View
225
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 3 - A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism - Counsel of Chalcedon
1/3
A BRIEF
THEOLOylCAL ANALYSIS
OF HYPER-PRETERISM
by Rev.
Ken yenhy
From
time
to
time
I
receive
letters
fTom
men declaring themselves
"reconstructionist" and
"consistent
preterist." The "consistent
prelerist"
believes that
all prophecy
is
fulfilled
in the A.D.
70
destruction
of
the
Temple, including
the
Second
Advent, the resurrection
of the dead,
the
great judgment, and so
forth.
Due
to my prima )' writing minist )'
against rapidly changing
dispensationalism, I have not had
time to deal extensively with
the
issue,
but I
do
have
some
random
thoughts that I will make public
in
this article. 11lese thoughts are based
on readings
from
their monthly
publications and books,
of
which I
have a great number,
Let
me
begin
by
noting tha . in
the
first place,
I do not know how
anyone could credibly
claim
to
be
postmillennial and
hyper-pre eris .
nor
do
I understand how
they could
claim to be reconstructionist, while
maintaining their hyper-preterism. If
all prophecy was
fulfilled
in
Ihe
first
centu )' events, then who is
to
say
t
is
the will
of yod
for the gospel to
exercise
world-wide victOlylll1ere is
no
remaining word
of
prophecy
1
infonn
us
of
such.
Furthennore, the
hyper-preterist position cannol be
theonomic in that in their view the
Law
came
to
fulfillment
in
the
passing away
of
the
Jewish order
(Matt.
5:17-19).
So a hyper-pre erist
cannot
be
a reconstructionist
(theonomic poslmillennialist)
on
exegetical
grounds (although
his
heart might wish for
the
reconslructionist worldview).
Furthennore, Ihere are numerous
exegetical and theological problems I
have with
the
hyper-preterist
viewpoint. I deem my
histOlic,
orthodox preterismto be exegetical
preterism (because I
find
specific
passages calling
for
specific
preterisl
events);
I
deem
Max King ilnd Ed
Steven's views to
be theological
prelerism
or
comprehensive
preterism
(Ihey apply exegetical
conclusions
drawn from
several
eschatological
passages to
all
eschalological
passages, because of
their theological
paradigm). Let
me
quickly list some
of my present objections, hopefully I
will
later
find time
to sit down and
work
on
this whole
issue
(since
dispensationalism is in such radical
transition and I have a minist )'
loward dispensationalists, have
tended to focus any
spare time
I
can
afford on dispensationalism).
Creedal Failure
First, hyper-prelerism is
heterodox. It is oulside
of
Ihe
creedal
orthodoxy of
Christianity. No
creed
allows any Second Advent in A.D.
70.
No creed allows any other type
of
resurrection than a bodily one.
Historic
creeds speak of Ihe
universal,
personal
judgment
of
all men,
not
of
a representative judgment
in
A.D.
70.
It would be most remarkable if
the entire church that came through
A.D.
70
missed
the
proper
understanding
of
the
eschaton and
did not realize its members had been
resunected And that
the
next
generations had no inkling
of
the
great transfonnation thai took placei'
Has
the
enlire ChlisJ.ian
church
missed the basic conlours
of
Christian
eschatology
for
its
first
1900
years?
Second, hyper-preterism has
serious
implications for Ihe
perspicuity
of
Scripture. This
viewpoinl not only has implications
for lhe later
creeds,
but for the
instructional abilities
of
the
apostles:
no one in church hislo )' knew
the
20 l' THE COUNSEL
of Chalcedon l' March 1995
major issues of which they spoke
until velY
recently
Are the Scriptures
Ihal impenelrable on an issue of that
significance?
Clement
of
Rome lived
Ihrotlgh A.D.
70
and had no idea he
was resurrected He continued to
look
fOT
a
physical
resurrection
(Clement 50:3). Jude's
(supposed)
grandsons
still
sought a physical
resurrection (cf. Eusebius, EH
3:24:4). Whoever these men were,
Ihey
come
right
out of
the
first
generation and in
the
land
of
Israel
with absolutely no inkling of an
A.D.
70
resurrection or a past Second
Advent.
See
also the Didache
10:5
16:1
ff (first centulY),
IgnatiUS,
Trallians
9:2,
Smyrnaens
2:1 6:1;
Leiter
to Polycarp
3:2 (early
second
centu )'J, Poly
carp 2:1,
6:2 7:1. See
also Papias, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr.
Berkouwer rightly notes that the
reason
the resurrection found early
creedal acceptance was because of the
clear emphasis of
the
New
Testament. The hyper-preterist view
has serious and embarrassing
implications for
the
perspicuity of
Scripture and despite the fact we are
now (supposedly)
in
our resurrected
states and have the outpoured Holy
Spirit
and His
gift of
teachers who
were to protect us
from
eve ), wind of
doctrine (Eph.
4 1
lllird, the hyper-preterist system
leaves
the
New
Covenant Christian
(in
our
post A.D.
70 era)
without a
canon. f all prophecy was fulfilled
prior to A.D.
70
and
if
the entire
New Testament
spoke
to issues in
Ihe
pre-A.D.
70
time fTame, we
do
not have any directly relevant
passages
for us.
11le
entire
New
Testament must
be
transposed before
we
can use
it.
Hermeneutic Failure
Fourth, hyper-preterism suffers
[TOm
serious mars in its
henneneutical methodology. When a
contextually
defined passage
applies
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 3 - A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism - Counsel of Chalcedon
2/3
to
the
AD. 70
event, the
hyper-preterist will
take
all passages
with similar language and apply
them to A.D. 70, as well. But
similarity does not imply identity,
Christ cleansed the
Temple
twice and
in
virtually identical ways;
but the
two events
are not
the same.
Furthennore, we
must
distinguish
sense and referent; there
are
several
types of
"resurrection"
in
Scripture:
the dl)' bones
of Eze.
37,
spirHual
redemption
in
John 5:24, physical
redemption at the
grave in John
5:28;
Israel's renewal
in
Christ
in
Rom.
11 :15; and of the Beast in Rev. 13:3.
I hold that
passages specifically
delimiting the time-frame by
temporal indicators (such as "this
generation, "shortlY," "at hand,
near: and similar wording)
are to
be applied to A.D. 70, but similar
sounding passages mayor may not
be
so applied.
Resurrection Errors
Fifth,
there
is
a serious
problem
with the removal of the physical
resurrection from systematic theology.
Christ's resurrection
is
expressly
declared
to be
the paradigm
of our
own
(1
Cor. 15:2am. Vet we know
that His was a
physicaL
tangible
resurrection
(Luke
24:39), whereas
ours
is
(supposedly) spiritual. What
happens to the
biblically
deRned
analogy between Christ's resurrection
and ours in the hyper-prelerist
system?
Sixth, there
are
numerous other
theological and exegetical
problems
with a spiritual-only resunedion.
For
one thing, the hyper-prcterist view
tends to diminish the significance of
the somatic implications of sin:
Adam's sin had physical effeels,
as
well
as
judicial and spiritual
effects;
where
are
these taken
cme of
in the
hyper-preterist systeml Dealh's
implications are not just judicial and
spirituaL but also physical (Cien.
3:14, 19;
Rom.
6:3).lfChlistians
now are fulfilling the res
urrect
ion
expecl,;hon
of
SClipture,
then the
gnostics of the early Christian
ce
nturies were
correel 111e
physical
world seems to
be
s
uperfluous,
in the
hyp
e
r-preterist
viewpoint. The
anthropology or
hyp
e
r-prctelism is
defedive
in
this,
not
allowing the
theological
significan ce of the body/
soul
nature of man (Cien. 2:7).
111is
can
also have implications
for
the
pel50n of
Christ
ilnd the
reality
of
His humanity.
Seventh, regarding the teaching of
Christ and the Apostles,
we
must
wonder why Paul
was
mocked by
the Cireeks
in Ads 17
for belieVing
in
the resurrection,
if it
weve
nol
a
physical reality. We Inus wonder
why Paul aligned
hinl,self
with the
Pharisees on the
issue
'Of the
resurrection
(Ads 23:6-9,24:15,21).
We
must
wonder why
we
Christians
still
many and
are
given
in
marriage,
since Christ
said in th
e resurrection
we will not marl)' (Luke 20:35). We
must wonder why the apostles never
corrected
the widespread notion
of
a
physical resulTeclion, which was
so
cUlTent in Judaism efJ
osep hus,
Talmud,
etc.).
\Ne
must
wonder why
we
"resurrected"
Christians must yet
die; why should
we
not
leave this
world like Enoch and Elijah?
Furthennore, where and what
is
the
resumelion of the lost Uohn 5; Rev.
20)1 Paul considered Hymeneaus
and Philetus
as
having made
ship-wreck men's
failh by
saying the
resulTection
is
past 2 Tim. 2:17-18).
A wrong view
of the resurrection is
a
serious matter to Paul.
Eighth, practically
wonder
on
the hyper-preterist view what the
difference our resurrection milkes in
this lifel We
get ill ilnd are
weak
on
the
same scale as those prior
to the
AD.
70
resurrection
.
Did
th
is
glorious resurrection of the
"spiritual
body
have no impact on our present
condition ?A hyper-preterist analysis
might
leave
us
to expect
that
Paul
looked
to
AD.
70
as an
agent
of
relief rTOm
the
groanings and the
iemptations of the flesh (Rom. 7:25),
yet
we
still
have such despite the
su
pposed resurrection.
Chrislo[ogy Implicaliol s
Ninth, Acts 1 clearly
dcRnes
Christ's
Second
Advent
in
terms of
His ascension, which was physical
and
visible.
For
example, in Acts
1
8-1
'[
Luke is careful to say
the
disciples
were beholdin
g"
Him
as
He ascended; He was received "from
the eyes of them v . 9b), they were
"gazing"
as
He was "goin
g"
(v. 10);
they were
"looking" (v. 11 ,
they
"beheld" (v. 11 .
Clearly His
ascension was a visible and glorious
phenomenon involving His tangible
resurrected body.
And
there was an
aclual
visible
cloud
associated with
t
. (v. 10). 111e angelic messengers
resolutely declare this same
Jesus"
(i.e" the
Jesus
they knew for over
three
years,
who
is
now
in
a tangible
resurrected
body) will
"so come
in
like
manner
as you
saw Him
go
into
heaven (v. 11 . The Cireek on tropon
literally means what manner: The
Cireek
phrase never indicates mere
certainty or vague resemblance; but
wherever
it occurs In
the
New
Testament, denotes identity of mode
or manner lA. Alexan der, Acts, ad
loc.).
Consequently, we have express
biblical warrant to expect a visible,
bodily,
glorious return
of Christ
paralleling in kind the ascension. The
hyper-preterist
position goes
contral)'
to this clear teaching of Scripture.
Tenth, if A.D. 70 ends the
Messianic reign of
Christ
(cf.
hyper-preterist view
of
1 Cor. 15:24,
28), then the glorious Messianic
era
prophesied throughout the Old
Testament
is reduced to
a
forty
year
inter-rcgnum. Whereas by all accounts
t is
a lengthy, glOriOUS
era.
A problem
with premillennialism
is
that
t
reduces
Christ's
reign to
1000
literal years,
continued o page
March, 1995 I
THE COUNSEL
of Chalcedon
t 21
8/12/2019 1995 Issue 3 - A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism - Counsel of Chalcedon
3/3
OJ
)ubilary Theology
in Ole Gospel
q[
Lulie. (1977. SdlOlia Press
Austin.
Texas). This book
is
a dissertation
pr
ese
nt
ed
to the Faculty
uf"n
,
co
l
ogy
of
the Univers
it
y of Basel.
Sw
itze
rl
and.
[or the Degree o[ Doctor
o[
Th
eo
l
ogy.
The Greek word. DEKTOS.
"favorable.
translates
the
Hebrew
word.
RASON.
which does
no
t
occur
in
Leviticus
25. However
t.he related
(cognate) verb. RASAJ-l,
is
used in the
context oftheJ ubilee legislation. of the
land receiving its due p a ~ n e n t of a
sabbath year fallow in Lev. 26:34. 43.
In the N.T except for
LIe 4:24.
DEKTOS.
refers to GOD'S acceptance.
n e
Hebrew verb. RASAJ-l means t
pay a debt wh
en
referring
to
the one
paying it. or conversely.
to
befavorable'
when refentng
t
God's
acce
p
ta
nce
of.
.and pleasure in the
(nOlmally sac
rifidal)
payment. The Gr
eek
word, APJ-lESIS.
translated. release. is rooted in the
cance
ll
ation ofdebts. To becominueel.
Zeeman Gontlnued from page
12
And
the
eyes of
both of them
were opened.
Si
mil
arly when Jesus
was
on
the road t Emmaus.
And he went in to tarry wi th
them.
And
it came
to
pass
as
he sat at
meat with them he took bread
and blessed it
and brake it
and gave it unto them.
And their
eyes were
opened.
And they knew him.
And
he vanished out of their
sight
and th
ey said
between
themselves:
did not our hear
t5
burnwithin
us?
n
8
l'
THE COUNSEL
of
ChaJcedoll
l'
March . 1995
Mcilhenny continued fr om pag
18
ind ude dying on a cross). but of
everything
He
told the disdples t
teach
th
e Church to
clo
....
A
LL
authori ty h
as
been
give
n to
Mein heaven and oneanh.
Go
therefore
and make di scip les of all
the
nmions
...
lca
ching
th
em
to
observe
all
that I commanded you; anello. I am
witb you always. even to the end of the
ag
e."
(Matt. 28:
18-20)0
GentlY co
nt i
nue from page 21
byper-pTeterism
r
educes it furtheTto forty
YCilrs The prophetical expTe ss
ions
of
th e kingdom tend
to
speak of an
enOTmous
peTiod
of tim
e,
eve n
employing teTms
th
ataTe frequently used
of
etemit
y.
Does
ChTis
t's kingdom
paTallel David's so that it only lasts fOT
the
same time
framel
History and Church Errors
Eleventh,
hyp eT-
pTe
teTists
eternalize
time, by allowing history to continue
forev
e
r.
Th
is
n
ot
only
goes
against
expTess
statem
ents
of Scripture, but
also
ha s Qod dea lin g with a univeTse in
which
sin
will dwell fOTever and
eveT
and
ever.
TIl
ere is no final
conclusion
to
the
matt
er
of
man 's
rebellion; theTe is
no
final
r
ec
koning wilh sin. Christ te
lls us
that
th
e judgment will be againstrcbels
in
thei
r b
odies,
not sp
iritual
bodies (Matt.
10 :28). Th
e
hypeT-preterist sys
tem
does
not reach
back faT enough (to the
Fall
and
the curse
on
th
e physical
wOTld) to
be able to und e
rs
tand the Significance
of
Tedemption as
it moves to a final,
conclusive consummation, Tidding the
cursed world of sin. The full failure of
the
First Adam must be
oveTcome
by
the full success of
th e Second Adam.
Twelfth, hypeTpre terism has serious
negative impli
ca
ti
ons
for
ecclesiastical
labor. Is the
Qrcat Commission
delimited to the
pTe-A.D. 70 era,
due
10
the interpret
at ion
of the end by
hypeT-pTete
ri
sts (Ma
tt
.
8:20)1
Is the
Lord 's Suppersupernuous today,
ha
v
ing
bee.n
fulfil
led in Christ's (al
lege
d)Second
Advent in A.D .
70
1 Cor.
11:26)?Q
Recommended