1995 Issue 3 - A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism - Counsel of Chalcedon

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


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


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

Documents

1995 Issue 3 - A Brief Theological Analysis of Hyper-Preterism - Counsel of Chalcedon