Because of the complex implications of an A.D. 70 parousia of Jesus, we see some other elements coming into the debate, such as Christian Universalism for example, which suggests that all humanity has been saved through Christ. I suggested something less dramatic in a previous article, making the case for a “Comprehensive Reconciliation” which was manifested through God’s presence being restored to all humanity. This is a natural evolution of what I have known to be true before I even became a preterist, namely that Jesus died for all men, not only the elect.

In a conversation I had with a Calvinist regarding this very issue, the topic of Universalism came up, so he pointed out that if Universalism was true, then “what is the point of all this?” It occurred to me, however, that the same can be said about Calvinism. If Calvinism is true, and God chooses who is and who is not saved, then what is the point to any of this? In essence, Calvinism and Universalism are in fact in the same boat. They both trample man's free will and they both provide no motivation for a believer to make a difference in the world. To a Calvinist, these elements appear nonsensical because the limited scope of atonement under the Calvinist framework prohibits exploring a greater atonement as I and others have. So under Calvinism, this discussion does not make sense, and perhaps that explains the confusion and difficulty in communication we all experience here. The Calvinist paradigm simply does not allow for atonement to be extended beyond the elect; so in order to even begin to understand the argument, we need to make an effort to understand the nature of the elect – which will help us understand the nature of atonement.

The elect as a first-century occurrence

One problem with the doctrine of the elect in my opinion, is that it does not recognize the parousia as a past event. So technically speaking, if Christ is yet to return, then the elect is, and should be, a contemporary occurrence. However, if Preterism is true – and that is the assumption under which we construct this argument – then perhaps we should go back and reconsider what we know about the group of believers called “the elect.” Let us consider several passages that may point us in the right direction:

In 1 Peter 1 we read: “Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia.”

Paul wrote in Titus 1: “Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God's elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness– a faith and knowledge resting on the hope of eternal life, which God, who does not lie, promised before the beginning of time, and at his appointed season he brought his word to light.”

In 2 Timothy 2:10 Paul again writes: “Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.”

And finally, in Romans he again writes: “What then? What Israel sought so earnestly it did not obtain, but the elect did. The others were hardened, as it is written: “God gave them a spirit of stupor.” (Romans 11:7, 8)

As I have mentioned before, it appears that there are clear covenantal and time-related statements contained in these passages. There is little question that this group (God’s elect) were contemporaries to Paul. In fact, more specifically, they were “the remnant” which Paul referred to in Romans 11. This remnant described by Paul, was apparently a group of people chosen by God by grace. See verse 5: “So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.” To quote myself from my previous column:

Paul knows he is talking to gentiles in Rome ("I am talking to you gentiles" v.13) so he has to go into greater details in order to make gentiles understand who this “elect” group of people was comprised of. He goes on to describe Israel as a tree, out of which branches were broken off (non believing Jews), and into which other branches were grafted (believing gentiles). This my friends is what is being described as the “elect” across the New Testament. Roman Christians were part of the elect – Paul warns them: “otherwise, you also will be cut off.” (v. 22)

So then, since the word elect literally means “to pick out” or to “choose” it goes to reason that the remnant of Romans 11, at that present time, was the group called “the elect” in the New Testament. Again, to repeat what I have said before, the typological relevance here cannot be ignored since we see a picture of Israel wandering in the wilderness for forty years. The non-believing Jews were cut-off from the riches of milk and honey of the Promised Land, and specific people were elected to prepare Israel for the entrance into the Promised Land. They were in fact a sort of first fruits who served as a picture of what was to come for the whole world: “In the exercise of His will He brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we would be a kind of first fruits among His creatures.” (James 1:18)

So James’ presentation of the elect as first fruits supports this argument even further. God exercised His will and brought forth the elect, so that they would be a first fruit among His creatures. These first-century first fruit believers were elected and chosen for a specific purpose: they were to usher in the returning Christ and prepare the way for the harvester to return and reap his harvest. In fact, Preterism to me only makes sense if we keep the elect in the first-century time frame. The days of tribulation were kept short because of the elect:

Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.” (Mark 13:20)

Make a note that just being part of the elect did not mean exemption from the perils of the first-century circumstances: “For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect.” (Matthew 24:24)

Fortunately, Jesus was to return soon and gather them back to Himself: “And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other.” (Matthew 24:31)

With these time-specific statements in mind, we see several elements that cannot be ignored: the elect did exist in the first century; the elect were a remnant of Israel chosen by grace; the elect were a first fruit among believers; the elect were gathered at the Parousia.

The elect as the first fruit

For westerners, the concept of first fruits probably makes little sense. Yes, we all are told that it teaches us to be generous and give to God from our surplus, we all hear about it and we have a rough idea of what it means, but rarely do we look into the deeper meaning of first fruits, and that keeps us from gaining a deeper understanding of God’s word. When believers were told they were a kind of first fruits, this had a very deep meaning to them, and it brought to their minds things which many of us never think of today. I will give a short historical recapitulation that may help us better understand the relationship between first fruits and the first-century believers. Context in this instance is everything.

The offering of Biccurim (the first fruits) was mandated by Exodus 23:16 and Leviticus 23:16 and because of the specific counting of days required, Biccurim was not to be brought to Jerusalem before Pentecost or after the Feast of Dedication of the Temple. This restricted the offering of first fruits to a very specific time frame. There were further restrictions placed on Biccurim. For example, first fruits were not allowed to be brought in from outside Israel: “They may not bring First fruits from beyond Jordan since that is not a land flowing with milk and honey.” (Mishnah, Bikkurim, i.10) – as an exercise, compare this restriction with Paul’s description of the elect being a remnant of Israel in Romans 11.

The method by which first fruits were chosen was very unique and special. The selection of the first fruits was a special event. Edersheim is of great help in understanding this event: “The head of the family accompanied by his child would go into his field and mark off certain portions from among the most promising of the crop. For only the best might be presented to the Lord, and it was set apart before it was yet ripe, the solemn dedication being, however, afterwards renewed, when it was actually cut.” (Alfred Edersheim, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services, Hedrickson, pp. 306)

According to Mishnah, “When a man goes down to his field and sees for the first time a ripe fig or a ripe cluster of grapes or a ripe pomegranate, he binds it round with reed-grass and says, ‘Lo, these are First-fruits’” (Mishnah, Bikkurim, iii.1) This yearly event would not only set aside the first fruit, but it would also remind all Israel of what belongs to Jehovah. The marking of the first fruit would be just as much about giving to Jehovah as it would be about the understanding that ultimately the entire harvest belongs to Him.

David Curtis has done some fantastic work on the feasts of the Lord and how they point to a first-century parousia. I encourage all readers to study the feasts in detail. The feasts not only prove preterism to be true, but they offer an insight into how God works and how God related to His people. David Curtis showed how each major event in the New Testament, starting with the birth and death of Christ, and ending with His return in A.D. 70 either happened during a feast or were pointed to by one of the feasts. Therefore the purpose and the offering of first fruits between Pentecost of the dedication of the temple are highly picturesque and are helping us place the elect in a first century context.

What is obvious but still worthy to make note of, is that the first fruits are chosen based on their merits, i.e. the head of the household (with his child – which in itself is something to take note of) goes into the field and elects the first fruits. Furthermore, the first fruits are not the harvest, and the harvest is not the first fruits – this seems to be not as obvious to some folks. In fact, the first fruits were set apart from the rest of the harvest while they were still green, and they were marked as being set apart throughout the spring and summer days.

Now, as if this was not relevant enough, let’s look at the actual dedication of the first fruits, which is just as fascinating. I will again quote Edersheim: “As a family feast, the presentation of the first fruits would enter more than any other rite into family religion and family life. Not a child in Israel – at least of those who inhabited the Holy Land – could have been ignorant of all connected with this service, and that even though it had never been taken to the beautiful ‘city of the Great King,’ not gazed with marvel and awe at the Temple of Jehovah.” (Alfred Edersheim, The Temple, Its Ministry and Services, Hedrickson, pp. 306)

The dedication of the first fruit was not just a family event, but a national event. Since not every family was able to travel to Jerusalem, each of the twenty-four districts would combine their offerings together and send representatives to the temple instead. While still difficult, the trip was to be slow, and a reason of rejoicing because it was a privilege to make this pilgrimage. Remember the words of Peter encouraging the elect to steadfast because the revelation of Jesus Christ is not far: “In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, so that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 1:6-7)

When the procession would get closer to Jerusalem, the leader would summon the ranks of the procession with Jeremiah 31:6, saying “Arise, and let us go up to Zion, to the Lord our God” at which the people in the group would answer with Psalm122, “I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of Jehovah.” With this in mind, the picture of the 144,000 in Revelation is inescapable: “Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.” (Revelation 14:1) The first fruits, marked with the Father’s name, have finally been dedicated to Him and they have made to Zion, to the Lord: “They were purchased from among men and offered as first fruits to God and the Lamb.” (Revelation14:4)

Finally, when the procession entered the gates of Jerusalem, they sang Psalm 122:2, saying “Our feet stand within they gates, O Jerusalem.” When they reached the Temple Mount, they all sang Psalm 150, “Praise ye Jehovah! Praise God in His sanctuary, Praise Him in the firmament of His power” just as those who came out of the great tribulation and the angels sang in Revelation 7 “Praise and glory and wisdom and thanks and honor and power and strength be to our God for ever and ever. Amen.” (Revelation 7:12) Another noteworthy thing is that the multitude described in Revelation 7 was holding palm branches: "they were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands". This is again, fascinating in its similarity with the fact that the dedication of first fruits was to cease at the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple, which was celebrated much as the feast of the Tabernacles without mourning and fasting, and the crowds using palm branches and singing Psalms to celebrate both the dedication of Biccurim and proclaim the restoration of the Temple to the people after being defiled by Antiochus Epiphanes. How striking and important these seemingly minor details are when later we hear the temple proclamation in Revelation 21:3 where we read: “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will dwell among them, and they shall be His people and God Himself will be among them.” (Revelation 21:3)

When the procession brought the baskets of first fruits to the High Priest, each man carrying a basket would recite Deuteronomy 26:3 “I declare this day to the LORD my God that I have entered the land which the LORD swore to our fathers to give us” after which he would set down the basked of first fruits and continue to recite the rest of the passage which is nothing but a reminder of Israel’s own setting apart from among the nations, deliverance from Egypt and the bringing into the promised land. The man would close this dedication by saying “Now behold, I have brought the first of the produce of the ground which You, O LORD have given me.” Some have pointed out to Jesus’ prayer for his disciples as evidence that His atonement was limited, however Christ’s prayer in John 17 in fact resembles the dedication of the first fruits: “Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.” This hagiazo in verse 17 is a setting apart process, much similar to the setting apart of Biccurim; i.e. Christ is praying that the disciples were to be set apart by the truth, through the word, not just the disciples only, but those who believe in Him through their word. This is specifically a prayer for the dedication of the disciples and their followers as first fruits; the Word set them apart; they were marked as first fruits, and Christ is praying that they may be kept safe and “away from the evil one” while He is no longer with them; the sanctification nature of Christ’s prayer is clear: the first of the elect were being finally set apart, in a typological sense the spring was there, hope for a plentiful harvest was at hand and the harvest would soon take place.

It is more and more evident now that the idea of first century first fruit believers has a much higher and deeper meaning than we first thought. It is also evident that a certain level of familiarity with the Biccurim was being expected by the inspired authors, which is why the first-century audience was not confused at all about the meaning and the relevance of the elect. It is likely that the audience was familiar even with the very exact numbers and percentages required to be given of each harvest, and I would not be surprised if the actual number of first century elect believers matched the percentages required for Biccurim; however this is only my speculation and it is impossible to prove such a thing.

In light of this understanding of the importance of first fruits and their dedication, it is important to return to Romans 11 where Paul discusses how the first fruits relate to the harvest. In Romans 11:16 Paul writes: “If the part of the dough offered as first fruits is holy, then the whole batch is holy; if the root is holy, so are the branches.” This is nothing but a follow-up of his previous thought, “For if their rejection is the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead?” This brings us back to the nature of unlimited atonement of Christ.

Atonement for the whole of the kosmos

One particular passage that came up when discussing the extent of Christ’s atonement was 1 John 2:2 where John writes: “and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.” The stipulation here is that Jesus is the propitiation and offering to God for the whole world.

Some favoring a limited atonement position have suggested that the meaning of world (kosmos) in this instance is not a reference to “all human beings” but to “gentiles.” Someone even quoted several popular commentaries supporting this view. Others have suggested that “world” refers to the “Jews.” In light of the internal evidence and the supposed common authorship of the Gospel of John and the epistles, I would lean more towards the latter suggestion, but even then there appear to be a few insurmountable problems.

In the Romanian language, just as in Greek, we have several words which can be translated as “world.” We have “lume” which can mean “people in general” or even “everyone else in the world” but also could mean “the worldly people, worldliness” (from a Christian perspective). We also have “cosmos” which means “the entire world or universe” and lastly we have “pamint” which can mean literally “the dirt, the planet” or “the people of the planet.” In Greek, things seem to get even more complicated. The inhabited world was “oikomene,” the earth was “ghe,” and “pantes” (all) was sometimes automatically understood to mean all men. Lastly “kosmos” always meant “system, or universe” as in, all the physical creation. In comparison with these examples, English on the other hand seems to have the problem of being much more generic when it comes down to specifically defining all the aspects of some of these words.

With this in mind, it stands to reason that it would be easy for an English-speaking person to read John’s words and misunderstand them, for reasons that are complex in nature. These linguistic, cultural and historical aspects of the text should be looked at carefully. Because we are operating here in a Preterist framework, we should be consistent and true to our assumption that the kosmos, or world, was changed somehow by the return of Christ at the fall of the temple. This is in fact confirmed by John throughout his epistles.

In 1 John 2:15-16 we read (my translation) “do not be loving the system or things in the system; if anyone is loving the system, the love of the father is not in him. For all things in the system, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the showiness of life is not out of the father but out of the system.” I purposefully translated this in a more literal manner for the sake of the conversation, and also purposefully translated kosmos as system because it is evident that John’s use of the word is indicative of his view of the world as a system opposed to, or in opposition to God. Continuing in verse 17, John writes “but the system is passing away, and the lust of it. The one doing the will of God is remaining into the age.” Evidently, John’s contemporary kosmos was in the process of passing away at that time. This seems to give credence to the idea that perhaps the system which John is describing is the system of the Jewish Law, which was indeed passing away at that time. I do disagree however, because the world vs. God theme we see in John’s epistles grows out of his main point: “…and he is the propitiation for our sins, not only for ours, but for the whole of the system.” (1 John 2:2). It therefore makes no sense for John to tell his audience that Christ's propitiation was for "the whole Law" or perhaps "all Jews." Even with this controversy, taking "the whole of kosmos" to mean "gentiles in general" as our Calvinist brothers suggest is simply unacceptable for the reasons already outlined.

Because of the language of the text points to the spiritual aspects of the kosmos (the lust –desire- of it), “the whole of the system” should not be necessarily perceived as including inanimate objects for example. Some extreme dispensationalists would indeed suggest that sin has corrupted even physical inanimate objects, demanding that the physical planet is consequently also corrupted by sin, which means it has to also be destroyed. Note however that John is focusing on the misses, lusts and sins of the system, and unless one can show that rocks and trees can sin, we should confidently affirm that the “whole of the system” is a reference to mankind. As a result, the passage therefore teaches that God’s victory over sin is taking the whole system of the world into a new age where: “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.” (Revelation 21:24) Therefore the change emerging as a result of Christ’s parousia has cosmological implications: the whole of the kosmos passed away – a new heaven and a new earth (a new kosmos) is now in place, where righteousness dwells, where God’s tabernacle is and where God can dwell.

To pre-empt more accusations that I hate Calvin, I will be the first to say that Calvin’s theology is right on the mark; for a futurist that is. Calvin read the Scripture as a futurist, understood atonement as a futurist and perceived election as a futurist. His theology is therefore quite accurate from a futurist perspective, so the doctrine of the elect is hardly something Calvin should be blamed for; eschatology is another story. The surprising thing for me is that Preterists continue to adopt limited atonement and election as if nothing changed in AD 70. The truth is that everything changed!

It must be pointed out that the narrative of God’s deliverance does not start with Abraham; it rather starts with the first offender, Eve. The big picture in the redemptive story is depicting sinless mankind (all of them) before the tree of life. It is depicting the cursed mankind (all of them) “between the trees”, and at last mankind (all of them) after the tree. The nations will be healed by the leaves of the tree (Revelation 22:2); the curse will be no more (Revelation 22:3). We still see a separation between the saved and the lost, though the difference now is that we see the gates of the New Jerusalem being wide open for the whole of the kosmos to enter freely.

The story is universal; the propitiation is universal; the atonement is universal. As offensive as this may sound to a Calvinist, salvation has been made available by God to the holou tou kosmou – the whole of the kosmos. The first fruit elect believers of the first century were chosen to be saved but also to be a first fruit dedication to God, in preparation for the harvest and in acknowledgment that all things ultimately belong to Him:

“I looked, and there before me was a white cloud, and seated on the cloud was one "like a son of man" with a crown of gold on his head and a sharp sickle in his hand. Then another angel came out of the temple and called in a loud voice to him who was sitting on the cloud, "Take your sickle and reap, because the time to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is ripe." So he who was seated on the cloud swung his sickle over the earth, and the earth was harvested.” (Revelation 14)