Two Possible Preterist Solutions

Eusebius Pamphilus relates information given by Hegesippus about the Lord’s relatives. The interesting part concerns them answering Domitian concerning the Kingdom and Christ’s coming. These guys would have either lived through AD70 or been closely connected to those who did. They would have had close ties to the apostolic teaching concerning the second coming. What is the preterist argument concerning such an early witness to Christ’s still future coming post AD 70? [Doug Shuffield - found on the Preterist Archive website]

So, how do we Preterists handle this story? Notice that the grandsons were not aware of the fulfillment of these things at AD 70. Why hadn’t Jude told them? Didn’t Jude know about the return of his brother (Jesus) in AD 70? Why didn’t he pass that info along to his son and grandsons? In view of his inspired status as a true Christian and writer of one of the books of our NT, it seems pretty safe to assume that Jude would have known that Christ returned in AD 70 if he lived until that event. Assuming that his son and grandsons were TRUE Christians at the time of the Parousia, they would have known that the Parousia occurred, just by their association with Jude and the family of Jesus.

However, there are lots of uncertainties involved in this story. For instance, we do not know for sure that the grandsons were Christians before the Parousia, nor whether Jude himself survived until (and after) the Parousia.

Since Jude was definitely a true Christian at the time of writing his book (AD 64), he would either have been raptured at the Parousia, or killed in the Neronic persecution before the Parousia like Paul, John, Peter, and James his brother (AD 62-64). If he was killed in the Neronic persecution, then his family might have fled the country when the Judean Christians fled to Pella. However, we don’t know whether his son and grandsons were true Christians at that time or not. Nor do we know when the grandsons were born. If the son of Jude was still alive and was a true Christian at the time of the Parousia, then he was raptured along with Jude, and the grandsons would have already been born before their father died. And if their father was a Christian, the grandsons would also most likely be Christians. The problem is, we simply do not know which, if any, of these scenarios are correct, or whether the solution lies somewhere else.

This is a problem for all preterists. We have the burden of explaining how Jude’s grandsons, who seem to be Christians, could have been so ignorant about the past occurrence of the Parousia (and all of its related events) at AD 70. If they or their parents were alive and were true Christians at the time of the Parousia, they would have KNOWN that the Parousia occurred. The NT writers are too specific about what the true Christians could EXPECT to see and experience at the Parousia.

There is no wiggle room here for Preterists to say that the true Christians either missed the significance of AD 70, or simply went on their merry way and never mentioned it again (not even to their children and grandchildren). That approach brings a reproach upon the honesty, dignity and credibility of any of the apostles and pre-70 saints who lived beyond AD 70.

If they were true Christians at the time of the Parousia, and were still around after witnessing and experiencing these momentous events, they would have said something to indicate that these big three events had already occurred. They would have spoken up when Papias, Polycarp, and Ignatius started saying that the Parousia was still future. They would have set the record straight. Not to do so would have been unethical negligence, and would have discredited them as false witnesses for Christ. No matter where we date this story, the grandsons of Jude do seem to be totally ignorant of the occurrence of the Parousia. How can we explain this ignorance? The futurists use this ignorance to prove that the Parousia did not occur, but preterists do not have that option. So how do we preterists explain their ignorance of the Parousia?

92 1. Jude’s grandsons were not Christians at the time of the Parousia, and simply did not know that the Parousia had occurred, nor what had happened to any of their family members who were Christians. They would have assumed that their Christian friends and family had all been killed in the Neronic persecution or the Jewish War. Then, sometime after the war, the grandsons would have become Christians, being totally unaware that the Parousia had already occurred. Although some preterists might like this explanation, it is unacceptable to futurists and other preterists.

2. This story about Jude’s grandsons belongs to the period before the War (AD 62-66) when the Romans and Jews were both persecuting Christians like this. It is a case of misplaced history. It is this particular option that I will follow in my explanation. And it is the approach which all preterists will have to take in order to consistently and convincingly explain the ignorance of the grandsons about the past Parousia. In other words, they did not know about the occurrence of the Parousia because it had not happened yet.

I believe this whole story about the grandsons of Jude has been historically misplaced in the same way the story about John seeing the Apocalypse in the reign of “Domitian” was misunderstood by Irenaeus and his sources. Irenaeus did not realize that his sources were referring to Nero Domitius instead of Flavius Domitian. This story comes from a mid-to-late second century writer (Hegesippus) who may not have had his facts straight. Therefore, not much credence can be given to its accuracy. It is not confirmed “at the mouth of two or more reliable first century eyewitnesses” and cannot be checked and verified. Hegesippus may very well have misread his sources, seeing Domitius (Nero) and thinking that it was Domitian (Flavian). Or his sources may have been confused about which Domitian was under consideration here. That possibility alone questions the value of this story.

Eusebius doubted the genuineness of Revelation because of this kind of blunder by Irenaeus and his sources (Papias and Hegesippus). According to this theory Papias and Hegesippus did not realize that the reference to Domitian by some of their sources was a reference to Nero Domitius, and therefore mistakenly thought it was referring to the Flavian emperor Domitian. Plus there was another mistake in regard to two different men with the name “John” (the Apostle versus the Elder). [cf. Apostolic Fathers, Michael W. Holmes, Baker Books: Papias 3:4-5; 5:2; 7:3]. These two historical blunders have wreaked havoc on all attempts to:

• Date the book of Revelation, • Know who its real author was, • See it as inspired and canonical, • Pinpoint the real persecution under which it was written, and • Reconstruct consistently the history surrounding the writing of the book and the latter years of John’s life and martyrdom.

Foy Wallace, Milton S. Terry, Ken Gentry, and several other careful and reputable scholars of the past two hundred years have staunchly defended the notion that either the sources of Irenaeus (Papias and Hegesippus) were inaccurate and mistaken, or that Irenaeus himself misread and misunderstood those sources, or both, thus rendering his statements worthless as evidence for a late date. See especially the treatment of this in Foy Wallace (Revelation, pages 21-28), and Ken Gentry (Before Jerusalem Fell, 1998 revised edition, pages 45-67).

I suspect that something like this controversy over the two different Domitians is also involved here in the tradition about the grandsons of Jude. What if it was Nero “Domitius” (not the Flavian “Domitian”) who ordered the grandsons of Jude to be interrogated by his Roman representative in Palestine (i.e., either the Procurator in Caesarea, or the Legate in Antioch)? This very kind of mistaken identity (i.e., substituting “Domitian” for “Domitius”) appears to have occurred in regard to

93 the persecution under which John wrote the Apocalypse. It would be easy to see that same thing happening here in regard to the identity of the emperor under whose authority the grandsons were arrested and interrogated, especially since Eusebius is using the same corrupt sources (Papias, Hegesippus, and Irenaeus) for both stories, and both stories are in the same context, one right after the other in Eusebius.

Since Nero’s name was very similar to Domitian (i.e., Domitius), it is quite possible that Nero is the one who actually ordered this roundup of all the descendants of King David. It apparently was done in Judea, since there was no mention of them being carried to Rome to meet with the emperor there. It happened before the war broke out, since it would not have been possible for Jude’s grandsons to be owning and farming their own land and paying their taxes after the war started, nor after the war was over. This means that they would have been brought before Caesar’s tribunal, either the Procurator in Caesarea (Festus, Albinus or Florus), or the Roman Legate in Antioch [Corbulo (AD 59-63) or Cestius Gallus (AD 63-67)]. [See the online Jewish Encyclopedia entry for “Gallus, Caius Cestius”, and the article on Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo at www.Livius.org]

Church historians are skeptical about any such roundup action in Domitian’s reign, since the Jews had been so utterly crushed by Titus that there would have been no possibility for any Zealot rebellions by a Davidic leader during Domitian’s reign. Plus there were very few Jewish people left in the land after AD 70. Nor could they have owned any land and farmed it. The Romans owned all the land in Palestine after the war. The Christians had all fled the country before the war, and there is no clear or authoritative indication that they could have returned to their land, even if they wanted to. It would have been nearly impossible to find any descendants of David at that time after the war, especially inside Palestine. Nor would they have been a threat to Rome after all the fortresses were demolished, and most of the people taken away from the land. There were no fortresses, nor any fighters to man the forts. Titus had done a thorough purge of all remaining resistance before his legions left Palestine.

The conditions that are stated in Hegesippus’ account speak of a time before the war when Jude’s grandsons were farmers working the land in peaceful conditions. After the war broke out, such farming would have been virtually impossible. And if they were Christians, they would have already fled the country as Jesus (their grand-uncle) had warned them to do (before the war). This means that Nero (whose name was Domitius) was probably the one who commanded this roundup, and it most likely would have occurred before the outbreak of the war (before AD 66) and before the Neronic persecution against the Christians (AD 64-65). If these grandsons were Christians (and it does seem that they were), then they would have been killed by the Roman Procurator Florus if this scenario occurred after the Neronic persecution broke out in AD 64. This suggests that the incident might have occurred at the time when Luke was in Rome writing his book of Acts (AD 62), explaining why he was unaware of what was going on in Judea (i.e., both the arrest of James, and the arrest of Jude’s grandsons, neither of which are mentioned in the book of Acts). The prominence this encounter would have given to Jude and his family may help explain why Jude wrote a book not long after this (AD 64), and why it was included in the canon.

We have noticed that this story poses a real problem for the non-rapture preterists if they wish to agree with the futurists and say that it occurred after AD 70, since it is very apparent from what the grandsons say, that they were familiar with what their grand-uncle (Jesus) had taught about the timing and nature of the about-to-come Kingdom. They knew too much about the Parousia and its NATURE of fulfillment to be totally ignorant of its TIME of fulfillment.

This story is not friendly to the non-rapture preterists, since it shows that these grandsons, who had direct contact with the Christians, the apostles, and the family of Jesus Himself, and who understood the nature of the coming Kingdom and the signs to look for, were totally unaware of its occurrence after AD 70. Is it even possible that they understood the NATURE of fulfillment perfectly, but totally missed the TIME of it? How can that be? How could they NOT be aware that the End of the Age had already come and gone? How could they not be aware that their grand-uncle had

94 returned in glory with His angels in flaming fire dealing out retribution to the persecuting enemies of the Christians? They understood the NATURE of fulfillment perfectly. How could they miss the TIME of fulfillment, especially when they were so well-connected to the Christians and the family of Jesus? Dr. Charles Hill and other futurist patristic experts like him are right to press us on this point. However, the problem vaporizes for all preterists if this incident occurred before AD 70. So, the non-rapture preterists need to quit using this story against the rapture preterists. It will discredit all preterists, including themselves. They are just giving the futurists more ammunition to use against us.

In view of some non-rapture preterists’ assertions that the pre-70 saints who lived through and beyond the Parousia were aware of its occurrence and able to acknowledge it, this ignorance of Jude’s grandsons (or their refusal to acknowledge it and confess it before men) becomes suspect. Something is desperately wrong here with Eusebius or with Hegesippus or with the grandsons. Either they were not Christians before AD 70 and had no knowledge of the Parousia and judgment and end of the age (and rapture), OR this whole story dates back to the time of Nero when the Parousia was still future for them. I opt for this latter solution. That is the only way to make sense of it consistently.

It simply will not work for the non-rapture preterists to date this story after AD 70, since that puts a heavy burden of proof on them to explain how these grandsons could have such a crystal clear concept of the NATURE of fulfillment, yet be totally clueless about its past occurrence. If they understood the nature of it so well, it would have been easy for them to “recognize the TIME of His visitation” also. They were definitely in a position to have known all about it. They were grandsons of one of the biblical writers (Jude) and the grand-nephews of Jesus himself. They would have known about the Parousia occurring in AD 70. So, unless we want to charge them with lying under oath before Caesar, it would be best to see this story as occurring before AD 70 at a time when the Parousia was still future.

In view of all this, I simply place this story before the war broke out, somewhere in the range of AD 62-64. By placing it there, it removes all the difficulties that the futurists have posed against the preterist view. It seems more likely to have happened before the revolt of the Zealots (AD 66), after which owning and farming their land in Judea would have been virtually impossible.

Furthermore, the language that these two grandsons use to describe the nature of the coming kingdom is unambiguous, suggesting that if the Parousia had already occurred, they would have known about it, since they clearly understood the nature of the event and knew what they were looking for. When we compare their description of the Parousia and kingdom with the NT writings, we notice a lot of similarities with those particular epistles that were written about that time. So, it seems likely that this story took place somewhere in the timeframe of AD 62-64.

Moreover, in view of the Neronic persecution in AD 64-66, the historical window of possibilities becomes even more narrow. If this arrest had occurred after the Neronic persecution broke out in the Summer of AD 64, the two grandsons of Jude would not have survived the interview. Once they admitted to being Christians, they would have been killed. So, this arrest must have occurred before the Neronic persecution broke out. Since their words sound very much like the words of James their grand-uncle, which were written sometime in the AD 61-62 timeframe, there is a good possibility that they were arrested at the same time or shortly after James was arrested and killed (by Ananus II in April of 62). Josephus does say that “James and some of his companions” were arrested at the same time. The whole incident about the ruthless killing of James may have raised some concerns for both Agrippa II and the Roman procurator (Albinus) about the potential for a rebellion led by a messianic leader from the family of King David. Agrippa II had heard about Jesus (son of David) from Apostle Paul when Paul was in prison in Caesarea, just a year or two before this (AD 60).

The Jewish leaders in Jerusalem would have used every influence they had on Agrippa II and Albinus to go after the Christians, especially if there was any evidence that any of the Jewish Christians (i.e., Ebionites, Nazaraeans, Judaizers) were looking for a physical descendant of David