Paradise Restored

Author:  David Chilton

Book Review by Ed Stevens

Chilton, David. Paradise Restored: A Biblical Theology Of Dominion. Ft. Worth: Dominion Press, 1985. 342 pp. Can be purchased through Great Christian Books, Elkton, MD.

David Chilton is currently serving as pastor of the Church of the Redeemer, in Placerville, California. He and his wife, Darlene, have three children: Nathan, Jacob, and Abigail. He is the author of several books, including: Productive Christians in an Age of Guilt-Manipulators, and Days of Vengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation.

Chilton is a Reconstructionist, believing that all of the Bible, including the Old Testament, is applicable to life today. We are reviewing his work here since, eschatologically, his interpretation of prophecy is preterist, though not consistent preterist. Consistent preterists have much in common with the Reconstructionists, though we will point out where we differ with Mr. Chilton's interpretations in several instances. The Reconstruction movement, like the preterist interpretation of prophecy, is rapidly gaining adherents.

Mr. Chilton’s purpose for writing Paradise Restored is “to present in broad outline a Biblical exposition of the eschatology of dominion.” It also serves as a “prologue” to his commentary on Revelation, Days of Vengeance.

In the opening chapters of Paradise, Chilton establishes principles of interpreting Scripture, then examines some of the language of eschatology. He shows that much of Biblical prophecy uses the imagery of the Paradise of Eden, pointing to the restoration of man to Eden and his original mandate through the sacrifice of Christ. He goes on to demonstrate that, according to the Scriptures, the Kingdom of God was established in the first century A.D. (cf. Dan.2:44; 7:27). This Kingdom, says Chilton, was established, but is not yet present in its “fullness.” He looks for the Second Coming to bring this about. This is the same type of argumentation used by the dispensationalist when he says the prophecy of Joel 2:28-32, quoted by Peter as being fulfilled on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21), was actually only beginning to be fulfilled, and that its complete fulfillment is yet in the future. They, too, are looking to the Second Coming to fulfill this prophecy! In his exposition of Mt.16:28 (“There are some standing here that shall not experience death till they see the Son of man coming in His kingdom”), Chilton claims that Jesus was referring to His ascension. However, this does not adequately deal with the verse which immediately precedes it: “For the Son of man shall come in the glory of His Father with His angels; and then He shall reward every man according to his works” (Mt.16:27). The word translated “coming” is from the verb (Gr. erchomai), which can mean “coming,” or “going.”

If Jesus was referring to His ascension (which is doubtful, considering the context), then what Chilton calls the “Last Judgment” must have also taken place at that time. Yet, he is looking to the future for this event, after the dissolution of the physical universe. As can be seen from the context, Jesus’ “coming in power” was inextricably bound up with the Judgment at the end of the age (compare Rev.20:12). This is still the case if the Lord was speaking, not of His ascension, but of His return. No wonder Mr.Chilton chooses to ignore this preceding verse! He cannot admit to the “Last Judgment” being past because he knows that this would also require the Second Coming to be a past event! I truly appreciate Mr.Chilton’s emphasizing that in order to come to a correct interpretation of the Bible, we must allow Scripture to interpret Scripture. It is unfortunate that he does not follow his own advice more consistently.

Chilton presents evidence, Biblical and secular, that such things as the great tribulation, the apostasy, the antichrist, the last days, the new temple, and the new creation were fulfilled in A.D.70. His Appendix B is especially helpful, which includes a presentation of Josephus’ account of the war, along with Scripture references showing the dramatic fulfillments of the words of Jesus.

While much of this book supports the view that Mt.24 and the book of Revelation refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Mosaic age, the author still rejects the idea that Jesus might at the same time have been referring to His Second Coming. He admits that such verses as Jas. 5:7-9 and 1 Pet. 4:12-13,17 refer to A.D.70, but he does not allow them to refer to the Parousia. “On what basis?” you may well ask. After presenting evidence from the O.T. that the imagery of a “collapsing universe” (darkened sun and moon, falling stars) actually represents God’s judgment on a particular nation, and relating this to Mt. 24, Chilton asks the question: “Since so many prophecies turn out to be references to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.70, how can we be sure that any prophecy refers to a future, literal return of Jesus Christ?” (p.133, emphasis his). Apparently, Mr.Chilton could not answer this question from the Bible, and being unable to accept the consistent preterist position (which he ridicules, calling it “post-everythingism”), he goes for his authoritative answer to the creeds! On p.139, he quotes from the Athanasian Creed, which states that one must believe in a future coming of Christ, a physical resurrection, and a final judgment: “This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved.” (Emphasis added). This creed was composed sometime between the mid-fifth and ninth centuries A.D., placing it 400 to 800 years after the destruction of Jerusalem! The “catholic” (universal) faith during this time period also believed in such things as transubstantiation, purgatory, and the assumption (ascension into heaven) of Mary. The “catholic” church during this time also sanctioned the worship of Mary and the saints, prayers for the dead, and the veneration (worship) of relics. This “catholic” creed was also never accepted by the Orthodox Church in the East. I would be extremely hesitant to use such a document as a final authority in Biblical matters!

The other argument Chilton falls back on in order to reject the consistent preterist interpretation is one used by dispensationalists and premillennialists: the fact that there was not a resurrection of individual physical bodies from their graves in A.D. 70. “The Resurrection of all men is, in the nature of the case, unrepeatable.” Such reasoning is based purely on the assumption that the resurrection must be physical in nature. He then uses this assumption that it has not yet taken place to form a principle of interpretation: “Therefore, wherever the Bible mentions the Resurrection, it is speaking of the Last Day – the final Judgment, the ultimate Day of the Lord” (p.140, emphasis his). We would agree with this statement, but would differ with Mr. Chilton’s assertion that it is still future.

The last section of Paradise is a brief overview and exposition of the book of Revelation. It is interesting that he calls the destruction of Jerusalem “the last blast of the trumpet, signaling that the ‘mystery of God’ was finished (p.170, emphasis his). Why can’t Mr. Chilton see that the Last Days had a Last Day, and that this same “trumpet blast” was that which raised the dead? He is adamant in his insistence that “The Book of Revelation is not about the Second Coming. “...In fact, the word coming as used in the Book of Revelation never refers to the Second Coming” (p.166, emphasis his). He also insists that it “briefly” describes “certain end-time events” (to be found in Rev. 20). It seems that, despite all his claims to the contrary, Chilton is a futurist.

You may or may not agree with Mr. Chilton’s interpretation of the symbols of Revelation, but they are certainly worth noting. He presents well-reasoned arguments to show that the Harlot and False Prophet/Land Beast are apostate Judaism and its leaders, and that the New Jerusalem is the Church. The Sea Beast, he says, is the Roman Empire/Nero.

In spite of our differences with some of Mr. Chilton’s views, we would recommend purchasing this volume, even if it were only for Appendix B! Certainly, this would not be its only usefulness to the student of eschatology. Overall, it clearly supports the consistent preterist viewpoint, combining and summarizing in one book many historical and Biblical references that will enhance the study of anyone desiring to research this subject further.

Articles