Paradigm Shifts

by Brian L. Martin

We can only imagine the repercussions when Nicolaus Copernicus published his study on the motion of the planets, claiming that the earth and other planets rotated around the Sun, instead of the Sun and planets rotating around the earth. No doubt his fellow astronomers raised their eyebrows, while the typical layperson probably dismissed the whole notion. And what of the clergy? After all, everyone knew the Bible taught that the earth was the center of the universe . . . right? It was undoubtedly his apprehension over these very repercussions that caused Copernicus to wait thirty-six years before publishing his work.

As Preterists, we perhaps have a somewhat parallel situation with which to understand those repercussions. In the late 1800’s, James Stuart Russell anonymously published his study on the Lord’s Second Coming, titled The Parousia. Why did he publish it anonymously? Perhaps because of perceived repercussions. And why would there be repercussions? Because, like Copernicus, Russell was proposing a system which was completely opposite to the accepted standard. Russell proposed that instead of placing the nature of Christ’s Second Coming at the center of eschatology, and forcing the timing statements regarding His coming to revolve around it, the timing was at the center and the nature of His coming must revolve around the timing.

As with the astronomers of Copernicus’ day, no doubt many fellow theologians of Russell’s day raised their eyebrows, while the typical layperson probably dismissed the whole notion. After all, everyone knew the Bible taught that when Jesus returned it would be a physical, bodily return that every eye would see . . . right?

Indeed, the repercussions are perhaps felt more in our day than in Russell’s. In Russell’s day Dispensationalism, with its emphasis on a physical kingdom and new creation, was just gaining momentum. Because of today’s relative ease of publishing and the ability of the Internet to disseminate information, Russell’s and similar works have enjoyed an unprecedented exposure. And the fact that several major dates in the Dispensational system have come and gone with no trumpet blast has caused many to question their eschatology.

Copernicus’ model of planetary motion did not explain every aspect of the universe. But it did provide a key for setting off on the right foot in studying the universe. Likewise, Preterism does not explain every detail of the Bible. But I believe that it is the proper framework and foundation for studying the Bible. No doubt many astronomers had to “start over” in a sense—aligning their data to the new paradigm. They had to unlearn some things in order to relearn them correctly.

The same is true when a person makes the paradigm shift from Futurism to Preterism. There is much to unlearn and relearn. This point came home as I was enlisting respondents for this issue’s “Perspectives” column. Several individuals, after reading the question, replied that they had not yet come to a position in these matters, and had to study them further. Respectfully, they declined to participate. And I respect them for it! The Bible reflects the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God, which is unsearchable and past finding out. Therefore, I am much more trusting and respectful of someone who can say “I don’t know” than of the person who “has it all figured out.”

I certainly don’t have it all figured out! Rather, after years of trying to bushwhack a trail through the underbrush of eschatology, I feel that I have been shown the trailhead—the entrance to the scripturally cut eschatological trail. The purpose of this magazine isn’t for me to tell you all about the trail—I haven’t traveled that far on it yet. Instead, I’m trying to encourage those who are on the trail, as well as point out the trailhead to others who are still bushwhacking. “Hey—look! There’s a trailhead here. I think it’s headed in the direction you want to go.”

I’m sure that even those who are “well-traveled” on this trail would tell you that they are still exploring—still unlearning and relearning, trying to see where this trail leads. In the process many options and theories are put forth and tested. One of the goals of this magazine is to expose readers to different viewpoints in order to aid and challenge them in their personal studies. Thus, as the fine print to the left states, I may not agree with everything that is written here, nor do the individual contributors always agree with each other. But this is the process of “iron sharpening iron.”

Two individuals who are well-traveled on this trail are Don K. Preston and Edward E. Stevens, and I’m excited to announce that starting in this issue they will each have their own column in Fulfilled! Magazine. Don will be writing Objection: Overruled! and Ed, Creation to Consummation: Studies in Redemptive History. Both are introduced in this issue’s columns, and I’m sure that their subsequent articles will be edifying and informative.