"Israel Only" (full preterist doctrine)

[RickC]

Greetings!

I recently came across the "Israel Only" (IO) teaching in a preterist group on Facebook. I think I had heard about it before a little, but didn't really try to find out what it's all about.

I asked some folks about it (who hold this view) on FB. They were kind enough to respond. However, it was mostly lists of verses with brief 'proof-text' type comments, i.e., not very informative.

I managed to find some podcasts which had some of the same folks from FB speaking. 'Listened to them a couple times. 'Still unsatisfactory.
____________________________

In a nutshell and from what I've been able to gather, the "Israel Only" belief says that ALL prophecies have been fulfilled. "ALL" in caps to emphasize that this belief system goes past most full preterist beliefs. Namely, that ONLY literal (biological) Israelite believers were 'saved' (and raptured and resurrected) in 70AD.

Romans 9 (NKJV)
6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.” 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son."

IOs interpret the phrase "For they are not all Israel who are of Israel" (v.6b) something like this: "Gentiles who had formerly been Israelites are included in the elect."

Therefore, IOs, if I'm not mistaken, essentially say that ONLY the literal biological descendants of Israel (Jacob) were 'saved', etc.

And, that since 70AD, well, that was it. No type of salvation at all for anyone beyond that point.

"ISRAEL ONLY -- THAT'S ALL, FOLKS!"

My understanding is that some IOs have retained a 'Deistic' belief in [a] God and that many have become atheists.
____________________________

So I was wondering if anyone around here might be able to fill in some gaps for me. If or if not, thanks for reading!

[dwilkins]

Chris Camillo (AKA Rivers of Eden) makes a couple of big assumptions in his argument. Every time I've seen him argue his system he speeds past the most foundation assumption, which it turns out he does a poor job of proving. That foundational argument is that since "Gentile" can refer to the 10 tribe northern kingdom, in every case that he wants it to, it does in fact only refer to them. I don't think he does a good enough job proving that. Another major problem he has is that the 12 or 13 tribe clan was never genetically homogeneous, so the definition of who "Israel" is turns out to be a lot more complicated than it would seem at face value. Finally, eschatology aside, YHWH does not seem to be a clan based God only interested in the welfare of one line of descendants. Throughout scripture he is interested in the welfare of all homo sapiens, and so is crafting a plan to engage them. To say that he is only interested in one family line is myopic in my opinion.

But, Camillo does make some interesting observations about the implications of a purely corporate view of eschatology per King and Preston. As Camillo points out, it tends to lead to his conclusions. I think that Stevens does a good job of showing why a purely corporate view of resurrection ends up supporting Camillo's point of view, and on the other hand the idea of an individual body resurrection (however you define it) negates Camillo's thesis.

In Full Preterist circles, Camillo is considered an actual "hyper preterist", probably because his conclusion is as far on a continuum as you can get. As far as I have seen, Camillo is OK with this label (other Full Preterists consider it an insult when it's applied to them by futurists). In a strange way, his is a type of dispensationalism, where there is a hard, permanent separation between "Jews" and the rest of the world.

Doug

[TheEditor]

a type of dispensationalism

It sounds like it. Almost like hyperdispensationalism, without the hope. May as well be an atheist.

Regards, Brenden.

[RickC]

Thanks for the replies.

Since the OP I've gone ahead and listened to more of "Rivers" on the unpreterist site (easily googleable). One was "25 Hours of Rivers O Feden" which I listened to as I was going to sleep; a regular habit I have, since I work 3rd shift, 'background noise' to help me sleep. I didn't hear all of it (coz I fell asleep), LOL

In any event, I've also made it something of a habit to try to learn ALL views (possible) on a given topic, especially if there could be many interpretations. I've found that some views of 'the unorthodox' can be at least partially correct or will prompt me on to further investigation.

Such was the case with this "Israel Only" teaching. Maybe there was a loose end I missed? etc.

In any event, Roderick Edwards, a former full preterist asked a question on FB the other day. Something like, "In the last 5 years and outside of IO, are there any new developments in the FP movement?"

I took his question to mean that IO has, apparently, gathered a lot more adherents within the last 5 years, that it's still kind of new.

Otherwise, as Brenden agreed, IO is, indeed, "a type of dispensationalism". Very radical, 'wooden' (literalistic) hermeneutics.

[RickC]

Addendum

Chris Camillo (AKA Rivers of Eden) makes a couple of big assumptions in his argument. Every time I've seen him argue his system he speeds past the most foundation assumption, which it turns out he does a poor job of proving. That foundational argument is that since "Gentile" can refer to the 10 tribe northern kingdom, in every case that he wants it to, it does in fact only refer to them. I don't think he does a good enough job proving that.

Agreed. At one point on the unpreterist podcast he (Chris/Rivers) essentially gave away his method of interpretation by quoting a scripture or two, stating what they meant (in a 'wooden' way), and just moved right along. Apparently taking it for granted that his literalistic interpretations were 'obviously' true. Yet as you say, he never really lays a foundation. That is, unless 'literalistic readings' devoid of context can be taken as foundational premises. "Rivers" has gathered something of a following, it appears.

Otherwise, and a little bit to his credit; Chris does take at least some time to engage with the ideas of his opponents. He took on Don Preston at one point w/r/t the 7 husbands: the Sadducees' questioning Jesus about "Which of the seven (deceased husbands) will be the husband in the resurrection?" Chris quoted Preston, then gave rebuttles. However, since Chris tends to move along very fast, I saw his tendency to assume stuff without establishing it. Also, Chris was definitely against using any non-canonical sources for pertinent information, at least on this topic (i.e., he's very fundamentalist in this sense).

[robbyyoung]

Hi RickC,

Thanks for the post, however, I personally tend to stay away from out-of-context teachings that misrepresents the unambiguous N.T. writers understanding to their intended audience. My attraction to truth is necessarily in the wake of John 14:26, and this, to the last authoritative prophets and teachers to ever walk the earth; the Apostles of the 1st Century. Understanding the power behind the reality of who has the last word limits, and do not transcend, their correct application and understanding of scripture. Therefore, transcending any part of the N.T. writers understanding in relation to audience relevance, time critical expectations, and fulfilled prophecy, by default, superimposes this new understanding as more authoritative than The Apostles, rendering it as improved upon/enlightened inspired scripture. I simply reject this inevitable conclusion and will rely upon the last authoritative say on any and all matters to the faith I hold.

If I claim scripture is my litmus test to truth, then the N.T. writers have, authoritatively, given the only transcending explanation, in their writings, to O.T. scripture. Superimposed doctrines are easily dismissed by paying attention to what/how the N.T. authors and their audience understood the message. We nor anyone else have the authority to contradict their understanding and application. If so, then where in scripture do follow-on generations have the authority to say their words are additional inspired scripture, superimposed over that of Yeshua and The Apostles? This would necessarily make for an endless addition to scripture, no final word with perpetual doctrines. Kind of what we have today!

My preterism is grounded in the only authoritative voices that matter. For me, anyone who comes along with a contrived doctrine that contradicts the N.T. writers, are most assuredly dismissed as illegitimate in their search for truth. Staying in context avoids any misrepresentations of N.T. enlightenment. But sadly, throughout the many centuries, there are those who openly contradict the inspired writers, setting in motion wave upon wave of misplaced understanding, superimposing their understanding over what was inspired and legitimate. I see this clearly and for what it is, and will not be duped again.

God Bless.

[RickC]

Hello Robby,

I'm not exactly sure what all you were getting at.

I noted that "Rivers" rejects non-canonical writings. He did, at least when he was giving rebuttles to some stuff Don Preston wrote. (Preston had cited some extra-biblical views of some of the rabbis). "Rivers" seems to also have a "Bible Only" view, which, if taken without regard to other current (non-canonical) writings, can lead to missing key elements in audience relevance, understanding the setting, etc., etc.

What was inconsistent in various talks by "Rivers" was his using Josephus, apparently, when he felt it was convenient(?).

[robbyyoung]

Hello Robby,

I'm not exactly sure what all you were getting at.

Hello RickC,

No worries, my post was a general rebuttal of doctrines inconsistent with the N.T. writers understanding/interpretations. My attempt was to deliver a brief contrast between IO's preterism and my own, therefore my default stance would define IO as a illegitimate superimposed doctrine over the last inspired writer's doctrine (to include expectation, application and understanding). You and Doug identified points of weaknesses in the IO camp and I simply agreed through my own litmus test towards truth. Sorry for the confusion, for the spirit of it was written without controversy towards You and Doug.

God Bless.

[Homer]

Hi Robby,

No worries, my post was a general rebuttal of doctrines inconsistent with the N.T. writers understanding/interpretations.

I'm curious how you have become so certain regarding your ability to ascertain the "understanding/interpretations" of the NT writers. Do you determine this solely from reading the scriptures or have you become educated about the social anthropology of the ANE or reading what others have written on the subject matter? Something else? Are we, and the vast majority of students of the scriptures missing something obvious?

Thanks

[robbyyoung]

Hi Robby,

I'm curious how you have become so certain regarding your ability to ascertain the "understanding/interpretations" of the NT writers.

Hi Homer, good to hear from you again and I hope you're doing well. With respect, your question above is not at all difficult in judging most of the literary content of the N.T. writers. However, these are my thoughts and ideas just as you have your very own nuances, and mine are subject to being adjusted when warranted. In any case, we can most assuredly know the context(immediate & overall), the audience, the expectation, the current culture, the genre of writing style, and most importantly the infallibility of The Holy Spirit authoritative signature within any discourse (by who authored the writing). Thus, a contradiction to the preponderance of evidence can be visible in most cases. I say most cases, because without the source (the inspired writers themselves) some things may never be known. Absent inspired writers for over 2000 years, I think it's safe to say the relevant audience got the unadulterated age ending message. Conversely, we now benefit from their tenets derived from such an event, and subsequently, God has left the world with the historicity of His Word as evidence to this age ending event. We are devoid of the advantage to converse with the inspired writers for clarification, and this raises relevancy concerns for me, especially when the inspired writer's office door was shut forever.

Do you determine this solely from reading the scriptures or have you become educated about the social anthropology of the ANE or reading what others have written on the subject matter? Something else?

I approach the bible in its historical context. Many honorable people have done tremendous work, as a historian, to help the modern day mind understand ancient times. Simply reading a western oriented translation of the bible will leave me wanting, and possibly deceived or misled on many issues. For me, it takes a historian attitude and research ability to get as close as possible to the original language, culture, and historical era to appreciate what God has done; for He has said all there is to say, to the original and subsequent audiences.

Are we, and the vast majority of students of the scriptures missing something obvious?

I have no idea Homer, everyone need to figure it out for themselves, for we all glean what's appealing to us as individuals, and I most certainly can't speak for the vast majority of students of scripture, but I'm confident their research methods aren't that different from mine. Lastly, we probably should have discussed this somewhere else to avoid distractions from the original post. If you are going to reply back let's take it to another appropriate thread out of respect for brother RickC. Nevertheless, thanks for the conversation for it was good to chat with you once again.

God Bless.