Hegesippus / Eusebius - An Early Xian View

[Cherith]

I couldn't resist this one. Dee Dee may find this interesting too, as the hyper-prets either didn't know about it or won't own up to it. Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History has this to say where he quotes from the Jew, Hegesippus (c.110-189):

There still survived of the kindred of the Lord the grandsons of Judas [i.e. Jude/Judah], who according to the flesh was called his brother. These were informed against, as belonging to the family of David, and Evocatus brought them before Domitian Caesar: for that emperor dreaded the advent of Christ, as Herod had done.

So he asked them whether they were of the family of David; and they confessed they were. Next he asked them what property they had, or how much money they possessed. They both replied that they had only 9000 denaria* between them, each of them owning half that sum; but even this they said they did not possess in cash, but as the estimated value of some land, consisting of thirty-nine plethra [i.e. acres] only, out of which they had to pay the dues, and that they supported themselves by their own labour. And then they began to hold out their hands, exhibiting, as proof of their manual labour, the roughness of their skin, and the callosity formed by incessant labour on their hands, as evidence of their own labour.

Being then asked concerning Christ and His kingdom, what was its nature, and when and where it was to appear, they replied, 'that it was not a temporal nor an earthly kingdom, but belonging to the sphere of heaven and angels, and that it would appear at the end of the world, when coming in glory He would judge the quick and the dead, and render to every one according to his works.'

Upon which, Domitian despising them, made no reply; but treating them with contempt, as simpletons, commanded them to be dismissed, and by a decree ordered the persecution to cease. Thus delivered, they ruled the churches both as witnesses and relatives of the Lord. When peace was established, they continued living even to the times of Trajan."

Zadoc and James were the names of Jude's grandchildren - i.e. the great-nephews of the Messiah.

Several things about this historical account: 1) the house of David was still identifiable (something that is no longer true in our day); 2) Domitian ruled AFTER the Jewish Wars and The Fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 (A.D. 81-96); and 3) the Lord's great-nephews considered His Second Advent to be yet future and were rulers in the Church, where we can presume they taught likewise...

The entire text can be read online here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/hegesippus.html (also available on ccel)

or a blurb in the Jewish Encyclopedia here: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=510&letter=H

[dizzle]

Interesting. However, I do have to say that there is one aspect that is problematic to our view Cherith, and that is that the verses which have the phrase "render to everyone according to their due" are verses thatyou and I would place in the first century. Now I resolve this tension in the same way I resolve the fact that Paul said death was already destroyed and yet would still be destroyed. Christ is right now judging among men and among the nations. He will ultimately give everyone their due at the consummation but that is not to say He did not do it then as well.

I guess in short though if we are to be really frank though these kinds of early writings cut against ALL modern preterist views (heretical or otherwise) for although we can find ample testimony that things such as the great trib were beleived to be past by some, I have yet to find an early writing that calls it a "coming" but they seem to do the same disconnect and place ALL coming verses as future. I don't use these kinds of passages very heavily (though they are part of the big puzzle) cause if we are going to be very honest they are not great for us. The hypers don't deny that there is very early witness for a future coming belief. And to be honest, it is the "coming" that is biggie for orthodoxy - it is a big deal because it brings the resurrectoin - that is the crux, so the uniform testimony on the nature and timing of the rez is what is crucial for the hyper pret debate.

But I like this quote to show that an earthly kingdom was not the predominant belief very early oln.

Cherith do you know of any early quote that acknowledged the AD70 event as a "coming" event? I am not aware of any.

Of course this then raises a typical hyper-pret argument that I would like to dismantle now. They say....."oh you smug orthodox types, you are unorthodox as well, you deny the verses that early fathers used to support their creedal formulations."

Well let's see. It is true that we would deny some of them. But the creeds did not ratify verses, but doctrines. This is very easily seen in the doctrine of the Trinity. If you read through some early witness, they had some proof texts and mystical arguments for the trinity that we would not use. We may certainly deny that certain verses are good proofs for the Trinity. That would not make us deny the doctrine. It is the affirmation of the doctrine that is required by the creedal formulations, not by necessity the path to get there. And as a matter of fact, many preterists do not deny path to get there as they see a "double referent" of a sort in the coming passages that are primarily a first century event.

[nomad]

interesting. i'm also reading eusebius, and just passed this a couple days ago. another interesting thing - he describes a group called the 'nicolaitans'.

[Cherith]

Hey Dee Dee,

Personally, I don't share the view that the phrase "render to everyone according to their works" as something that would be/was strictly fulfilled in the first century. The phrase is rife throughout both Testaments and seems to be a general principle of God's character. So, it doesn't effect my eschatology one way or the other. Or to say it another way, I agree that with your statement regarding Paul and death - the already/not yet view.

In spite of your argument with the guy on Paltalk last week and the points you made about the early church, I'm not really bothered by what the early Christians did or didn't believe and/or what the Christian creeds and confessions state - except as a witness/example of their beliefs in any given point in time. The "fathers" are helpful in some ways and I'm not disputing the insights that have built up/clarified the Christian position over time, but we should ONLY hold to that which can be supported by Scripture (as I am convinced you know).

In this same vein, I'm not concerned with whether the early church referred to the events of AD 70 as His "coming" as this terminology is also reflected throughout both Testaments as "judgment." (I was listening to J. Vernon McGee last night and he was going through Isaiah 64 which says:

"Oh that You would rend the heavens, that You would come down, that the mountains might flow down at Your Presence - {2} As fire burns brushwood, as fire causes water to boil - to make Your Name known to Your adversaries, that the nations may tremble at Your Presence! {3} When You did awesome things for which we did not look, then You Came Down, the mountains shook at Your Presence." Isa 64:1-3

So, the language of judgment in the Scriptures has always had the imagery of God "coming down" / "visiting," and I see no reason for the Holy Spirit to suddenly change imagery in the New Covenant. In fact, I use this same language with our children - i.e. "dont make me come down there!")
:teeth:

I just scanned over your post, so I probably missed something, but the kids are harassing me to let them swim, so I'll have to reread it later.

Grace and Peace.

[dizzle]

I posted quickly, and then decided it was foolish to go off on things that I am not ready to debate or have not given the deep thought I would wish to do so on it.

[Ted]

Hey Dee Dee,

Personally, I don't share the view that the phrase "render to everyone according to their works" as something that would be/was strictly fulfilled in the first century. The phrase is rife throughout both Testaments and seems to be a general principle of God's character. So, it doesn't effect my eschatology one way or the other.

Well said, and point well taken.

[color=blue]"Oh that You would rend the heavens, that You would come down, that the mountains might flow down at Your Presence - {2} As fire burns brushwood, as fire causes water to boil - to make Your Name known to Your adversaries, that the nations may tremble at Your Presence! {3} When You did awesome things for which we did not look, then You Came Down, the mountains shook at Your Presence." Isa 64:1-3

So, the language of judgment in the Scriptures has always had the imagery of God "coming down" / "visiting," and I see no reason for the Holy Spirit to suddenly change imagery in the New Covenant. In fact, I use this same language with our children - i.e. "dont make me come down there!")
:teeth:



I think two things should be noted. First, "coming" is an ambiguous term, not well suited for this discussion without amplification. (See my comments in http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27253) Next, this passage from Isaiah speaks of God coming against "the nations." That is a technical term for unbelievers around Israel. That is, it speaks of a universal judgment, not a local, AD 70 judgment.

Ted

[Cherith]

I think two things should be noted. First, coming" is an ambiguous term, not well suited for this discussion without amplification. (See my comments in http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27253) Next, this passage from Isaiah speaks of God coming against "the nations." That is a technical term for unbelievers around Israel. That is, it speaks of a [u]universal[/i] judgment, not a local, AD 70 judgment. Ted

Ted,

I read your comments at the link and think they were a lot clearer than what you said above. The judgment that Isaiah was praying for wasn't universal - i.e. the distant nations that had done nothing against the people of God. He was praying specifically against the "locals" - i.e. the nations close at hand that were specifically warring against/threatening the people of God.

A.D. 70 was a LOCAL judgment with UNIVERSAL repercussions. It was the outward sign of the Gospel - that God the Son had accomplished on the cross 40 yrs before - viz. that His Covenant was no longer with one family/nation, but was extended to all men everywhere. The 40 yrs call to mind the 40yr wanderings of the children of Israel both for their disobedience (temporal judgment; to humble them) and as a test (Deut 8:2) prior to renewing the covenant that He had made with them at Sinai.

Personally, I think "coming" is fine. It's biblical. And any other word that one could propose would have to be qualified too, I think. Any suggestions?

As for John 14:3 the word used there is not parousia but erchomai and you could just as easily say that Jesus "comes" for His saints at their death - not at the end of time.

Matt 24:27 is bracketed between the warning about false messiahs (something that won't be an issue at the end of time) and observing the "eagles" (the insignia of the Roman army was an eagle) being gathered around the dead corpse of apostate Judaism.

I do agree with you on the 1 Thess 4:13ff passage. I, as a preterist, firmly believe that the passage is referring to the "Second" Coming of Christ at the end of time. Notice that Paul says that believers who have already died are brought "with Him" and that the dead IN CHRIST shall rise first. But I disagree that the wicked are the LAST to be taken/killed. Remember the Lord's parable about the wheat and the tares? It isn't the wheat that is gathered FIRST, but the tares - the look-alike, the bad seed sown by the adversary.

Heb 9:28 is really the only place where we have the language of Christ coming a "second" time, and even there it says that He will "appear" (which literally means "to gaze, with wide-open eyes, as at something - or Someone - remarkable"). His Return will signal THE End (1 Cor 15:24) and thus THE Judgment so I believe that it is safe to use the word "Coming" for that as well.

As I said, I might be open to using another word if it could fill the bill. Parousia is about the only thing that comes close and even then you would have to qualify the nature of it - i.e. local or universal.

Grace and Peace,
--C

P.S. I looked around your homepage and was disappointed to discover that you come from an Adventist background, but was pleased to hear that you profess Sola Scriptura. May you grow in the knowledge of Christ, the Saviour.

[GhostontheNet]

I am baffled as to why this passage in Ecclesiastical History is taken as evidence against orthodox preterism. While it is true that Christ says Matthew 16: 27-28 ESV there is another notable passage where men are judged by their deeds which looks suspiciously like it takes place at the end of the world. Revelation 20:11-13 ESV While only the former verse has the words repay for their deeds, the I doubt the latter verse would lack a recompense for works.