Archive for full preterism
Firstfruits And Harvest
One of the things which Hyper-Preterists often ignore in their formulation of the doctrine of the resurrection, is the correspondence between firstfruits and harvest, which is explained in the law. According to Moses, the firstfruits sheaf is always waved first, as a pledge and earnest of the ingathering (Leviticus 23: 9-11). Moreover, the firstfruits and harvest are always of the same kind and nature. If we speak of a firstfruits of barley, then the harvest is also of barley; if of wheat, then the same rule applies.
What Hyper-Preterists do is change this fixed rule, and make the harvest something distinctly different from the firstfruits. Most of them agree that Christ’s physical resurrection was the firstfruits of a yet future resurrection of God’s people. However, because they view the latter as spiritual or “covenantal,” they essentially view the Lord as one who came not to fulfill the law, but to break it — thus invalidating Christ’s own declaration that He came to fulfill the law! See Matthew 5: 17.
It should be admitted, that as violator of the law, Christ could never have been that perfect lamb of God, Who came to do His Father’s will. He would (according to H.P.’s) have been the imperfect Lamb of God, Who came to alter His Father’s will. This is why we orthodox Christians consistently point out that the Hyper-Preterist Christ is different from the One that all Christians know and love. A look at the firstfruits and harvest will bring these facts into sharper profile, that we may understand why Hyper-Preterism is a perversion of true Christianity.
The Pauline concept of resurrection holds that Christ was the firstfruits of them that slept (1 Corinthians 15: 20). This implies a future harvest of the same kind and nature. The Greek verb Englished “to sleep” is koimaomai, which means to fall asleep involuntarily. It occurs 18 times in the New Testament, and is unquestionably used in the sense of physical death. See Matthew 27: 52; 28: 13; Luke 22: 45; John 11: 1-12; Acts 7: 60; 13: 36; 1 Corinthians 7: 39; 11: 30; 15: 6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thessalonians 4: 13, 14, 15; 2 Peter 3: 4.
We take it that the firstfruits sheaf was presented when Christ + “many bodies of the saints” (Matthew 27: 52-53) arose from their tombs, appearing unto many as proof that they had been physically resurrected (cf. 1 Corinthians 15: 5-7). To Christ were given the keys of hell and of death (Revelation 1: 18). He used these keys once when He raised the firstfruits saints. He will use them again, when He returns at the end of the age to gather those Who are “in Him.”
Paul declares that the harvest will occur at Christ’s parousia (1 Corinthians 15: 23). Parousia is a technical term which occurs 24 times in the New Testament. Eschatologically it is used when referring to Christ’s personal return to earth, as “Son of Man.” Peter affirms that he had gotten a foreglimpse of Christ’s parousia when on the Mount of Transfiguration (2 Peter 1: 16-18). It will therefore be visible and glorious. See Mark 9: 2-3.
Now, Paul’s concept of the “resurrection harvest” of saints shows that it is of the same kind and nature as the firstfruits. He writes: “But every man in his own rank (Gr. tagma): Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s, at His parousia.” The expression “they that are Christ’s” manifestly excludes the wicked dead, who are raised at the close of the Millennium. They belong to the last rank, or tagma, and are not included in the harvest.
What saith Paul concerning this harvest? He writes: “Behold, I show you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (1 Corinthians 15: 51). Again, the verb for “sleep” is koimaomai. Paul’s terminology proves beyond question that the resurrection of believers will be physical, as harvest to firstfruits. As Christ was the firstfruits of them that slept, so they who live unto Christ’s coming will not sleep (i.e., physically die). See 1 Thessalonians 4: 14-17. The abolition of death for the believer is pictured in Isaiah 25: 8. It is connected with the recalling of Israel and the destruction of the heathen. It ushers in the Millennium.
As events connected with the end (Gr. sunteleia) of the age have never yet taken place, we conclude that the harvest (and therefore the parousia) is yet future. Our prophetic outlook is precisely the same as that of the first-century saints. “For our seat of government already exists in heaven; from whence we also look for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ: Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things to Himself” (Philippians 3: 20-21). Certainly this Scripture was not exhausted or “maxed out” by anything that happened in A.D. 70. And if not, then it remains in the prophetic foreview of the church.
The saints are not waiting to “die, and go to heaven” — as some men unscripturally suppose. Rather, we are waiting for the coming of the King (see above text), at which time the redemption of the whole man (body, soul, and spirit) will be complete (1 Thessalonians 5: 23). Then will the Lord gather the pure wheat of the church into His barn, and we shall shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of our Father (Matthew 13: 43). Maranatha!
Hyper-Preterism’s Resurrection Error
The doctrines of Hyper-Preterism teach that Jesus Christ’s second advent happened in A.D. 70, at the fall of Herod’s temple, and that the resurrection of believers – indeed, of all men – happened at that time. In order to bolster their strange theory, H.P.’s spiritualize every eschatological passage that speaks of resurrection. They also employ a “critical-historical” hermeneutic, which narrows down all eschatological fulfillment to the first century.
Whence did this doctrine arise? Hyper-Preterism was first invented by 19th century liberals and academics, who not seldom wedded the doctrine of “past fulfillment” to a universalistic soteriology. It is basically an ultra-intellectualized form of Christianity, which seeks to give the natural man a sound basis for dismissing the supernatural elements of Scripture, relegating predictive prophecy to historical events that are now past.
What Hyper-Preterism does to the Christian doctrine of the resurrection is simply deplorable. H.P.’s cannot deny that death passed upon all men through Adam’s transgression (Romans 5: 12). But because they see that it is God’s ultimate purpose to abolish death (which didn’t happen in A.D. 70), they change the nature of Adamic death to mean a mere “separation from God.” According to them, it was this spiritual separation that was cast into the lake of fire in A.D. 70!
The Hyper-Preterist theory means, of course, that when Christ died on the cross, He did not pay the penalty for Adam’s transgression. Some Hyper-Preterists are so bold as to say that the cross was merely a “sign.” That is, the shedding of Christ’s blood on Calvary has no objective efficacy in the work of savlation. It was not Christ’s physical death that provided atonement, but His spiritual separation from God. A more heretical concept we can scarcely imagine.
In answering the Hyper-Preterist, I think it is needful to say that Christ did exactly what was needed of Him to pay the sin-debt – no more, no less. His physical death on the cross defines Adamic death. In fact, if death is not physical in nature, then the physical death and resurrection of Christ have no theological or redemptive significance whatever.
Paul writes: “For the wages of sin is death. But the gift of God is eternal life” (Romans 6: 23).
Remember, it was because Christ was “without sin” that He arose from the dead, becoming the “firstfruits” of them that slept (1 Cor. 15: 20). According to the law, a firstfruits always ensures a future harvest – of the same kind and nature. Christ was physically resurrected along with many saints, as presentation of the firstfruits sheaf (Matt. 27: 52-53). The resurrection of the firstfruits saints demonstrates that Christ has the keys of hell and of death. He used them when He raised that glorious company.
In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul leaves no doubt that the resurrection harvest will occur at Christ’s parousia. He also says: “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed” (1 Corinthians 15: 51). Since Christ’s physical death is substitutionary in nature, there is no reason why Christians must die! Redemption is not merely a negative blessing, but a positive one. Although we shall not all die, we shall all be resurrected. The Scriptures teach us that are to await the Lord’s coming (1 Thessalonians 1: 10); knowing that He Who rose as firstfruits will also return to gather the ripened grain into His barn.
Eschatology is not as difficult a matter as Hyper-Preterists suppose. As always, however, the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2: 14). Let us not be so foolish as those Athenians, who mocked when they heard the Biblical doctrine of resurrection (Acts 17: 32). But let us acknowledge His power toward usward who believe, as we wait in simplicity and patience for His blessed return.
Jesus Christ Refutes Hyper-Preterism
“Behold my hands and My feet, that it is I myself: handle Me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have… And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them” (Luke 24: 39, 42, 43).
This scene took place on the evening of Christ’s resurrection. Our Lord had been raised since early morning, but we do not have a full record of what He did or where He went that day. A few hours earlier, though, He had appeared to two of His disciples on the road to Emmaus, and had sat down to meat with them when they arrived at the village. Then He disappeared (see Luke 24: 13-31).
Just that morning, He had forbidden Mary Magdalene to touch Him, “For,” said He, ”I am not yet ascended to My Father” (John 20: 17). When He appeared to the eleven at evening, however, He gave them permission to handle Him, that they might see that He was no spirit, but truly flesh and bone (cf. 1 John 1: 1). This proves that sometime between morning and evening, Christ had ascended into heaven in His physical body.
While some Christians may scoff at the idea of there being more than one ascension, he/she need only compare the two accounts which Luke gives in Luke 24: 50-51 and Acts 1: 9-11, and they’ll see that two different ascensions are mentioned. The ascension recorded in Luke happened on the evening of the resurrection; whereas that recorded in Acts occurred after a period of 40 days of instruction concerning the kingdom (Acts 1: 3). Surely Luke was not making a “mistake” when he wrote of more than one ascension.
For all we know, Christ may have ascended and descended many times prior to His final taking up in Acts 1: 9. The fact that on the evening of the resurrection He told His disciples to touch Him, indicates that He had ascended at least once prior to His appearance to the eleven. But since He appeared in His physical body, it is equally clear that He must have ascended in His own body!
Take the argument a step further. How did Christ ascend in Acts 1: 9? If Christ had previously went to heaven in His own body, then there was no need for Him to divest Himself of His humanity in Acts 1: 9. And remember what the angels said:
“Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? This same Jesus, Which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven” (Acts 1: 11).
Ouch! The Hyper-Preterist has no refuge, except to create a non-Biblical ascension, which I’ve already showed lacks Scriptural precedence. True, Paul said that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incoruption” (1 Cor. 15: 50). But Hyper-Preterists forget that Christ didn’t say: “Behold, I am flesh and blood.” He said: “Behold, I am FLESH and BONE.” There is a difference!
Also, after Christ rose from the dead, He was no longer subject to corruption.
“For Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt Thou suffer Thine Holy One to see corruption” (Psalm 16: 10)
“Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him” (Romans 6: 9).
Therefore, from Christ’s appearance in His physical body AFTER an ascension into heaven, we may infer that He physically ascended into heaven when He sat down on the right hand of God. And that proves that Christ will return in His physical body.
Hyper-Preterism stands refuted!
It’s a Funny, Silly, Goofy Old World (That Hyper-Preterists Live In)
One of the favorite arguments that Hyper-Preterists employ to “win” an argument is the concept that they call “audience relevance.” This doctrine, as developed by Hyper-Preterists, is really a subtle perversion of the grammatical/historical/contextual mode of interpretation.
Hyper-Preterists will say that when a prophecy was addressed within a first-century time-frame, it had to be fulfilled THEN, or else the person making the prediction is a false prophet. Since no Christian will ever agree to such a proposition, Hyper-Preterists think they have a rock-solid argument for their view that the second advent happened in A.D. 70.
Before you get uptight and uncomfortable, or start to admit that Hyper-Preterists MAY have a valid point, let us show the silliness of the Hyper-Preterist view, which reveals “their world” as something quite different from that of ordinary Christians.
A good example of H.P.’s ”audience relevance” argument is found in the Olivet Discourse, where Christ says: “Then shall they deliver YOU up to be afflicted, and shall kill YOU; and YE shall be hated of all nations for My name’s sake” (Matt. 24: 9).
The typical Hyper-Preterist will point to this verse, and insist that the personal pronoun “YOU” refers to the original hearers of the discourse. And of course, they are right.
But their interpretation is wrong for this very reason. For in verses 15-21, Christ says: “When YE therefore shall see the abomination of desolation… then let them which be in Judea flee into the mountains… for then shall be Great Tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.”
Mark’s account of the same discourse informs us that the original hearers were Peter, James, John, and Andrew (see Mark 13: 3). So, according to Hyper-Preterists, if all of these men did not see the abomination of desolation, then Christ is a false prophet.
We must infer that either Christ or Hyper-Preterists are mistaken; since James (the brother of John) was killed by Herod several years before the outbreak of the Jewish war (see Acts 12: 1-2). Plus, there is no record that any of the other three apostles were in Jerusalem when the tribulation began. Therefore, by Hyper-Preterism’s own admission, our Lord was a false prophet. This is why Hyper-Preterists should not be considered as Christians.
Another example of the same argument may be culled from the epistles of Paul. Although 2 Corinthians 5: 1-5 is a much disputed passage (as to its precise interpretation by Preterists), all Hyper-Preterists agree that Paul is talking about the resurrection that will take place at the Lord’s second advent. A comparison of these verses with 1 Cor. 15: 51-54 will confirm this.
In both passages, however, Paul places himself among the number of those who hoped to be tranformed without dying. He uses the pronoun “WE” and “US.”
(1 Cor. 15: 51) “Behold, I show you a mystery; WE shall not all sleep, but WE shall be changed.”
(2 Cor. 5: 5) “Now He That hath wrought US for the selfsame thing [i.e., transformation without dying, as indicated by verse 4] is God, Who also hath given unto US the earnest of the Spirit.”
The question to ask Hyper-Preterists is this: Do the pronouns “we” and “us” include the apostle who is writing? If so – and who is so foolish as to say “no”? – then it is clear that a “remaining alive” unto the parousia of Christ was Paul’s expectation when he wrote.
Now, ask the Hyper-Preterist another question: Was Paul alive in A.D. 70? No, he was not. Paul died during the reign of Nero, in A.D. 68. Well, according to Hyper-Preterist reasoning, that fact makes Paul a false prophet. Again, since this is what Hyper-Preterists really believe, they should not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be considered Christians.
It should be noted, that sometimes this flaky argument is used by Partial Preterists of an extreme mindset. Folks like Gary DeMar stress the use of personal pronouns in prophetic literature, and imply that since the prophecies were addressed to THEM, their fulfillment must be past. But how any Partial Preterist can hope to use this argument and remain standing on his/her two pegs, is a matter beyond our comprehension. It’s similar to a toddler trying to hoist a gallon of milk “all by himself.”
The fact is, that both Christ and Paul DID place the parousia in a first-century time frame. However, indications of a “near” parousia were never offered as peremptory declarations! The fulfillment of the parousia was (and still is) conditional on Jewish national repentance (Matt. 23: 39; Acts 3: 19-21; Hosea 5: 15). Since Israel never repented in the first century, the second advent never materialized; and thus it and all related prophecies await a future fulfillment. Because Hyper-Preterists wrongly view the time indicators as peremptory statements, their whole theology gets overthrown when we show that the original audience never saw fulfillment.
It happens these bloopers are common events, though, in the funny, silly, goofy, and irrelevant world that Hyper-Preterists choose to live in.
How To Refute Preterism: Part 1: “Smash Preterism Now”
Brian Simmons has launched a new audio series entitled “How To Refute Preterism,” in which he showcases the inconsistency and foolishness of Preterist eschatology. In this first episode of the series, Brian shows that an A.D. 70 parousia means an A.D. 70 resurrection — proving that Partial Preterism is wrong on timing, while Hyper-Preterism is wrong on nature. As these two systems of Preterism cancel each other out, the obvious conclusion is that the Futurist view of Christ’s coming is correct!
Listen now: http://antipreterist.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/smashpreterismnow.mp3
The Covenant Creation Fiasco
Well, I said that I wasn’t going to write anything else about the Hyper-Preterist movement. However, because things have gotten so out of hand among them, an update is needed to inform Christians as to what is going on. It’s too bad that both of the rival factions involved in this controversy have restricted access to their sites, so it’s not easy getting the facts. However, here they are.
For those who don’t know, Covenant Creationism is a view which teaches that the creation account of Genesis 1 is purely symbolic in nature. For a while I’ve been saying that this is the logical corollary of claiming that the destruction mentioned in 2 Peter 3 is “figurative” or “covenantal” in nature — something that nearly all Preterists teach. Since the heavens and earth of Revelation 21 are antitype to the creation of Genesis 1: 1, it is natural to conclude that if one is non-literal, the other is non-literal as well.
This view of Covenant Creationism was invented by Tim Martin and Jeff Vaughn. They wrote a book called “Beyond Creation Science,” which has been lauded on various Hyper-Preterist forums – especially on Planet Preterist, an extremely liberal site run by Virgil Vaduva, an associate of emergent leader Brian McLaren. Although Martin is the brains behind the book, Vaughn is a professional scientist with a Ph.D., and so his name gives luster and respectability to their joint effort.
While for the past year or so, Hyper-Preterists within the quasi-conservative faction have tried to fence off these liberal views, and prevent them from infiltrating their fold, Covenant Creationism has now become a formidable problem which won’t go away. A furious battle is therefore being waged between the members of two rival “social networks.” The conservative network, Sovereign Grace Preterism, is run by Jason Bradfield — otherwise known as “King Neb” (short for Nebuchadnezzar). The more liberal network (known as “Death Is Defeated”) is administered by John Scargy, a weird individual who operates under different names. The ground of controversy is, ironically, whether the creation account is literal, or figurative.
Strange though it sounds, Martin & Vaughn have purchased some credibility by affirming that the early church taught some forms of their doctrine, and that Jewish apocalyptic literature contains references to certain of the concepts they put forward. The conservatives are now crying over this use of “extra Biblical” sources by the Covenant Creationists. And yet this is exactly what they have been doing for years, shamelessly using Josephus and other non-inspired writers as “authorities” for their fanciful interpretations. So they can’t really complain. They are merely getting a dose of their own medicine.
This reminds me that Preterism is a movement now collapsing on several fronts, through radicalization of its core teachings. The Partial preterists are being eaten away from within by Hyper-Preterists, while the Hyper-Preterists are eating away at themselves. Although it is a mere application, and not an interpretation, a verse from the prophet Isaiah comes to mind:
“And he shall snatch on the right hand, and be hungry; and he shall eat on the left hand, and they shall not be satisfied: they shall eat every man the flesh of his own arm: Manasseh, Ephraim; and Ephraim, Manasseh: and they together shall be against Judah” (Isaiah 9: 20).
Of course, “Judah” may be used to represent Biblical Christianity in general; while Ephraim and Manasseh can stand for partial Preterism and Full Preterism. Or, they can just as aptly represent the two factions within Hyper-Preterism — “Judah” standing for Christians who take their Bibles literally. While these are the common enemy, the Preterists have no peace among themselves, but are ever at war, always working to destroy one another. What accounts for such hatred? The root cause is, departure from the teachings of Biblical Christianity. The Bible doesn’t say Jesus already came, but that He will come! Until these prophecies are actually fulfilled (with a literality that matches realization of those regarding His first advent), no man has a warrant for throwing them into the past — regardless of how many proof-texts he may imagine he has on his side.
One would think that the conservative Hyper-Preterists, seeing the inconsistency, and reacting against the absolute anarchy of the Covenant Creationist view, would wake up and realize that the futurist interpretation is correct after all. But it seems they are as blind as ever. Does Jesus Christ have to be crucified afresh for these people to acknowledge (or rather, remember) that Christ purchased the creation with His blood, and that He will one day return to redeem it? Apparently nothing less than a miracle will make them see the light.
Regardless, it is clear by this time that Covenant Creationism represents the “tomorrow” of the Hyper-Preterist movement. It is really a more consistent form of what conservative H.P.’s already teach regarding the creation motif.
Of course, someone like myself has to ask how far one can push even THESE doctrines. Well, if history is really written in symbols, then the next logical step would be to view the Gospels as pure allegory, and not history. All it would take is some smarty-pants liberal to write a book affirming that the story of Jesus is merely a poetic allegory of “man’s need for redemption, which theme runs throughout all the great religions of the world.” If such a thought sends icicles up your spine, just remember that the Bible predicts this (or something like it) as the culmination of that ”apostasia” which will precede Christ’s return to earth.
“…Who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction” (2 Peter 2: 1).
Unless you are a religious humanist, or are living in a marine bunker, you won’t deny that things HAVE been getting worse and worse for Christianity. However, if it’s any consolation, just remember that things are getting bad even for cults like Hyper-Preterism. Whether the whole program will crash tomorrow, we don’t know. But those who in the face of all obstacles, believe what God tells them, and patiently wait for the glorious appearing of our Lord and Savior, keeping their focus on Him alone, will win in the end.
