of Christ’s Second Coming, His Reign as King ; The Resurrection of the Dead ; and the General Judgment (1879) “Of the doctrine thus presented, I desire to remark in review: 1. That it is to be regarded neither as a praeterist nor a futurist view ; rather does it include both.   If it be affirmed that the Parousia began at the ascension, it is not meant that it is not also a fact of all time coming ages.   I ask especially that I may not be represented as saying that the resurrection is “past already,” or that the day of judgment occurred at the destruction of Jerusalem.  The Parousia, including under it Christ’s reign as King, Life-giver, and Judge, is not an event, but a dispensation.. The past, present, and future meet in one grand whole.”

Rev.  Josiah Litch (Millerite)

  • Christ Yet to Come: A Review of I.P. Warren’s Parousia (1880) “He speaks of the fact that the Parousia was ‘near’.’ If, as the Doctor so strenuously contends, parousia signifies “presence,” not “coming” what does he mean by “was near” ? Was there an interval of some forty years after Christ left his disciples on the mountain in Galilee, saying, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world,” to the time of Jerusalem’s overthrow, when Christ’s presence was not with them ? I press this point and urge an answer. Was there forty years, more or less, when they had to work without his omnipresence ? If there was not, and the time of his presence was still future when Paul wrote, where had been his omnipresence ? Either Dr. Warren or his reviewer is confused in his mode of apprehending and expressing this great theme. Does not the word near imply not yet here but coming : and if parousia is near, is it not coming ? How is this ?”

G.K. Beale

  •  “He’s an idealist and he’s an evangelical. Almost all idealists used to be liberal, but now you want to be a scholar and all this kind of stuff.” (Tommy Ice)  | “Idealist G. K. Beale characterizes Revelation as “a symbolic portrayal of the conflict between good and evil, between the forces of God and of Satan. . . . a timeless depiction of this struggle.”  (John Noe)

Willibald Beyschlag

  • New Testament Theology (1895) “The common error.. of conceiving the parousia as a single historical event instead of the whole course of Christ’s victory and triumph over the historical world, dominates also the writer of the Apocalypse. But this error marks simply the necessary limits of prophecy, which Paul describes in the words (1 Cor. xiii. 12): “Now we see (in our prophecy) through a glass in a riddle, but then face to face.” To see the things of the future face to face is granted only to the after life ; to him who looks forward the future appears only in the mirror of the present ; the symbol of the future hovers before him in the signs of his time. Hence the conflict of Christian history and the hope of eternal victory were to the writer of the Apocalypse symbolically reflected in the confusions of his time ; and if he saw close at hand the eternal triumph of the kingdom of God, he simply erred in the same way as Isaiah or his greater post-Exilic successor, the former of whom expected that the Assyrian oppression and deliverance from it, and the latter that the Babylonian captivity and deliverance, alone separated them from the Messianic salvation.”

Isaac Williams

  • The Apocalypse: with notes and reflections (1852) “But the presence of the Lamb has rendered that easy which before was difficult.” The six Seals appear to be fulfilled in the forty years in which the Spirit pleaded with Jerusalem before its destruction; this may be the writing “without,” as understood by all: but every Seal seems also to have an ulterior fulfilment, which is the hidden sense “written within”.

  • Thomas Scott: “The Praeterists—who think that the events with which the visions were concerned are altogether fulfilled, having taken place in the first centuries of Church history—are very numerous. And at present one section of the School—those who think that the book is concerned almost entirely with contemporaneous history—is very vigorously supported by Archdeacon FarrarHe thinks that the crash, and the coming of the Lord, to which the visions all point, refer to the Lord’s coming at the destruction of Jerusalem, and the breaking up of the entire Jewish polity. Others of this School allow a more extended scope for the visions, and refer the predicted crash to the breaking down of heathenism before Christianity, or to the breaking up of the Roman empire. But many of the most thoughtful of the Praeterists admit (or strongly advocate) that the visions and these events have lessons for all ages, and look forward as well as back. Thus there are commentators—such as Isaac WilliamsMauriceHengstenbergBoussett, Vaughan, and others—who may be classed among the interpreters of both the Spiritual and Praeterist Schools; and all of the Spiritual School can recognize in the events to which both the Historic and Praeterist Schools point, illustrations of the principles which we think the Apostle depicted in these visions.” (1891)

William Neil  (1950) God’s timeless judgment which is past, present, and future – “[The Day of the Lord] is God’s timeless Judgment which IS past, present, and future. In a sense it is always to come, in a sense it is always present, and in a sense it has already been passed . . . Thus the Parousia [a technical word for the second coming] is, like Creation, in a real sense timeless;  not an historical event, but the underlying purpose of history and the summing up of all things in Christ.” (Thessalonians, pp. xli–xlii)

Joseph Wood (1906) “Inspiration is that which is of universal application. If any utterance is only for an age, and local in its interpretation, we do not regard it as inspired. The Psalms, for instance, were mostly suggested by local considerations, the trials, the joys, the experiences of David and others, under peculiar circumstances. But, nevertheless, we feel as we read them that they pass beyond the limits of the local and the individual— they belong to humanity—they are true of human nature and life everywhere. Or take Christ’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. It was spoken at Jerusalem about Jerusalem, and in a manner which seemed limited to Jerusalem. But had the prophecy been true only of that city of sorrows, it would never have been regarded as inspired. Whereas Christ’s principle was this : that the doom pronounced on Jerusalem was universally applicable, and that it was but a style and specimen of God’s judgment everywhere. The judgment comes wherever there is evil grown ripe for judgment, wherever corruption is complete. And the gathering of the Roman eagles to the carcase is but a specimen of the way in which judgment at last overtakes any city, any country, and any man in whom evil has reached the point where there is no possibility of cure. We who have lived through the last fifty years have seen the eagles gathered together in Naples, in America, in France, in Bulgaria. The Lord’s judgment on Jerusalem has been fulfilled many times—it was not simply of local but of universal application.” (The Bible, what it is and is not [lects.], p. 97)

Revelation in Natural Israel’s History
Seen in the Land Promises

Natural Israel’s History as a Parable from Beginning to Very End The natural fulfillment of the prophecies of the land of promise (Josh. 21:43-45 “all came to pass”) is not the climax (Heb. 11:13 these died not having received the promises”), but just the outward show of the true substance to which it pointed (Heb. 11:16 “they aspire to a better land — a heavenly one..  He hath prepared a city for them.”), which can be received in Jesus Christ alone (II Cor. 1:20  “For all the promises of God, whatever their number, have their confirmation in Him”)

Gen 18:18 Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him

That is not to say, again, that the land promises weren’t totally fulfilled in typological fulfillment of the promise to Israel (Joshua 11.23Joshua 21.43,45Joshua 23.141 Kings 4.211 Kings 8.56)… just that this possession of the natural land only looked to something eternal in nature, AND ONLY RECEIVABLE IN JESUS CHRIST, NOT IN HISTORY.

Heb 11:9,16 9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly.

This same principle is true of all visible, historical signs.. such as circumcision (which was a physical sign of spiritual things, Ro 4:11), the resurrection of Christ (which was a physical sign of spiritual things, Mt 12:39) and the fall of Jerusalem (which was also a physical sign of spiritual things, Mt 24:30).”

“We should not, however, bypass the shadows and only focus on the ultimate fulfillments, as though the accomplishment of the outward show is irrelevant.   Likewise, we should not consider the accomplishment of the natural to be the substance of what is being revealed, as though the giving of the sign is the substance of the sign… after all, symbols do not symbolize themselves.” 

John Donne




1 John V. 7, 8.

For there are three which bear record in heaven ; the Father, the Word, and the Iloly Ghost; and these three are one: and there are three which bear record in the earth; the spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and these three agree in one.

In great and enormous offences, we find that the law, in a well- governed state, expressed the punishment upon such a delinquent in that form, in that curse, Igni et aqua interdicitor; Let him have no use of fire, and water, that is, no use of anything, necessary for the sustentation of life. Beloved, such is the miserable con-

14 John xv. 3.

dition of wretched man, as that we come all into the world under the burden of that curse; Aqua, et igni interdicimur; We have nothing to do, naturally, with the spiritual water of life, with the fiery beams of the Holy Ghost, till he that hath wrought our restitution from this banishment, restore us to this water, by pouring out his own blood, and to this lively fire, by laying himself a cold, and bloodless carcass in the bowels of the earth: till he who baptized none with water, direct his church to do that office towards us ; and he without whom, none was baptized with fire, perfect that ministerial work of his church with the effectual seals of his grace; for this is his testimony, the witness of his love.

Yea, that law, in cases of such great offences, expressed itself in another malediction, upon such offenders, appliable also to us, intestabiles sunto, let them be intestable. Now, this was a sentence, a condemnation so pregnant, so full of so many heavy afflictions, as that he, who by the law was made intestable, was all these ways intestable: first, he was able to make no testament of his own, he had lost all his interest in his own estate, and in his own will; secondly, he could receive no profit by any testament of any other man, he had lost all the effects of the love, and good disposition of other men to him ; thirdly, he was intestable, so, as that he could not testify, he should not be believed in the behalf of another; and lastly the testimony of another could do him no good, no man could be admitted to speak for him. After that first, and heavy curse of Almighty God upon man, Morte morieris, If thou eat, thou shalt die, and die twice, thou shall die a bodily, thou shalt die a spiritual death (a punishment which no sentence of any law, or law-maker could ever equal, to deter men from offending, by threatening to take away their lives twice, and by inflicting a spiritual death eternally upon the soul,) after we have all incurred that malediction, Morte moriemur, we shall die both deaths, we cannot think to escape any less malediction of any law, and therefore we are all intestabiles, we are all intestable, in all these senses, and apprehensions, which we have touched upon.

We can make no testament of our own; we have no good thing in us to dispose; we have no good inclination, no good dis-

position, in our will; we can make no use of another’s testament; not of the double testaments of Almighty God; for in the Old Testament, he gives promises of a Messiah, but we bring into the world no faith, to apprehend those promises ; and in the New Ttstament, he gives a performance, the Messiah is come, but he is communicable to us no way but by baptism, and we cannot baptize ourselves; we can profit nobody else by our testimony, we are not able to endure persecution, for the testimony of Christ, to the edification of others, we are not able to do such works, as may thine before men, to the glorifying of our God. Neither doth the testimony of others do us any good; for neither the martyrdom of so many millions in the primitive church, nor the execution of so many judgments of God in our own times, do testify anything to our consciences; neither at the last day, when those saints of God, whom we have accompanied in the outward worship of God here in the visible church, shall be called to the right hand, and we detruded to the left, shall they dare to open their mouths for us, or to testify of us, or to say, Why Lord, these men, when they were in the world, did as we did, appeared, and served thee in thy house, as we did, they seemed to go the same way that we did upon earth, why go they a sinister way now iu heaven ? We are utterly iutestable; we can give nothing; we can take nothing; nothing will be believed from us, who are all falsehood itself; nor can we be relieved by anything, that any other will say for us. As long as we are considered under the penalty of that law, this is our case ; Interdicti, intestabiles, we are accursed, and so, as that we are intestable.

Now as this great malediction, Morte morieris, involves all other punishments, (upon whom that falls, all fall) so when our Saviour Christ Jesus hath a purpose to take away that, or the most dangerous part of that, the spiritual death, when he will reverse that judgment, Aqua et igni interdicitor, to make us capable of his water, and his fire; when he will reverse the intestabilei, the intestability, and make us able to receive his graces by faith, and declare them by works; then, as he that will re-edify a demolished house, begins not at the top but at the bottom, so Christ Jesus, when he will make this great prepara- ‘on, this great re-edification of mankind, he begins at the lowest step, which is, that we may have use of the testimony of others, in our behalf: and he proceeds strongly, and effectually; he produces three witnesses from heaven, so powerful, that they will be heard, they will be believed; and three witnesses on earth, so near us, so familiar, so domestic as that they will not be denied, they will not be discredited ; there are three that bear record in heaven, and three that bear record in earth.

Since then Christ Jesus makes us all our own jury, able to conceive, and judge upon the evidence, and testimony of these three heavenly, and three earthly witnesses, let us draw near, and hearken to the evidence, and consider three things ; testimonium esse, quid sit, and qui testes. That God descends to means proportionable to man; he affords him witness; and secondly, the matter of the proof, what all these six witnesses testify, what they establish; thirdly, the quality, and value of the witnesses, and whether the matter be to be believed, for their sakes, and for their reasons. God requires nothing of us, but testimony: for martyrdom is but that; a martyr is but a witness. God offers us nothing without testimony : for his Testament is but a witness. Teste ipso, is shrewd evidence; when God says, / will speak, and I will testify against thee; I am God, even thy God1when the voice of God testifies against mo in mine own conscience. It is more pregnant evidence than this, when his voice testifies against me in his word, in his Scriptures : The Lord testified against Israel, by all the prophets and by all the seers*. When I can never be alone,1but that God speaks in me, but speaks against me; when I can never open his book, but the first sentence mine eye is upon, is a witness against me, this is fearful evidence. But in this text, we are not in that storm, for he hath made us testabiles, that is, ready to testify for him, to the effusion of our blood; and testabiles, that is, fit to take benefit by the testament, that he hath made for us, the effusion of his blood; which is our second branch : what is testified for us, what these witnesses establish.

First then, that which a sinner must be brought to understand, and believe, by the strength of these witnesses, is integritas Christi; not the integrity, as it signifies the innocency of Christ;

1 Psalm L. 7. 2 Kings xvii. 13.

but integrity, as it signifies entirewss, not as it is integer vitce, but Integra vita; not as he kept an integrity in his life, but as he only, is entirely our life. That Christ was a person composed of those two natures, divine and human, whereby he was a fit, and a full satisfaction for all our sins, and by death could be our life : for when the apostle writ this epistle, it seems there had been a schism, not about the mystical body of Christ, the church, but even about the natural; that is to say, in the person of Christ, there had been a schism, a separation of his two natures : for as we see certainly before the death of this apostle, that the heresy of Ebion and of Cerinthus, (which denied the divine nature of Christ) was set on foot, (for against them purposely was the Gospel of St. John written) so by Epiphanius’s ranking of the heresies, as they arose, where he makes Basilides’s heresy, (which denied that Christ had any natural body) to be the fourth heresy, and Ebion’s to be the tenth, it seems, that they denied his humanity, before they denied his divinity. And therefore it is well collected, that this epistle of St. John, being written long before his gospel, was written principally, and purposely against the opposers of Christ’s humanity, but occasionally also, in defence of his divine nature too. Because there is solutio Jesu, a dissolving of Jesus, a taking of Jesus in pieces, a dividing of his natures, or of his offices, which overthrows all the testimonies of these six great witnesses, when Christ said, Solvite templum hoe, Destroy, dissolve this temple, and in three days I will raise it, he spoke that but of his natural body; there was solutio corporis, Christ’s body and soul were parted, but there was not solutio Jesu; the divine nature parted not from the human, no not in death, but adhered to, and accompanied the soul, even in hell, and accompanied the bod)’ in the grave.

And therefore, says the apostle, Omnis spiritus qui solvit Jesum, ex Deo non est*, (for so Irenseus, and St. Augustine, and St. Cyril with the Grecians, read those words) That spirit which receives not Jesus entirely, wh1ch dissolves Jesus and breaks him in pieces, that spirit is not of God. All this then is the subject of this testimony; first that Christ Jesus is come in the flesh*; (there is a recognition of his human nature) and then that this Jesus is the Son of Gods; (there is a subscription to his divine nature:) he that separates these, and thereby makes him not able, or not willing to satisfy for man, he that separates his nature, or he that separates the work of the redemption, and says, Christ suffered for us only as man, and not as God, or he that separates the manner of the work, and says, that the passive obedience of Christ only redeemed us, without any respect at all to his active obedience, only as he died, and nothing as he died innocently, or he that separates the perfection, and consummation of the work, from his work, and finds something to be done by man himself, meritorious to salvation, or he that separates tho prince, and the subject, Christ and his members, by nourishing controversies in religion, when they might be well reconciled, or he that separates himself from the body of the church, and from the communion of saints, for the fashion of the garments, for the variety of indifferent ceremonies, all these do solvere Jesum, they slacken, they dissolve that Jesus, whose bones God provided for, that they should not be broken, whose flesh God provided for, that it should not see corruption, and whose garments God provided, that they should not be divided.

* 1 John iv. X * J John iv. 2.

There are other luxations, other dislocations, of Jesus, when we displace him for any worldly respect, and prefer preferment before him ; there are other woundings of Jesus, in blasphemous oaths, and execrations; there are other maimings of Jesus, in pretending to serve him entirely, and yet retain one particular beloved sin still; there are other rackings, and extendings of Jesus when we delay him and his patience to our deathbed, when we stretch the string so far, that it cracks there, that is, appoint him to come then, and he comes not; there are other dissolutions of Jesus, when men will melt him, and pour him out, and mould him up in a wafer-cake, or a piece of bread ; there are other annihilations of Jesus when men will make him, and his sacraments, to be nothing but bare signs ; but all these will be avoided by us, if we be gained by the testimony of these six witnesses, to hold fast that integrity, that entireness of Jesus, which is here delivered to us by this apostle.

* John v. 5.

In which we believe first Jemm, a Sa%Tiour: which implies his love, and his will to save us; and then we believe Christum, the Anointed, that is, God and man, able, and willing to do this great work, and that he is anointed, and sealed for that purpose; and this implies the the decree, contract, and bargain, of acceptation by the Father, that pact um salis, that eternal covenant which seasons all, by which, that which he meant to do, as he was Jesus, should be done, as he was Christ. And then as the entireness of Jesus is expressed, in the verse before the text, we believe, quod venit, that as all this might be done, if the Father and Son would agree, as all this must be done, because they had agreed it, so all this was done, quia venit, because this Jesus was already come; and that, for the further entireness, for the perfection, and consummation, and declaration of all, Venit per aqtMm et sangmnem, He came by water, and blood.

Which words St. Bernard understands to imply but a difference between the coming of Christ, and the coming of Moses ; who was drawn out of the water, and therefore called by that name of Moses. But before Moses came to be a leader of the people, he passed through blood too, through the blood of the Egyptian, whom he slew; and much more when he established all their bloody sacrifices, so that Moses came not only by water. Neither was the first Testament ordained without blood*. Others understand the words only to put a difference between John Baptist, and Christ: because John Baptist is still said to baptize with water. Because he should be declared to Israel; therefore am I come, baptizing with water1but yet John Baptist’s baptism had not only a relation to blood, but a demonstration of it, when still he pointed to the Lamb, ecce agnus, for that Lamb was slain from the beginning of the world. So that Christ, which was this Lamb, came by water, and blood, when he came, in the ritual types, and figures of Moses; and when he came in the baptism of John : for in the law of Moses, there was so frequent use of water, as that we reckon above fifty several tmmundtttas, uncleannesses, which might receive their expiation by washing, without being put to their bloody sacrifices for them : and then

*Heb.ix. 18. 7 John i. 31.

there was so frequent use of blood, that almost all things are by the law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood, is no remistion*. But this was such water, and such blood, as could not perfect the work, but therefore was to be renewed every day. The water that Jesus comes by, is such a water, aa he that drinketh of it, shall thirst no more; nay there shall spring up in him a well of water; that is, his example shall work to the satisfaction of others; (we do not say to a satisfaction for others). And then this is that blood, that perfected the whole work at once, By his own blood entered he once into the holy place, and obtained eternal redemption for us*. So that Christ came by water, and blood, (according to the old ablutions, and old sacrifices) when he wept, when he sweat, when he poured out blood; precious, incorruptible, inestimable blood, at so many channels, as he did, all the while that he was upon the altar, sacrificing himself in his passion. But after the immolation of this sacrifice, after his consummatum est, when Christ was come and gone for so much as belonged to the accomplishing of the types of the old law, then Christ came again to us by water and blood, in that wound, which he received upon his side, from which there flowed out miraculously true water, and true blood. This wound St. Augustine calls Januam utriusque sacramenti, The door of both sacraments; where we see he acknowledges but two, and both presented in this water and blood: and so certainly do most of the fathers, make this wound if not the foundation, yet at least a sacrament of both the sacraments. And to this water, and blood doth the apostle here, without doubt, aim principally; which he only of all the evangelists hath recorded; and with so great asseveration, and assuredness in the recording thereof, He that tate it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he saith truth, that ye might believe it”. Here then is the matter which these six witnesses must be believed in, here is integritas Jew, qucs non solvenda, the entireness of Christ Jesus, which must not be broken, that a Saviour, which is Jesus, appointed to that office, that is, Christ, figured in the law, by ablutions of water, and sacrifices of blood, is come, and hath perfected all

* Heb. ix. 22. 9 Heb. ix. 12. 10 John six. 35.

those figures in water, and blood too; and then, that he remains still with us in water, and blood, by means instituted in his church, to wash away our uncleannesses, and to purge away our iniquities, and to apply his work unto our souls; this is integritas Jesu, Jesus the Son of God in heaven, Jesus the Redeemer of man, upon earth, Jesus the head of a church to apply that to the end, this is integritas Jesu; all that is to be believed of him.

Take thus much more, that when thou comest to hearken what these witnesses shall say to this purpose, thou must find something in their testimony, to prove him to be come not only into the world, but into thee; he is a mighty prince, and hath a great train; millions of ministering spirits attend him, and the whole army of martyrs follow the Lamb wheresoever he goes: though the whole world be his court, thy soul is his bedchamber; there thou mayest contract him, there thou mayest lodge, and entertain integrum Jesum, thy whole Saviour. And never trouble thyself, how another shall have him, if thou have him all; leave him, and his church to that; make thou sure thine own salvation. When he comes to thee, he comes by water and by blood; if thy heart, and bowels have not yet melted in compassion of his passion for thy soul, if thine eyes have not yet melted, in tears of repentance and contrition, he is not yet come by water into thee; if thou have suffered nothing for sin, nor found in thyself a cheerful disposition to suffer; if thou have found no wrestling in thyself, no resistance of concupiscences, he that comes not to set peace, but to kindle this war, is not yet come into thee, by blood. Christ can come by land, by purchases, by revenues, by temporal blessings, for so he did still convey himself to the Jews, by the blessing of the land of promise, but here he comes by water, by his own passion, by his sacraments, by thy tears: Christ can come in a marriage and in music, for so he delivers himself to the spouse in the Canticles; but here he comes in blood; which coming in water, and blood (that is, in means for the salvation of our souls, here in the militant church) is the coming that he stands upon and which includes all the Christian religion; and therefore he proves that coming to them, by these three great witnesses in heaven, and three in earth. For there are three which bear record in heaventhe Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three which bear record in the earth; the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three agree in one.

By the mouth of two, or three witnesses every word shall be confirmed11says Christ out of the law. That is as much as can be required, if any civil, or criminal business; and yet Christ gives more testimony of himself, for here he produces not duos testes, hut duos classes; two ranks of witnesses; and the fullest number of each, not two, but three in heaven, and three in earth. And such witnesses upon earth, as are omni exceptione majores, without all exception. It is not the testimony of earthly men ; for when St. Paul produces them in abundance, (the patriarch, the judges, the prophets, the elders of the old times; of whom he exhibits an exact catalogue,) yet he calls all them but nubes testium, clouds of witnesses -, for though they be clouds in St. Chrysostom’s sense, that they invest us, and enwrap us, and so defend us from all diffidence in God, (we have their witness what God did for them, why should we doubt of the like?) though they be clouds in Athanasius’ sense, they being in heaven, shower down by their prayers, the dew of God’s grace upon the church ; though they be clouds, they are but clouds; some darkness mingled in them, some controversies arising from them; but his witnesses here, are lux inaccessibilis, that light, that no eye can attain to, and pater litminum, the father of lights, from whom all these testimonies are derived. When God employed a man to be the witness of Christ, because men might doubt of his testimony, God was content to assign him his compurgators; when John Baptist must preach, that the kingdom of God was at hand, God fortifies the testimony of his witness, then, Hie enim est, for this is he of whom that is spoken by the prophet Esay”; and lest one were not enough, he multiplies them, as it is written in the prophets1*John Baptist might be thought to testify as a man, and therefore men must testify for him; but these witnesses are of a higher nature ; these of heaven are the Trinity; and those of earth, are the sacraments and seals of the church. The prophets were full of favour with God, Abraham full of

11 Matt, xviii. 16. ” Matt, iii 3. ” Matt. 2.

faith, Stephen full of the Holy Ghost, many full of grace, and John Baptist a prophet, and more than a prophet, yet never any prophet, never any man, how much soever interested in the favour of Almighty God, was such an instrument of grace, as a sacrament or as God’s seals and institutions in his church : and the least of these six witnesses, is of that nature, and therefore might be believed without more witnesses.

To speak then first of the three first, the Father, the word, and the Holy Ghost, it was but a poor plot of the devil, to go about to rob us of their testimony; for as long as we have the three last, the Spirit, the water, and blood, we have testimony enough of Christ, because God is involved in his ordinance; and though he be not tied to the work of the sacrament, yet he is always present in it. Yet this plot the devil had upon the church: and whereas this first Epistle of St. John was never doubted to be canonical, (whereas both the other have been called into some question) yet in this first epistle, the first verse of this text, was for a long time removed, or expunged, whether by malice of heretics, or negligence of transcribers. The first translation of the New Testament, (which was into Syriac) hath not this verse; that which was first called Vulgata editio, had it not, neither hath Luther it in his German translation: very many of the Latin fathers have it not; and some very ancient Greek fathers want it, though more ancient than they, have it; for Athanasius in the Council of Nice cites it, and makes use of it; and Cyprian, beheaded before that council, hath it too. But now, he that is one of the witnesses himself, the Holy Ghost, hath assured the church, that this verse belongs to the Scripture; and therefore it becomes us to consider thankfully, and reverently, this first rank of witnesses, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.

The Father then hath testified De integritate Christi, of this entireness, that Christ should be all this and do all this, which wo have spoken of, abundantly: he began before Christ was born; in giving his name, Thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from sin14Well; how shall this person be capable to do this office of saving his people from sin ? Why, in him, says God the Father, (in the representation of an angel)

14 Matt. i. 21.

shall be fulfilled that prophecy, A virgin shall bear a son, and they shall call his name Emanuel, which is by interpretation God trith us: this seems somewhat an uncertain testimony, of a man, with an alias dictus, with two names. God says he shall be called Jesus, that the prophecy may be fulfilled which says he shall be called Emanuel: but therein consists intearitas Christi, this entireness; he could not be Jesus, not a Saviour, except he were Emanuel, God with us, God in our nature. Here then is Jesus, a Saviour, a Saviour that is God, and man, but where is the testimony de Christo; that he was anointed, and prepared for this sacrifice ; that this work of his was contracted between the Father, and him, and acceptable to him ? It is twice testified by the Father; both in Christ’s act of humiliation, when he would be baptized by John; when he would accept an ablution, who had no uncleanness, then God says, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”, he was well pleased in his person, and he was well pleased, in his act, in his office. And he testifies it again in his first act of glory, in his transfiguration; where the Father repeats the same words with an addition, hear him’*: God is pleased in him, and would have men pleased in him too. He testified first, only for Joseph’s sake, that had entertained, and lodged some scrupulous suspicion against his wife, the blessed virgin; his second testimony at the baptism, had a farther extent; for that was for the confirmation of John Baptist, of the preacher himself, who was to convey his doctrine to many others; his third testimony in the transfiguration, was larger than the baptism; for that satisfied three, and three such as were to carry it far, Peter, and James, and John: all which no doubt made the same use of his testimony, as we see Peter did, who preached out of the strength of his manifestation, we followed not deceivable fables, but with our own eyes we saw his majesty; for he received of God the Father, honour, and glory, when there came mch a voice to him, from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”. But yet the Father gave a more free, a more liberal testimony of him, than this, at his conception, or baptism, or transfiguration: when upon Christ’s

15 Matt. iii. 17. ” Matt. xvii. 5. “2 Pet. i. 16.

prayer, Father glorify thy name, there came a voice from heaven, I have both glorified it and will glorify it again”. For this all the people apprehended; some imputed it to thunder, some to an angel; but all heard it; and all heard Christ’s comment upon it, That that voice came not for him, but/or their sakes; so that when the Father had testified of a Jesus, a Saviour, and a Christ, a Saviour sent to that purpose, and a Son in whom he is pleased, and whom we must hear, when it is said of him, moreover, Gratificavit nos in dilecto1*, He hath made us accepted in his beloved, this is his way of coming in water, and blood, that is, in the sacraments of the church, by which we have assurance of being accepted by him; and this is this Integritas Christi, the entireness of Christ, testified by our first witness, that bears record in heaven, the Father.

The second witness in heaven, is verbum, the word: and that is a welcome message, for it is Christ himself: it is not so when the Lord sends a word; The Lord sent a word unto Jacob, and it lighted upon IsraelTM; there the word is a judgment, and an execution of the judgment: for that word that signifies a word there, in the same letters exactly signifies a pestilence, a calamity; it is a word, and a blow; but the word here, is verbum caro, that word which for our sakes was made ourselves. The word then, in this place, is the second person in the Trinity, Christ Jesus, who in this court of heaven, where there is no corruption, no falsification, no passion, but fair and just proceeding, is admitted to be a witness in his own cause; it is Jesus, that testifies for Jesus now, when he was upou earth, and said, If I should bear witness of myself, my witness were not true, whether we take those words to be spoken, per conniventiam, by an allowance, and concession, (it is not true, that is, I am content that you should not believe my witness of myself to be true) as St. Cyril understood them, or whether we take them, humano more, that Christ as a man, acknowledged truly, and, and as he thought, that in legal proceeding a man’s own testimony ought not to be believed in his own behalf, (as Athanasius and St. Ambrose understood them) yet Christ might safely say as he did, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true; why ? because I know whence I

1* John xii. 28. ” Ephes. i. 6, ** Isaiah ix. 8.

come, and whither IgoChrist could not be singularis testis, a single witness: he was always more than one witness, because he had always more than one nature ; God and man ; and therefore Christ instructing Nicodemus, speaks plurally We speak, that we know, vce testify that we have seen”, and you receive not testi- monium nostrum, our witness; he does not say my witness, but ours, because although a singular, yet he was a plural person too. His testimony then was credible ; but how did he testify inte- gritatem, this entireness, all that belonged to our faith ? All consists in this, that he was Jesus, capable in his nature, to be a Saviour; that he was Christus, ordained, and sent for that office, and then quod venit, that he was come, and come, in aqua et sanguine, in water and blood, in sacraments, which might apply him to us. That he was Jesus a person capable, his miracles testified aloud and frequently : that he was Christ, anointed, and sent for that, his reference of all his actions to his Father testified; both these were enwrapped in that, that he was the Son of God ; and that he professed himself upon the earth to be so; for so it appears plainly, that he had plainly done : We have a law, say the Jews to Pilate, and by our law, he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God”. And for the last part, that he came in aqua et sanguine, in water and blood, in such means, as were to continue in the church, for our spiritual reparation, and sustentation, he testified that, in preaching so piercing sermons, in instituting so powerful sacraments, in assuring us, that the love of God expressed to mankind in him, extended to all persons, and all times, God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have life everlasting*’. And so the words bear record, de integritate, of this entireness, of the whole work of our redemption : and therefore, Christ is not only truly called a martyr, in that sense, as martyr signifies a witness, but he is truly called a martyr, in that sense, as we use the word ordinarily; for he testified this truth and suffered for the testimony of it: and therefore he is called Jesus Christ, martyr, a fatthful witness”. And there is mar- tyrium, a martyrdom attributed to him, where it is said, Jesus

*1 John viii. 14. ” John iii. 11. ” John xix. 7-

* John iii. 1C. ” Apoc. i. 5.

Christ under Pontius Pilate, witnessed a good confession”; so he was a speaking, and a doing, and a suffering witness.

Now for the third witness in heaven, which is the Holy Ghost; we may contract ourselves in that; for the whole work was his; before Joseph and Mary came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost*1which (if we take it, as St. Basil, and divers others of the fathers do) that Joseph found it, by the Holy Ghost, that is, the Holy Ghost informed him of it, then here the Holy Ghost was a witness to Joseph, of this conception : but we rather take it (as it is most ordinarily taken) that the angel intimated this to Joseph, that that lehich was conceived in her, was of the Holy Ghost; and then the Holy Ghost did so primarily testify this decree of God, to send a Jesus, and a Christ, for our redemption, that himself was a blessed and bountiful actor in that conception, he was conceived by him, by his overshadowing. So that the Holy Ghost did not only testify his coming, but he brought him : and then, for his coming in aqua et sunguine, in water and blood, that is, in sacraments, in means, by which he might be able to make his coming useful, and appliable to us, first the Holy Ghost was a pregnant witness of that, at his baptism; for the Holy Ghost had told John Baptist beforehand, That upon whomsoever he should descend, and tarry still, that should be he, that should baptize with the Holy Ghost”: and then, according to those marks, he did descend, and tarry still upon Christ Jesus, in his baptism. And after this falling upon him, and tarrying upon him, (which testified his power) in all his life, exptessed in his doctrine, and in his sermons, after his death, and resurrection, and ascension, the Holy Ghost gave a new testimony, when he fell upon the apostles in cloven tongues, and made them spiritual channels, in which this water and blood, the means of applying Christ to us, should be conveyed to all nations; and thus also the third witness in heaven, testified de integritate, of this entireness of Jesus.

Of these three witnesses then, which are of heaven, we shall need to add no more, but that which the text adds, that is, that these three are one; that is, not only one in consent, (they all

” 1 Tim. vi . 13. ” Matt. i. 18. ** John i. 33.

testify of one point, they all speak to one interrogatory; ad inte- qritatem Christi, to prove this entireness of Christ;) but they are unnm essentia, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are all one godhead, and so meant and intanded to be in thia place. And therefore as St. Hierome complained, when some copies were without this seventh verse, that thereby we had lost a good argu- ment for the unity of the three persons, because this verse said plainly that the three witnesses were all one, so I am sorry, when I see any of our later expositors deny, that in this place, there is any proof, of such an unity, but that this unum sunt, (they are o*e) is only an unity of consent, and not of essence. It is au unthrifty prodigality (howsover we be abundantly provided with arguments, from other places of Scriptures, to prove this unity in trinity) to cast away so strong an argument, against Jew, and Turk, as is in these words, for that, and for the consubstantiality of Christ, which was the tempest, and the earthquake of the primitive church, raised by Arius, and his followers then, and (God knows) not extinguished yet.

Thus much I add of these three witnesses, that though they be in heaven, their testimony is upon the earth; for they need not to testify to one another, this matter of Jesus: the Father hears of it every day, by the continual intercession of Christ Jesus : the Son feels it every day, in his new crucifying by our sins, and in the persecution of his mystical body here : the Holy Ghost Lath a bitter sense of it, in our sins against the Holy Ghost, and he hath a loving sense of it, in those abundant seas of graces, which flow continually from him upon us; they need no witnesses in heaven; but these three witnesses testify all this, to our consciences. And therefore the first author, that is observed to have read, and made use of this seventh verse (which was one of the first bishops of Rome”) he reads the words thus, Tres in nobis, There are three in us, which bear witness in heaven ; they testify for our sakes, and to establish our assurance, de integritate Jesu; that Jesus is come, and come with means, to save the world, and to save us. And therefore upon these words, St. Bernard collects thus much more, that there are other witnesses in heaven, which testify this work of our redemption,

** Hyginus.

angels, and saints, all the court, all the choir of heaven testify it; but ccetera nobis occulta, says he, What all they do we know not: but (according to the best dispositions here in this world) we acquaint ourselves, and we choose to keep company with the best, and so not only the poor church upon the earth, but every poor soul in the church, may hear all these three witnesses testifying to him, integrum Jesum suum, that all, which Christ Jesus hath done, and suffered, appertains to him: but yet, to bring it nearer him, in visible and sensible things, there are, tres dt terra, three upon earth too.

The first of these three upon earth, is the Spirit: which St. Augustine understands of the spirit, the soul of Christ: for when Christ commended his spirit into the hands of his Father, this was a testimony, that he was verus homo, that he had a soul; and in that he laid down his spirit, his soul, (for no man could take it from him) and took it again at his pleasure, in his resurrection, this was a testimony, that he was verus Deus, true God ; and so says St. Augustine, Spiritus, the Spirit, that is anima Christi, the soul of Christ, did testify de integritate Jesu, all that belonged to Jesus, as he was God, and na he was man. But this makes the witnesses in heaven, and the witnesses in earth all one; for the personal testimony of Christ’s preaching, and living, and dying, the testimony which was given by these three Persons of the Trinity, was all involved in the first rank of witnesses: those three which are in heaven. Other later men understand by the spirit here, the spirit of every regenerate man ; and that in the other heavenly witnesses, the Spirit is Spiritas sanctus, the Spirit that is holy in itself, the Holy Ghost, and here it is spiritus sanctificatns, that spirit of man, which is made holy by the Holy Ghost, according to that, The same Spirit, beareth witness, with our spirit, that we are the children of God*0But in this sense, it is too particular a witness, too singular, to be intended here: for that speaks but to one man, at once; the spirit therefore here is, Spiritus oris, the word of God, the Gospel; and the preaching, and ministration thereof. We are made ministers of the New Testament of the Spirit, that giceth life*1and if the ministration of death were glorious, how shall not the ministration of the

Spirit, be more glorious ? It is not therefore the Gospel merely, but the preaching of the Gospel, that is this spirit. Spiritus sacerdotis vehiculum Spiritus Dei; the spirit of the minister, is not so pure, as the Spirit of God, but it is the chariot, the means, by which God will enter into you. The Gospel is the Gospel, at home, at your house ; and there you do well to read it, and reverence it, as the Gospel; hut yet it is not Spiritus, it is not this Spirit, this first witness upon earth, but only there, where God hath blessed it with his institution, and ordinance, that is, in the preaching thereof. The stewardship, and the dispensation of the graces of God, the directing of his threatenings against refractory, and wilful sinners, the directing of his promises to simple, and supple, and contrite penitents, the breaking of the bread, the applying of the Gospel according to their particular indigencies, in the preaching thereof, this is the first witness.

The second witness here is the water, and I know there are some men which will not have this to bo understood of the water of baptism; but only of the natural effect of water; that as the ablutions of the old law. by water did purge us, so we have an inward testimony, that Christ doth likewise wash us clean; so the water here, must not be so much as water; but a metaphorical, and figurative water. These men will not allow water, in this place, to have any relation to the sacrament; and St. A mbrose was so far from doubting that water in this place belonged to the sacrament, that he applies all these three witnesses to the sacrament of baptism : Spiritus mentem renovat, all this is done in baptism, says he ; The Spirit renews and disposes the mind; Aqua perficit ad lavacrum; The water is applied to cleanse the body; Sanguis epectat ad pretium; and the blood intimates the price, and ransom, which gives force, and virtue to this sacrament: and so also (says he in another place) In sanguine mors, In the blood there is a representation of death, in the water, of our burial, and in the spirit, of our own life. Some will have none of these witnesses on earth to belong to baptism, not the water; and St. Ambrose will have all, spirit, and water, and blood to belong to it.

Now both St. Ambrose, who applies all the three witnesses to Baptism, and those later men which deny any of the witnesses to belong to baptism, do both depart from the general acceptation of

voi.. tv. H

these words, that water here, and only that, signifies the sacrament of baptism. For as in the first creation, the first thing, that the Spirit of God, is noted to have moved upon, was the waters, so the first creature, that is sanctified by Christ’s institution, to our salvation, is this element of water. The first thing that produced any living sensible creature was the water ; Primus liquor quodviveret edidit; ne mirum sit quod in baptismo, aquce animare noverunt**; Water brought forth the first creatures, says Tertullian ; that we should not wonder, that water should bring forth Christians. The first of God’s afflicting miracles in Egypt, was the changing of water into blood**; and the first miracle of grace, in the New Testament, was the changing of water into wine at the marriage. So that water had still been a subject, and instrument of God’s conversation with man; so then aqua janua ecclesice, we cannot come into the church, but by water, by baptism: for though the church have taken knowledge of other baptisms, (baptisma sanguinis, which is martyrdom, and bap- tisma flaminis, which is a religious desire to be baptized when no means can be got) yet there is no other sacrament of baptism, but baptisma fuminis, the baptism of water: for the rest, Conveniunt in causando, sed non in significando, says the school; that is, God doth afford a plentiful retribution to the other baptisms Jlaminis and sanguinis, but God hath not ordained them to be outward seals, and significations of his grace, and to be witnesses of Jesus’s coming upon earth, as this water is. And therefore they that provide not duly to bring their children to this water of life, (not to speak of the essential necessity thereof) they take from them, one of the witnesses, that Jesus is come into them ; and (as much as they can) they shut the church door against them, they leave them out of the ark, and for want of this water, cast them into that general water, which overflows all the rest of the world, which are not brought within the covenant, by this water of baptism. For, though in the first translation of the New Testament, into Syriac, that be said in the sixth verse, that Jesus is come per manus aquarum, by the power of waters, many waters, and in this verse, this witness is delivered in the plural, spirit and waters, (and so, waters in that signification, which signification they have often in the Scriptures, that is, affliction, and tribulation, be good testimonies that our Lord Jesus doth visit us) though the waters of contrition, and repentant tears be another good testimony of that too, yet that water, which testifies the presence of Jesus so, as that it doth always infallibly bring Jesus with it, (for the sacraments are never without grace) whether it be accepted or no, there it is, that water which is made equal with the preaching of the word, so far as to be a fellow-witness with the Spirit) that is only the sacrament of baptism, without which (in the ordinary dispensation of God) no soul can be surer that Jesus is come to him, than if he had never heard the word preached; he mistakes the Spirit, the first witness, if he refuse the water, the second.

*S Tertullian. » Exorf. vii. 20.

The third witness upon earth, is blood: and that is briefly the Communion of the body, and blood of Jesui, in the Lord’s supper. But how is that blood upon earth ? I am not ashamed to confess, that I know not how, but the blood of Christ is a witness upon earth, in the sacrament, and therefore, upon the earth it is. Now this witness being made equal with the other two, with preaching, and with baptism, it is as necessary, that he that will have an assurance, that Jesus is come into him, do receive this sacrament, as that he do hear sermons, and that he be baptized. An over- vehement urging of this necessity, brought in an erroneous custom in the primitive church: that they would give the sacrament of the body of Christ to children, as soon as they were baptized; yea, and to dead men too. But because this sacrament is accompanied with precepts, which can belong only to men of understanding, (for they must do it in remembrance, and they must discern the Lord’s body) therefore the necessity lies only upon such, as are come to those graces, and to that understanding. For they that take it, and do not discern it, (not know what they do) they take it dangerously. But else, for them, to whom this sacrament belongs, if they take it not, their hearing of sermons, and their baptism doth them no good; for what good can they have done them, if they have not prepared themselves for it ? And therefore, as the religion of the church holds a stubborn recusant at the table, at the communion-board, as far from her, as a recusant at the pew, that is, a non-communicant as ill as a not comer, or a not hearer, so I doubt not but the wisdom of the state weighs them in the same balance; For these three agree in one, says the text: that is, first they meet in one man, and then they testify the same thing, that is, integritatem Jesu, that Jesus is come to him in outward means, to save his soul. If his conscience find not this testimony, all these avail him nothing. If we remain vessels of anger, and of dishonour sti^l, we are under the Vce Vobls hypocritis: Woe unto you hypocrites, that make clean only the outside of your cups and platters”. That baptize, and wash your own, and your children’s bodies, but not their minds with instructions. When we shall come to say Docuisti in plateis, We have heard thee preach in our streets”, we have continued our hearing of thy word, when we say Manducavimus coram te, We have eat in thy presence, at thy table, yea Man- ducavimus te, We have eaten thee thyself, yet for all this outward show of these three witnesses, of spirit, and water, and blood, preaching, and baptism and communion, we shall hear that fearful disclaiming from Christ Jesus, Nescio vos, I know not whence you are. But these witnesses ho will always hear, if they testify for us, that Jesus is come unto us; for the Gospel, and the preaching thereof, is as the deed that conveys Jesus unto us; the water, the baptism, is as the seal, that assures it; and the blood, the sacrament, is the delivery of Christ into us; and this is integritas Jesu, the entire, and full possession of him.

To this purpose therefore, as we have found a trinity in heaven, and a trinity in earth, so we must make it up a trinity of trinities, and find a third trinity in ourselves. God created one trinity in us; (the observation, and the enumeration is St. Bernard’s) which are those three faculties of our soul, the reason, the memory, the will; that trinity in us, by another trinity too, (by suggestion towards sin, by delight in sin, by consent to sin) is fallen into a third trinity; the memory into a weakness, that that comprehends not God, it glorifies him not for benefits received; the reason to a blindness, that that discerns not what is true; and the will to a perverseness, that that wishes not what is good; but the goodness of God by these three witnesses on earth regenerates, and re-establishes a new trinity in us, faith, and hope,

*4 Matt. xxii. 25. ” Luke xiii. 26.

and charity; thus far that devout man carries it; and if this new trinity, faith, hope, and charity, witness to us Integritatem Christi, all the work of Christ, if my faith testify to me, that Christ is sealed to my soul; and my hope testify, that at the resurrection I shall have a perfect fruition in soul, and body, of that glory which he purchased for every believer; and my charity testifies to the world, that I labour to make sure that salvation, by a good life, then there is a trinity of trinities, and the six are made nine witnesses: there are three in heaven that testify that this is done for all mankind, three in the church that testify, this may be done for me, and three in my soul, that testify, that all this is applied to me; and then the verdict, and the judgment must necessarily go for me. And beloved, this judgment will be grounded upon this entireness of Jesus, and therefore let me dismiss you with this note, that integritas is in continuitate, not in contignitate; it is not the touching upon a thing, nor the coming near to a thing, that makes it entire ; a faggot, where the sticks touch, a piece of cloth, where the threads touch, is not entire; to come as near Christ as we can conveniently, to try how near we can bring two religions together, this is not to preserve integri- tatem Jesu: in a word, entireness excludes deficiency, and redundancy, and discontinuance; we preserve not entireness, if we preserve not the dignity of Christ, in his church, and in his discipline, and that excludes the defective Separatist; we do not preserve that entireness if we admit traditions, and additions of men, in an equality to the word of God, and that excludes the redundant papist; neither do we preserve the entireness, if we admit a discontinuance, a slumbering of our religion for a time, and that excludes the temporisers, the statist, the politician. And so, beloved, I recommend unto you integritatem Jesu, Jesus, and his truth, and his whole truth, and this whole truth, in your whole lives.

What do YOU think ?

Submit Your Comments For Posting Here
Comment Box Disabled For Security

Date: 09 Mar 2010
Time: 07:37:22

Your Comments:

I think that the seed-Logos- was in the center of the creation, remained in the center of all dispensation and is the center of all history and revelation. The Lamb is slain from the foundation of the world. We are chosen in Him from before the foundation for the purpose of sharing through inheritance and transformation the work of the restitution of all things. This is at the same time allegorical, historical, spiritual and idealist because He was, is and will be at the center of all things always, in the Now of God, in the Today of God, in the I AM- even as He is now head over all things to the church, His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.

Col 1:15-20 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

Eph 1:8-10 In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth.

1Co 15:25-28 For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death. For HE HAS PUT ALL THINGS IN SUBJECTION UNDER HIS FEET. But when He says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is evident that He is excepted who put all things in subjection to Him. When all things are subjected to Him, then the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.

Rom 11:32-36 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? Or WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

Rom 8:20-25 For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now. And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body. For in hope we have been saved, but hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees? But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

Even now the veil grows thin, the dawn is growing bright towards full noon.

Date: 18 Jul 2010
Time: 00:42:26

Your Comments:

Hi Todd

Haven’t dropped by in a while. One thing which strikes me about being excessively historical-physicalistic about the Parousia is one misses the symbolism’s meaning in, for example, the New Jerusalem, which is blatantly already meant to be the ever-present Kingdom whose gates are open to all who would enter. Notice how the sinners are described being outside – I dare say by choice.

A deeper look tells us that a cube that’s 12,000 stadia in dimensions would have engulfed the ancient known world. Consider their sketchy knowledge of geography and how many believed the combined landmass of Euro-Afro-Asia was all there was, the rest being only the Great Ocean (thus explaining why there was no more sea in the New Creation.)

Those are my thoughts on the matter. I’m sure there’s a lot more to say, but IMO any eschatology that doesn’t take seriously John’s Gospel’s understanding of the Judgment, for example, is missing the point.

“‘Tis ordinarily said, that the Jews were a typical people, the whole divine economy toward them is doctrinal and instructive to us, not immediately or literally, but by way of Anagogy” – Henry Hammond

FWIW, PreteristArchive.com utilized the label “Preterist Idealism” prior to John Noe’s brand (which is more akin to “Idealist Preterism” than “Preterist Idealism”).  Noe’s label was “Preterism Plus”

  • 6/15/06 Tim Martin at PlanetPreterist.com “I have been gravitating in his direction with the preterist-idealism combo (I think he mentioned “preterism-plus”) for the last few years and his presentations answered a lot of questions for me.”

  • 5/22/06: Administrative “Full Disclosure”: PreteristArchive.com’s native approach is a hybrid of “Full” and “Partial” Preterism..  being called here “Preterist Idealism”  (PI)

Date: 21 Mar 2013
Time: 22:05:10

Your Comments:

If Jerusalem is the heart then the heart was put to destruction. Heb 3:12 See, brethren, lest there shall be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief in the falling away from the living God, (YLT) The next verse is the key of the idea: Heb 3:13 but exhort ye one another every day, while the To-day is called, that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of the sin, The sin was the lack of faith while the TODAY was in disposition. They had a history before them and they were living the history of their days. The people of the covenant must confront their hearts.

Maybe they were a representation of the heart of the human beings of all the generations but they were living their particular generation.
Pastor Juan C. Peña Marrero Bayamón Puerto Rico

[TDD: Thanks for commenting!   By becoming the ‘new man’ with a ‘new heart’, the first is made old and ready to vanish away.]