Archive for hyper preterism
Why Hyper-Preterism Teaches A “Different Gospel”
Within the past week or so, a debate has arisen regarding the question of whether or not Hyper-Preterism presents a “different Gospel” from that of Futurist orthodoxy. Quotes have been offered from both sides — the general consensus of Futurists being that H.P. does, in fact, teach a different Gospel; while Hyper-Preterists insist that their system is a viable expression of Christianity, which maintains the same Christ, the same salvation, and the same “good news.”
But is the Hyper-Preterist position tenable? My answer is that it is not. In fact, I believe it can be demonstrated that Hyper-Preterism presents a message diverse from anything endorsed throughout the history of the church, and that, ergo, it stands in a class of its own. When seen in its proper light, it is evident that Hyper-Preterism teaches a new Gospel. And Paul pronounces all such teachers as under the curse (Galatians 1: 8-9).
But while a hue and cry may be raised regarding my conclusions in this matter, I trust the reader will bear with me as I adduce a few reasons in support of my thesis that Hyper-Preterism promulgates a Gospel different from “that we have received.”
*************
Firstly, the concept of “salvation” endorsed by Hyper-Preterism is radically different from that which Futurists espouse. Historically, Christians have always believed that salvation involves redemption from the consequences of Adam’s fall. These include moral and physical death as well as indwelling sin. That is, we see the results of Adam’s fall as being not simply moral in nature, but physical and anthropological as well. Paul writes, again and again, that the “entire man” is covered by Christ’s redemptive plan (see 1 Thessalonians 5: 23; Romans 8: 11; 1 Corinthians 6: 13-20; Ephesians 1: 14).
On the other hand, Hyper-Preterists generally see Adam’s fall as having “covenantal” and “spiritual” implications alone. So the question naturally arises: do Futurists and Hyper-Preterists view “salvation” differently? Of course they do. Hyper-Preterists do not believe in the redemption of the physical body; and as they teach that Christ’s salvific work was fully consummated in A.D. 70, they deny (notwithstanding Paul’s expectation in Romans 7: 24) that the sin indwelling our members will ever be eradicated. This marks a sharp division between Hyper-Preterism and Futurism, which latter system holds that all of the physical, somatic, and anthropological effects of Adam’s fall will be eradicated at Christ’s second coming. Hyper-Preterists cannot possibly agree with this proposition, because they claim that Christ returned in A.D. 70, fulfilling all prophecy! From this it is obvious that Hyper-Preterists and Futurists define “salvation” differently. And so the substance of our respective “Gospels,” which reveal not only the fact of salvation, but what we are saved from, is fundamentally different.
Then, there is the matter of Jesus Christ’s atoning work on the Cross. Christians have historically held that Christ’s physical death on Calvary’s cross forms the basis of His atoning work (Colossians 1: 22; 1 Peter 2: 24). Because Christ paid the wages of sin (Romans 6: 23) on the Cross, becoming our substitute as the Second Adam (2 Corinthians 5: 21), Hyper-Preterists cannot possibly hold that those “wages” involve physical death — else their theological system would be invalidated. So they reject the notion that the physical death of Christ was substitutionary in nature. That of course, is consistent with their conviction that the body must die, and that there will be no future physical resurrection. The Hyper-Preterist concept of the atonement logically leads to the view that Christ’s physical death had no redemptive/theological significance beyond serving as a “sign” of some spiritual/covenantal transaction from which the atonement derives its real efficacy.
The third element I would like to point out, is the fact that Futurism bases its teachings on the assumed authority of the New Testament canon; whereas Hyper-Preterists propose to re-evaluate the canon in light of allegedly fulfilled events. H.P. therefore posits a set of teachings distinctly different from those delivered by Jesus Christ and His inspired apostles. The Hyper-Preterist conclusions are based on the application of a “critical-historical” hermeneutic, which essentially views the New Testament canon as having less authority those who seek to re-codify its teachings on the basis of “internal evidence” and deductive logic. Such a method is dangerous in the extreme, and reeks of German rationalism and Aristotelian chicanery. Dr. Paul Lee Tan was certainly correct when he wrote: “By misunderstanding the concept of Sitz im Lebem (life situation of the prophets), liberals eviscerate the practical relevance of the Scripture on the altar of the historical” (The Interpretation of Prophecy, pg. 103).
In consideration of these facts, it is therefore safe to allege that since the Hyper-Preterist concept of “salvation” comes from interpreting the Gospels in a non-canonical fashion, their teachings result in a Gospel distinctly foreign to that of Futurism, which interprets God’s message of salvation within the confines of canonical relevancy.
That said, there are many other disparities between Hyper-Preterism and Futurism which could be broached to good effect in demonstration of my thesis. However, I trust that the above points prove sufficiently to any rational enquirer, that Hyper-Preterists do, beyond any shadow of a doubt, teach “another Gospel.” Far from being anything like ours, it is founded on different plan of salvation, a different view of the atonement, and a different hermeneutic altogether. Let it be “anathema.”
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.
The Deceitful Poison Of Preterist Theology
In my 2008 article entitled “What Preterists Really Want,” I pointed out the little-known fact that Preterism has an agenda. That agenda is to put as much of the New Testament canon out of the way as it can — by rendering it obsolete — so that a new “replacement theology” and “new Gospel” may be promulgated. Because of this, it is no surprise to find so many Preterists adopting a “social Gospel” of world-betterment (a la Gary DeMar), or becoming more and more divisive and un-Christian (a la “SGP“) as their doctrines logically develop. The times are noisy with novelties of all shapes and colors, and Preterism is one of them.
Preterism is a form of liberal intellectualism. Its adherents do not hesitate to use “higher critical” (and even atheistic!) arguments in defense of their thesis that Christ invisibly “returned” in A.D. 70. This trend has been brought to the front again and again, by some of the chief proponents of Preterism. Rather than submit to the authority of Scripture, these men exalt their intellects over the Word of God, and seek to become daring “exegetes.” Their doctrines, however, produce a bitter harvest of misgivings and falsehoods.
Instead of moving Christians to a closer walk with Jesus, Preterism drives them off the foundation of a firm and steady faith, launching them into a sea of hypetheses and abstractions. The clarity of Biblical revelation is exchanged for philosophical conjectures and morbid broodings that well-nigh enter the misty frontiers of Origenism. Confusion and dissatisfaction are always the net result of such a theology.
Moreover, Preterism leaves its votaries with a bitter taste in their mouths. Once having accepted these doctrines, Preterists become combative and contentious, spitting pent-up venom at the faith they once knew and loved. They wax cynical and sarcastic, and soon plunge into the depths of world conformity, making secular Gentilism their default worldview. They pitch their tents toward Sodom, and even join in its civil and political activities. All the while, they flatter themselves with the misguided notion that they are leavening the world.
In the past few years, I have had too many dealings with Preterists to believe that they have brought anything of positive value into the church. What they have mainly sought to do is inject sly doubts into the arms of God’s faithful, and poison the wells of Gospel Christianity with the wormwood of academic liberalism.
But Christianity is Christ, not a cult. Those who believe they are true Christians, and yet accept Preteristic theology as the truth of God’s word, need to ask themselves a searching question. Under what form of theology were they first saved? – Preterism, or Futurism? An honest answer will point these pilgrims in the direction they need to go; which approximates where they were when they first turned aside.
Although we stand in the 21st century, Christ’s message to the lapsed Ephesians rings loud and clear. “Nevertheless, I have somewhat against thee, because thou has left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou hast fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of thy place, except thou repent” (Rev. 2: 4-5).
Leaving the liberalistic concoctions of Preterism to re-embrace the truth, may involve a bit of sacrifice. It certainly demands bravery. Of course, those who have something to lose will be last in line when it comes to amending their theology. Those who have nothing to lose must still seek the Spirit’s conviction before they can reasonably be expected to drop what they believed for what they once thought was right. But let us not limit the power of God. Let us pray for those who are immersed in this system, knowing that Christ alone hath power to deliver errant saints from the nets of Satan, that they may again sing His praises and await His return with joy.
The Bitter Fruit Of Replacement Theology
Since I started reading “A House Divided” a couple days ago, I’ve become convinced that the ongoing war between orthodox- and Full- Preterists is the harvest of decades of Anti-Semitism pent up in Reformed circles. Although I disagree with the conclusions of the authors, in a way I am glad that the dirty laundry of Replacement Theology is starting to see the light of day.
On pg. 227 of “House Divided,” Sam Frost boldly admits that the view of Israel as the “Great Whore” of Rev. 17 was first suggested by the Jesuit J. Hardouin (1646-1729). In other words, Sam agrees that the Preterist view was birthed right out of Jesuitry. Bingo! This is what I’ve been saying for months. Preterism is really the “organic development” of Roman Catholic dominionism, which began in the 4th century when the institutional church defected to Rome. Whereas Hyper-Preterism is the organic development of pagan Gnosticism which has always more-or-less perched at the threshold of institutional Christianity. It follows the tradition of Simon Magus, Menander, Basilides, Saturninus, Carpocrates, and others.
It is interesting to note that Sam & Co. are writing from a “Reformed” perspective, which means that they see the Protestant church as having replaced Israel — just as RCC claims that IT has replaced Israel. Do you see the irony?? Both “churches” claim that they represent true Christianity, and both claim to have inherited all the promises made to national Israel. And yet, as Dave Green points out on pgs. 8-9 of “House Divided,” the authors of WSTTB used a “carpet bombing” approach in combating Preterism. They utilized a variety of diverse (and often contradictory) arguments in an attempt to disprove Hyper-Preterism. This means that the most eminent doctors of the Reformed church cannot even agree among themselves!
But according to Sam & Co., such a confused and discordant body has stepped into Israel’s place as premiere among the nations. Well, The RCC claims the same thing; and it has 2,000 years of “exegesis” and all the ecumenical councils and creeds on its side. So what we have are two institutional churches that contradict one another. But at least the Roman church agrees with itself! Whereas the Reformed church cannot even get a consensus on eschatology — as Sam & Co. have admirably pointed out in their book.
Yes, I do believe that what we are seeing is the bitter fruit of Replacement Theology. And while the professed saints are haggling, Israel is now making preparations to rebuild the temple. I know some people will hate me for pointing this out. But these things are true. Israel is the wife (Rev. 19: 7), who will yet be “married to the Lord” (Isaiah 54: 4-8; 62: 4; Hosea 2: 16-20).
As for the “harlot,” let her take a long look in the mirror and note her defects, lest she get too proud.
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!
