In the following brief article, Kenneth Gentry presents his analysis of
preterism: specifically what he refers to as "hyper-preterism."
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
A Brief Theological Analysis Of Hyper-Preterism
by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
From time to time I receive letters from men declaring themselves
"Reconstructionist" and "consistent preterist." The "consistent preterist"
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 primary writing ministry 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. These thoughts are based on readings from their monthly
publications and books, of which I have a great number.
Let me begin by noting that, in the first place, I do not know how anyone
could credibly claim to be postmillennial and hyper-preterist, nor do I
understand how he could claim to be Reconstructionist, while maintaining his
hyper-preterism. If all prophecy was fulfilled in the first-century events,
then who is to say it is the will of God for the gospel to exercise
world-wide victory? There is no remaining word of prophecy to inform us of
such. Furthermore, the hyper-preterist position cannot be theonomic in that
in its view the Law came to fulfillment in the passing away of the Jewish
order ( Mt. 5:17-19 ). So a hyper-preterist cannot be a Reconstructionist
(theonomic postmillennialist) on exegetical grounds (although his heart
might wish for the Reconstructionist world view).
Furthermore, there are numerous exegetical and theological problems I have
with the hyper-preterist viewpoint. I deem my historic, orthodox preterism
to be exegetical preterism (because I find specific passages calling for
specific preterist events); I deem Max King and Ed Stevens' views to be
theological preterism or comprehensive preterism (they apply exegetical
conclusions drawn from several eschatological passages to all eschatological
passages, because of their theological paradigm). Let me quickly list some
of my present objections; it is hoped that 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 ministry toward dispensationalists, I have
tended to focus any spare time I can afford on dispensationalism).
Creedal Failure
First, hyper-preterism is heterodox. It is outside the 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
the 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 resurrected! And that the next
generations had no inkling of the great transformation that took place! Has
the entire Christian church missed the basic contours of Christian
eschatology for its first 1900 years?
Biblical Perspicuity
Second, hyper-preterism has serious implications for the perspicuity of
Scripture. This viewpoint not only has implications for the later creeds,
but for the instructional abilities of the apostles: no one in church
history knew the major issues of which they spoke -- until very recently!
Are the Scriptures that impenetrable on an issue of that significance?
Clement of Rome lived through A. D. 70 and had no idea he was resurrected!
He continued to look for 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, they came 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; 16:1ff
(first century); Ignatius; Trallians 9:2; Smyrnaens 2:1; 6:1; Letter to
Polycarp 3:2 (early second century); Polycarp 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 that 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 every wind of doctrine
( Eph. 4 )!
No Canon
Third, the hyper-preterist system leaves the New Covenant Christian (in our
post-A. D. 70 era) without a canon. If all prophecy was fulfilled prior to
A. D. 70 and if the entire New Testament spoke to issues in the pre-A. D. 70
time frame, we do not have any directly relevant passages for us. The entire
New Testament must be transposed before we can use it.
Hermeneutic Failure
Fourth, hyper-preterism suffers from serious errors in its hermeneutical
methodology. When a contextually defined passage applies to the A. D. 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. Furthermore, we must distinguish sense and
referent; there are several types of "resurrection" in Scripture: the dry
bones of Ez. 37; spiritual 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 may or 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. 15:20ff) . Yet we know that
his was a physical, tangible resurrection ( Lk. 24:39 ), whereas ours is
(supposedly) spiritual. What happens to the Biblically defined analogy
between Christ's resurrection and ours in the hyper-preterist system?
Anthropological Errors
Sixth, there are numerous other theological and exegetical problems with a
spiritual-only resurrection. For one thing, the hyper-preterist view tends
to diminish the significance of the somatic implications of sin: Adam's sin
had physical effects, as well as judicial and spiritual effects; where are
these taken care of in the hyper-preterist system? Death's implications are
not just judicial and spiritual, but also physical ( Gen. 3:14, 19; Rom.
6:23 ). If Christians now are fulfilling the resurrection expectation of
Scripture, then the gnostics of the early Christian centuries were correct!
The physical world seems to be superfluous, in the hyper-preterist
viewpoint. The anthropology of hyper-preterism is defective in this, not
allowing the theological significance of the body/soul nature of man ( Gen.
2:7 ). This can also have implications for the person of Christ and the
reality of his humanity.
Piercing Questions
Seventh, regarding the teaching of Christ and the Apostles, we must wonder
why Paul was mocked by the Greeks in Acts 17 for believing in the
resurrection, if it were not a physical reality. We must wonder why Paul
aligned himself with the Pharisees on the issue of the resurrection ( Ac.
23:6-9; 24:15, 21). We must wonder why we Christians still marry and are
given in marriage, since Christ said in the resurrection we will not marry
( Lk. 20:35 ). We must wonder why the apostles never corrected the
widespread notion of a physical resurrection, which was so current in
Judaism (cf. Josephus, Talmud, etc.). We must wonder why we "resurrected"
Christians must yet die; why should we not leave this world like Enoch and
Elijah? Furthermore, where and what is the resurrection of the lost ( Jn. 5;
Rev. 20 )? Paul considered Hymenæus and Philetus as having made ship-wreck
of men's faith by saying the resurrection is past ( 2 Tim. 2:17-18 ). A
wrong view of the resurrection is a serious matter to Paul.
Effects of the Resurrection
Eighth, practically I wonder on the hyper-preterist view what the difference
our resurrection makes in this life? We get ill and are weak on the same
scale as those prior to the A. D. 70 resurrection. Did this 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 A. D. 70 as an agent of relief from the groanings and the
temptations of the flesh ( Rom. 7:25 ), yet we still have such -- despite
the supposed resurrection.
Christology Implications
Ninth, Acts 1 clearly defines Christ's second Advent in terms of his
ascension, which was physical and visible. For example, in Acts 1:8-11 Luke
is careful to say the disciples were "beholding" him as he ascended; he was
received "from the eyes of them" (v. 9b); they were "gazing" as he was
"going" ( 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 actual visible cloud associated
with it ( v. 10). The 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 Greek on tropon literally means "what manner."
The Greek phrase "never indicates mere certainty or vague resemblance; but
wherever it occurs in the New Testament, denotes identity of mode or manner"
(A. Alexander, 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 contrary to this
clear teaching of Scripture.
A Brief Millennium
Tenth, if A. D. 70 ends the Messianic reign of Christ (cf. the
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
interregnum, whereas by all accounts it is a lengthy, glorious era. A
problem with premillennialism is that it reduces Christ's reign to 1000
literal years; hyper-preterism reduces it further to forty years! The
prophetical expressions of the kingdom tend to speak of an enormous period
of time, even employing terms that are frequently used of eternity. Does
Christ's kingdom parallel David's so that it only lasts for the same time
frame?
History and Church Errors
Eleventh, hyper-preterists eternalize time, by allowing history to continue
forever. This not only goes against express statements of Scripture, but
also has God dealing with a universe in which sin will dwell forever and
ever and ever. There is no final conclusion to the matter of man's
rebellion; there is no final reckoning with sin. Christ tells us that the
judgment will be against rebels in their bodies, not "spiritual" bodies (
Mt. 10:28 ). The hyper-preterist system does not reach back far enough (to
the Fall and the curse on the physical world) to be able to understand the
significance of redemption as it moves to a final, conclusive consummation,
ridding the cursed world of sin. The full failure of the First Adam must be
overcome by the full success of the Second Adam.
Ecclesiastical Labor
Twelfth, hyper-preterism has serious negative implications for
ecclesiastical labor. Is the Great Commission delimited to the pre-A. D. 70
era, due to the interpretation of "the end" by hyper-preterists ( Mt.
28:20 )? Is the Lord's Supper superfluous today, having been fulfilled in
Christ's (alleged) Second Advent in A. D. 70 ( 1 Cor. 11:26 )?
Kenneth L. Gentry holds several degrees in theology, including a Th.D. from
Whitefield Seminary. He is pastor of Reedy River Presbyterian Church in
Conestee, South Carolina, and has written several books and numerous essays.
He can be contacted at 46 Main St., Conestee, SC 29636 or
KennethGentry@CompuServe.COM.
[Say, Dave, why don't you email Dr. Gentry and enter into discussions with
him?]
.
|
