Did Eusebius see the destruction of Jerusalem as the coming of Christ?

[dizzle]

Perhaps, though it is very equivocal and subject to a variety of interpretations - however considering his very preteristic bent, I don't find it unlikely. I found this in Gary DeMar's Biblical Worldview magazine for July 2007 (page 24):

Eusebius sees the rest of Zechariah 14 as being fulfilled during the ministry of Christ and the apostles, including the keeping of the Feast of Booths (Tabernacles). There is even some indication that Eusebius believed that the destruction of Jerusalem was the coming of Christ:

When, then, we see what was of old foretold for the nations fulfilled in our day, and when the lamentation and wailing that was predicted for the Jews, and the burning of the Temple and its utter desolation, can also be seen even now to have occurred according to the prediction, surely we must also agree that the King who was prophesied, the Christ of God, has come, since the signs of His coming have been shewn in each instance I have treated to have been clearly fulfilled.

[eschaton]

What is the coming of Christ? Maybe Demar does believe it was Jerusalem in 70AD, and I don't doubt that Eusebius believed it hapened during Christ's ministry. But Jesus said don't look here or there (Mat 24:23-27). This is the same thing He said about the Kingdom of God (Luke 17:20 - 24). That's why church fathers such as Justin Martyr and Augustine spoke of Christ's continual coming in the church.

[dizzle]

Eschaton, thank you for your input, but that is not the subject of my thread. Please re-read my OP and keep to the narrow question presented, I would appreciate it.

BTW, I do believe in the continual coming of Christ.

[eschaton]

Sorry. Guess I didn't understand.

[dizzle]

No problem, just that the narrow focus is the fact that Eusebius seems to be relating here that the destruction of Jerusalem was a coming of Christ - that doesn't mean he has to deny Christ's coming in the church - which I also affirm.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

My initial impression, from reading that isolated quote, is that Eusebius is is using the destruction of the temple as an apologetic argument in support of the first coming of Jesus being the promised Messiah.

But then, that is exactly what I would do, so I am far from unbiased, and the quote is relatively small, so I don't have a lot of context to go by.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

There's a JSTOR article on Eusebius' changing eschatology here:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0042-6032(198709)41:3%3C226:ALATEO%3E2.0.CO;2-R


If someone has a JSTOR subscription, maybe they'd like to summarize it for us. Thanks

[eschaton]

My subscription is expired, but I may renew it to read this article. It makes sense though doesn't it? Eusebius was a supporter of the empire. He wouldn't have any reason to break with the traditional forward looking eschatology until Constantine took over. He probably felt the future was rosy after that.

Another thought comes to mind. Eusebius' change in opinion would have influenced later Christians such as Augustine. That could be why some of the later fathers adopted the opinion that Matt 24:15 was about 70AD.

[rhutchin]

Perhaps, though it is very equivocal and subject to a variety of interpretations - however considering his very preteristic bent, I don't find it unlikely. I found this in Gary DeMar's Biblical Worldview magazine for July 2007 (page 24):

Eusebius sees the rest of Zechariah 14 as being fulfilled during the ministry of Christ and the apostles, including the keeping of the Feast of Booths (Tabernacles). There is even some indication that Eusebius believed that the destruction of Jerusalem was the coming of Christ:

When, then, we see what was of old foretold for the nations fulfilled in our day, and when the lamentation and wailing that was predicted for the Jews, and the burning of the Temple and its utter desolation, can also be seen even now to have occurred according to the prediction, surely we must also agree that the King who was prophesied, the Christ of God, has come, since the signs of His coming have been shewn in each instance I have treated to have been clearly fulfilled.

Eusebius lived in 3rd century (275AD or so to 340AD or so) and was witness to some considerable persecution of the saints. I do not know why he would argue that Christ had returned given the state of the world and the persecution of Christians prior to and even in his lifetime. The argument Eusebius makes seems to be of the form: Christ has already come and therefore... What is the "therefore" of his argument that leads Eusebius to want to believe that Christ had come and then to conclude that such passages as Zechariah 14 had been accomplished some two centuries earlier?

While I would agree that Eusebius describes the destruction of Jerusalem as the promised coming of Christ (Acts 1), I do not know what was motivating Eusebius to take this position and whether that motivation pushed him to advance a position, eisegetically, that he wanted to be true even though he could not really prove, exegetically, that it was true?

What do you know about any motivations Eusebius might have had to make this argument?

[The Curtmudgeon]

DD, does deMar give a reference in Eusebius' writings for this quote? I haven't found a good searchable online site for Eusebius' writings, and searching each page separately is more than I want to do. But I'd like to read the quote in a wider context.

The (thanx!) Curtmudgeon

[dizzle]

No Curt, I don't think he gave a reference (I can't find my copy of the issue) - I think I certainly would have included that above if he did.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

[pedantic nonsense] That's cause you silly Preterists never cite information when it is critical. We Futurists ALWAYS** cite our references[/pn]








** Does not include the Left Behind Series. Offer not valid in Puerto Rico, Canada, Fort Lauderdale, or the top of Trout's cowboy hat. Limited time offer can not be doubled with dragon coupons or Sparko pirate cookies rebate. Cash value = 1 Shadowmaster heh buck

[dizzle]

I think I may remember where the mag is... I can't check now, cause the birds are asleep in that room but when I wake them up I will check.

[The Curtmudgeon]

I think I may remember where the mag is... I can't check now, cause the birds are asleep in that room but when I wake them up I will check.

That's fine, there's no rush. I'll try to remember to keep checking back (what, I should subscribe to a thread? Perish forbid!).

The (an uncluttered Inbox is a happy Inbox) Curtmudgeon

[dizzle]

Unfortunately, I still can't find it. My library is in a mess right now as I am reorganizing.

[Johnny MacManky]

I may have found the DeMar article here (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-28-06.asp#_edn4)

If this is the same article, he cites Eusebius from:


Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, trans. W. J. Ferrar, 2 vols. in 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1981), 2:28 (287c).

[The Curtmudgeon]

I may have found the DeMar article here (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/12-28-06.asp#_edn4)

If this is the same article, he cites Eusebius from:


Eusebius, The Proof of the Gospel, trans. W. J. Ferrar, 2 vols. in 1 (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1981), 2:28 (287c).

Well, I can't decipher his reference system (since I don't have the volume in hand), but the Ferrar translation is on-line, and knowing which specific work was being cited was enough; I've found the quote in Demonstratio Evangelica, Book VIII, Chapter 4, last para of the chapter. In the process of scanning the individual Books of the DE, I found at least one other mention of the Temple which a quick read of seemed to indicate that Eusebius was equating "coming of Christ" with "destruction of Temple", but I'll go over it a bit more in depth before reporting back.

Thanx, Johnny! I'll be back after I've done some reading.

The (seek and ye shall Control-F) Curtmudgeon

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

[pedantic nonsense] That's cause you silly Preterists never cite information when it is critical. We Futurists ALWAYS** cite our references[/pn]








** Does not include the Left Behind Series. Offer not valid in Puerto Rico, Canada, Fort Lauderdale, or the top of Trout's cowboy hat. Limited time offer can not be doubled with dragon coupons or Sparko pirate cookies rebate. Cash value = 1 Shadowmaster heh buck

Not even a single amen? :sigh:

[rhutchin]

Perhaps, though it is very equivocal and subject to a variety of interpretations - however considering his very preteristic bent, I don't find it unlikely. I found this in Gary DeMar's Biblical Worldview magazine for July 2007 (page 24):

Eusebius sees the rest of Zechariah 14 as being fulfilled during the ministry of Christ and the apostles, including the keeping of the Feast of Booths (Tabernacles). There is even some indication that Eusebius believed that the destruction of Jerusalem was the coming of Christ:

When, then, we see what was of old foretold for the nations fulfilled in our day, and when the lamentation and wailing that was predicted for the Jews, and the burning of the Temple and its utter desolation, can also be seen even now to have occurred according to the prediction, surely we must also agree that the King who was prophesied, the Christ of God, has come, since the signs of His coming have been shewn in each instance I have treated to have been clearly fulfilled.

This appears in The Proof of the Gospel as others have tracked down.

From quickly scanning primarily Book VIII (and consistent with the title), it seems that Eusebius is arguing to the Jews (and all others) that the Christ has come. He associates Daniel 9 with the coming of Christ and His crucifixion. He says that the abomination of desolation was established in the temple on the day Christ was crucified and when the veil in the temple was torn in two. People should, from that time until 70 AD, have deserted the city because its desolation was nearing (even if about 40 years off after the crucifixion of Christ)..

Eusebius does not seem to be concerned at all with a "second" coming of Christ but devotes his argument entirely to the first coming of Christ and his crucifixion -- if I am reading his argument correctly. So when DeMar says, "...Eusebius believed that the destruction of Jerusalem was the coming of Christ..." we are to understand that Eusebius has in mind the first coming of Christ. Eusebius identifies the destruction of the temple in 70 AD as further evidence of the first coming of Christ consistent with his overall theme to offer a proof of the gospel.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Eusebius does not seem to be concerned at all with a "second" coming of Christ but devotes his argument entirely to the first coming of Christ and his crucifixion -- if I am reading his argument correctly. So when DeMar says, "...Eusebius believed that the destruction of Jerusalem was the coming of Christ..." we are to understand that Eusebius has in mind the first coming of Christ. Eusebius identifies the destruction of the temple in 70 AD as further evidence of the first coming of Christ consistent with his overall theme to offer a proof of the gospel.

This is exactly the conclusion that I was coming to, RH -- Eusebius does conjoin the Destruction of Jerusalem with the Coming of Christ, but it's the first coming, from Bethlehem to His Resurrection that is in view, with the 70AD Destruction being a coda whose temporal separation is of no moment to Eusebius. This is made clear when he discusses Zechariah's prophecy of Messiah standing on the Mount of Olives, which he distinctly equates to Jesus' night in Gethsemane, as being in conjunction with the destruction of the city and the temple. (Of course, he skips right past the detail of the mountain splitting in two.)

So the simple answer to DD's question in the OP is, Yes, Eusebius does understand the 70AD Destruction as being connected with the Coming of Christ; on the other hand, it would be wrong to understand from that that he took a Preterist position. He doesn't seem (in this work) to be considering a "Second Coming" of any kind.

The (but I really should read him in more depth -- for my own edumacation, if nothing else) Curtmudgeon

[rhutchin]

...This is made clear when he discusses Zechariah's prophecy of Messiah standing on the Mount of Olives, which he distinctly equates to Jesus' night in Gethsemane, as being in conjunction with the destruction of the city and the temple. (Of course, he skips right past the detail of the mountain splitting in two.)...

At one point, (I didn't look for it), I think Eusebius identified valleys with disobedience. Thus, I think he would liken the mountain splitting in two with the great disobedience of the Jews that began with the arrest of Jesus on the Mount of Olives. I don't want to put words in his mouth, but he may have been heading in that direction.