Religions > Bible > The Allurement Of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise Of "Dispensable Eschatology"
| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Carl" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2008 12:42:06 AM |
| Object: |
The Allurement Of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise Of "Dispensable Eschatology" |
The following article written by Jim West is highly critical of preterism.
He raises many interesting points to ponder.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
The Allurement Of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise Of "Dispensable Eschatology"
by Jim West
A fellow pastor of a Reformed congregation informs me that a recent visitor
to his congregation was encouraged to sign the guest book. When the service
was over and the congregation disbanded, he peered at the guest book and
noted the signature of the visitor, followed by a most unusual appendage:
his name followed by the word "preterist." The visitor could have saved the
minister a lot of time from searching the dictionary for the meaning of the
word had he signed his name "Hymenæus" instead of "preterist."
What is a "preterist?" And who was Hymenæus? The word "preterist" is a
grammatical term describing what is "past." Thus, if our interpretation of
the Book of Revelation is that most, if not all, the book is fulfilled, we
would be "preterists." Or, if our interpretation of the first 34 verses of
Matthew 24 saw their fulfillment in the A. D. 70 coming of Christ, we would
subscribe to the preterist interpretation. However, in recent years a new
expression of preterism has emerged that assigns the Second Coming or
Parousia of Christ, the general Resurrection, and the Great White Throne
Judgment to the past. In other words, there are no future prophetic events.
According to this scenario, time will continue on this terrestrial ball
forever. Both sin and the earth are everlasting. At death the soul of the
believer passes into the presence of God and the soul of the unbeliever
(presumably) to judgment--both to be disembodied spirits forever. The
advocates of these ideas call themselves "consistent preterists" over
against the "inconsistent preterists," who, it is claimed, fail to face the
implications of their position. The so-called "consistent preterist" holds
that the Second Coming of Christ occurred in A. D. 70, and that the
resurrection occurred when Israel was spiritually quickened. Some
"consistent preterists" will even claim to be Calvinistic in their
soteriology. Consequently, Christians who truly love the doctrines of grace
may be taken unawares. There will be the temptation to treat bygones as
bygones, to minimize the colossal differences. This amalgamation-temptation
threatens to compromise the historic creeds of the church, especially such
vital Christian teachings as the resurrection.
The Centrality of the Resurrection
The cardinal doctrine of the New Testament is the resurrection. Paul tells
us in 1 Corinthians 15 that if Christ be not raised up, our faith is vain,
our preaching is vain, and we are of all men most miserable. Paul's thrust
is that a dead Christ cannot save and that the church cannot have communion
with a Christ who is still in the throes of death. Christ was raised from
the dead in order to justify us ( Rom. 4:25 ). Most significantly, it was by
Christ's resurrection that He "was declared to be the Son of God with power.
.. ." ( Rom. 1:4 ). The resurrection is not only a blazing advertisement for
the verity of Christianity, but the supreme attestation to the Deity of
Christ Himself. If there is no resurrection, there is no Christianity.
Scripture even teaches that salvation itself is a resurrection ( Jn. 5:24 ).
The purpose of Christ's resurrection was to justify the whole man--body and
soul. Even the new birth is actually a metaphor for the resurrection instead
of the resurrection a metaphor for the new birth. Our labor is based on the
bodily resurrection of Christ too. We are animated to work because of the
resurrection ( 1 Cor. 15:58 ). Our work ethic is not only the (proverbial)
"Protestant Work Ethic," but "the Resurrection Work Ethic." This is why we
abound in the work of the Lord. Our very redemption is portrayed as the
redemption of our bodies ( Rom. 8:23 ).
What about Hymenæus?
The "consistent preterists" (as they charitably define themselves) deal with
the resurrection in a manner that parallels two apostolic personalities. We
refer to Hymenæus and Philetus, whom Paul names in 2 Timothy 2:17. These men
were apparently church members (they "named the name of Christ"-- verse
17. ). They were resurrection preterists and probably preterists in regard
to the Second Coming of Christ, too. Paul tells us in 2 Timothy 2:18 about
their belief that "the resurrection is already past." How could they have
been afforded some prestige in the church?
For starters, they no doubt arrived at this conclusion sometime after their
profession of faith in Christ. Thus, they were members in good standing in
the church. In addition, they may have been leaders in the church, perhaps
even elders or pastors. What is more, they did affirm and confess the
resurrection! The resurrection was an important article of their faith that
perhaps they would even have died for. They would confess their
whole-hearted agreement with the "Blessed Hope" of the Second Coming and the
promise of the resurrection. Upon being questioned about their views, they
would argue that their faith is the same faith as the church as a whole,
except for their exotic belief that the resurrection is "already past."
What did they mean when they taught that the "resurrection is already past"?
First, their error was not that the resurrection of Christ was "past."
Recognition that the resurrection of Christ was an historical event is not
heresy. Had Hymenæus denied the past resurrection of Christ he would have
been guilty of an obvious deviation from Biblical truth. One reason is every
sermon in the Book of Acts exalts the resurrection of the flesh of Christ.
The Apostle Peter provided a homiletic precedent for all future sermons by
citing the second Psalm and its teaching about the resurrection of Christ's
"flesh" ( Ac. 2:31 ). So this could not have been his error.
If Hymenæus meant that the bodily resurrection of the believer is "already
past," he would have been speaking nonsense, for he himself would have been
bodily resurrected. It is possible that he might have referred to the
individuals who were resurrected on the very day that Jesus was crucified
( Mt. 27:51-53: ). However, since 1 Corinthians 15 and other
resurrection-Scriptures were written long after that, the probability of
this is zero.
The interpretation with the most distinct ring of truth is that he embraced
the idea that the Christian's spiritual resurrection is past or that
Israel's spiritual resurrection is past. Therefore he argued that there was
no future, bodily resurrection for believers (or even unbelievers).
Reasons for Hymenæn Preterism
Why did Hymenæus and Philetus argue that the resurrection was past? The
first reason is that they no doubt had a low view of the body--perhaps
thinking of the body as a kind of shell for the more important spirit. This
is the old error of Platonism that taught that the "body is the prison of
the soul." If the body is the prison of the soul, that does not forebode
good things about the body; neither does it envision any future resurrection
of that "prison." The very word "prison" is inflammatory; couched in modern
terms, we could ask why anyone would want to resurrect Alcatraz so that he
might once again occupy cellblock 25?! This is how they viewed the body: as
cellblock 25. Scripture teaches that it is the grave that is the real
prison--not the body. The pathetic Greek view of the body was influenced not
only by Gnostic thinking which despised matter as evil, but also by a
confounding of the good and the sinister usages of the word "flesh" in the
New Testament ( Gal. 5:19; Ac. 2:30-31 ). Its modern equivalent is those who
despise the body, such as monastics, or those who mistreat their bodies by
the neglect of the right foods or exercise or over-indulgence, such as
gluttons and drunkards. An old expression of this contempt for the body is
the doctrine that our souls preexisted before our bodies. The idea here is
that the body was made only to house the all-important soul. A recent
expression of contempt for the body was the thirty-nine self-murderers in
Rancho Sante Fe who wanted to be liberated from their bodies to reach the
"next level." They justified the exit of their spirits by demeaning their
bodies as mere "containers."
"Consistency"
The second attraction of Hymenænism is that it is ostensibly consistent
(given the erroneous premise that the Second Coming of Christ has already
occurred). Scripture does teach that the Second Coming and the resurrection
of the body are simultaneous events ( 1 Cor. 15:23 ). In this passage Paul
writes, "But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward
they that are Christ's at his coming." If the only coming of Christ is His
A.D. 70 spiritual coming, then the resurrection must have occurred then too.
Hymenæns are therefore compelled to merge Christ's Second Coming at the end
of human history with his A.D. 70 coming. Virtually all of the "comings" of
Christ in the New Testament are seen through Hymenæn glasses.
The new Hymenæn view parallels the Hymenænism of Paul's day except that we
know more about its details. The new Hymenaens do teach the Second Coming of
Christ and the general Judgment during the last days. There is the
"up-front" declaration that these doctrines are true--but again with the
caveat that they are "already past." Some Hymenæns even assert that all the
eschatology of the Bible is fulfilled and "all is perfect" in the New
Testament era--a statement that exudes a tinge of Christian Science and
naivete.
Overreaction to Dispensationalism
The third attraction of Hymenænism stems from an overreaction to
dispensationalism, together with its esoteric charts and graphs, which
include one false prediction after another. The church has been listening to
the voices of Darby, Scofield, Hal Lindsey, Dave Hunt, Ryrie, Jack Van Impe,
and Chafer, etc., for over 150 years. Whereas the hallmark of
dispensationalism is elaborate charts and comic-book scenarios of the
future, the Hymenaens have no charts at all. For them there is nothing to
think about; all prophecy is fulfilled--no charts at all. Life is easy.
Eschatology is the easiest of all. They peer into the future and see
nothing. They speak of all prophecy as "fulfilled eschatology." One Hymenæn
writer even tells us that the "hope of the resurrection" is an "empty" hope
and an empty expectation, and that with regard to the future the Christian
turns over the next leaf "and there is nothing." Amazingly, the followers of
Hymenæus have chosen to combat dispensational eschatology with an
eschatology that dispenses with eschatology!
Matthew 24
Jesus' Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 highlights a Hymenæn interpretation
versus a true, preterist interpretation. Our Lord com pletes the first part
of His sermon with the famous "Time-Text,"--"Verily, verily I say unto you,
This generation shall not pass away until all these things be fulfilled."
The orthodox preterist interpretation is that everything that occurred
before verse 34 saw its fulfillment in that generationthe contemporary
generation of Jews. However, the Hymenæns merge everything that occurs after
verse 34 into the A.D. 70 spiritual coming of Christ. For example, Hymenæns
argue that even verse 36 is about A.D. 70, when Jesus states, "But of that
day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father
only." The problems with this viewpoint are explained adequately by
Marcellus Kik in his Eschatology of Victory, and the reader is urged to
review his arguments. Echoing Kik, we affirm that the designated "that day"
does not refer to the days of tribulation for Israel prior to the coming of
the Romans. The reason is that "that day" had already been introduced by our
Lord earlier, even as far back as the Sermon on the Mount. For example, the
Lord tells us that not every one who says unto Him, "Lord, Lord, shall enter
into the kingdom of heaven," and that "many shall say to me in that day,
Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast
out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I
profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity"
( Mt. 7:21-23 ). Earlier in Matthew, the Lord compared Israel's judgment
with some of the historic cities that were notable for wickedness. Christ
preached, "But I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon
at the day of judgment than for you." And again, "But it shall be more
tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee" (
verse 22, 24). Christ had already drilled the "that day of judgment"
terminology into the heads of the disciples, which they would have
understood as including Sodom and Tyre and Sidon on a day other than A.D.
70. Certainly Tyre and Sidon and Sodom were not judged in A.D. 70. In the
Matthean account of the Olivet Discourse, "that day" is an explicit
reference to the great day when God will judge all past, present, and future
generations. Paul also in his sermon to the Greeks on Mars' Hill preached "a
day" that God will judge all men (Athenians included--not just Jews) by that
Man Whom He has appointed ( Ac. 17:31 ).
The best commentary on the "that day" terminology of verse 36 is both what
follows verse 36 and what flows from verse 36 . There are several parables
that follow verse 36 , the Faithful Servant and Evil Servant ( 24:45-51),
the Wise and Foolish Virgins ( 25:1-13), and the Talents ( 25:14-30). This
string of Second Coming parables is capped off with the picture of the Son
of Man judging the nations "when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all
the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory" (
25:31). When he comes "all nations will be gathered before Him, and He will
separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides the sheep from the
goats" ( 25:2). Christ's coming to judge all nations does not merely follow
Matthew 24:36 in chronological sequence--it flows from it.
Interestingly, both dispensationalists and Hymenæns have adopted an
all-or-nothing approach: the former interpret virtually every coming of
Christ prophesied in the New Testament as the Second Coming; the latter
interpret every prophesied coming as Christ's A.D. 70 spiritual coming.
There are then dispensational eschatologists and dispensable eschatologists.
The "dispensable eschatology" of the Hymenæns also dispenses with the
resurrection of the believer's body at Christ's Second Coming. Beginning
with the premise that there is only one coming of Christ (A.D. 70) they
force all other parousia-texts into an A.D. 70 straitjacket. This forces
them to deny the resurrection of the flesh and to wrest the meaning of 1
Corinthians 15. Scripture teaches that what makes the Second Coming of
Christ the "blessed hope" is not a bare, physical coming of our Lord. The
"blessed hope" is not only tied to the "hope of the resurrection," but is
colored and defined by the resurrection ( 1 Cor. 15:19; Ac. 23:6; 26:6;
2:26; 1 Thes. 4:13ff ). It is only because of the resurrection of the body
that we will be able to see the Lord and be caught up with the Lord in the
air. This was the faith of Martha who said, "I know that he [Lazarus] shall
rise again in the resurrection at the last day" ( Jn. 11:24 ), and the
repeated teaching of Christ who taught, "No man can come to me, except the
Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day"
( Jn. 6:40, 44, 54 ). The Hymenæns repeatedly fail to distinguish between
the "last days" of Israel and "the last day" at the end of this world. This
in turn causes them to trivialize the resurrection of Christ and to discount
the believer's bodily resurrection altogether.
Misunderstanding Paul
A fourth attraction of Hymenænism is based upon a misinterpretation of
Paul's statement in 1 Thessalonians 4:15, where he writes, "For this we say
unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto
the coming of the Lord shall not precede them which are asleep." Devotees of
Hymenæus argue that Paul believed that he and others would escape death to
witness the Second Coming. It is then urged that the Parousia had to occur
during Paul's lifetime. There are innumerable problems with this
interpretation. First, not only would Paul have to be alive, but everyone in
the church at Thessalonica to whom he was writing, too (he did say "we"
which are alive). If we dogmatically assert that Paul experienced the
Parousia, then we must dogmatically assert the same for all his readers. If
so much as one of his readers was cut off by death before the Parousia, then
we could not rule out the possibility that Paul himself (as well as all the
Thessalonians) might have died before the advent of the Lord. Clearly, Paul
is not telling the Thessalonians that each of them would escape death to
experience the A.D. 70 coming. 1 Thessalonians may in fact have been the
first letter that Paul ever wrote--perhaps twenty years before the
destruction of Jerusalem. The reason he speaks of himself and them (the
Thessalonians) as "living" is because he must distinguish between the living
and the dead. His goal is to impart comfort to the living, not because he
knew that the living would be alive when Christ returned, but because the
living needed to know that their dead would be the "first" beneficiaries of
the Second Advent ( 1 Thes. 4:16 ). His purpose is to impart comfort to the
living about their dead (this is why he numbers himself with the living),
not to prophesy that his generation would escape death altogether.
Another problem with the Hymenæus interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 4:15 is
that this very epistle was read by other Christians too. It was to be read
by "all the holy brethren" ( 1 Thes. 5:26-27 ). Keep in mind that the
influence and therefore the fellowship of the Thessalonian Christians was
great: this church was an example to "to all in Macedonia and Achaia who
believe" ( 1 Thes. 1:7 ). From this church the word of the Lord (which
included "the word of the Lord" spoken to Paul about the Parousia and the
resurrection-- 1 Thes. 4:15 ) "sounded forth" "in every place" (1:18).
According to Hymenæn logic, every pre-A.D. 70 Christian who read 1
Thessalonians 4:15 would beat the grim reaper to be alive at Christ's A.D.
70 coming.
The disciples of Hymenæus argue that all of Matthew 24 is about A.D. 70.
Christ's coming to judge Israel is the Second Advent, they claim. Yet, Jesus
says in Matthew 24:36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the
angels of heaven, but my Father only." If, as the Hymenæns assert, the "that
day" of verse 36 applies to the A.D. 70 coming (which not even Christ in His
human nature was privy to), how could Paul and all the Thessalonians know
that they would escape death to experience it?
The Hymenæns also have an insurmountable difficulty meshing 1 Thessalonians
4:17 with 1 Corinthians 15:52, which reads, "In a moment, in the twinkling
of an eye, at the last trump, for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead
shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." Notice: whereas in
1 Thessalonians 4:15 Paul speaks of himself as possibly alive when Christ
returns, in 1 Corinthians 15:52 he speaks of himself as bodily "resurrected"
when Christ returns. Paul's intent is not to declare that he would be dead
when Christ returned, any more than he would be living at his return. He is
merely identifying himself with the people of God. Paul no doubt had a
certain knowledge either that he would be alive or that he would be a
participant in the resurrection after his death, but that certain knowledge
is not the same as saying that he knew for sure which one of these
alternatives would be his lot.
Also, nowhere does the Bible state that the bodily resurrection of all
believers "is near," is "at hand," is "close." However, there is a statement
describing the heretics who assert that the resurrection is "already
past"--the Hymenæns!
Satanic Pride
The fifth reason for Hymanæn theology is Satanic pride, a desire to pass
muster before men. Heretics love novelties. The pride in this case is not
just opposing the resurrection theology of the Bible, but the craving to
make a name for oneself--the desire to have the preeminence, that is, the
spirit of Diotrephes ( 3 Jn. 9 ). The pride factor is particularly easy to
spot in the Hymenæns, for they are obsessed with a resurrectionless
preterism. It extends further than identifying oneself as a "preterist" on
the guest registrar of the church. The Hymenæns are campaigning to "subvert"
the Faith of others. Believing that they have discovered some new truth that
has been hidden from the church for the last 2000 years, we can well
understand their zeal. In Paul's last words to the elders at Ephesus, he
wept, stating that after his departure, grievous wolves would enter in, and
from even their own selves "shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to
draw away disciples after them" ( Ac. 20:30 ). Since Paul was writing to
Timothy who was probably in Ephesus, we can identify Hymenæus and Philetus
as two of these invaders.
What Is a Resurrection?
Because of the simultaneity of Christ's coming and the believer's
resurrection, the Hymenæns are forced to redefine the word "resurrection."
For example, R.C. Leonard and J.E. Leonard in their book, The Promise of His
Coming, define "resurrection" as following:
The New Testament term for resurrection, anastasis, is not a theological
word but is related to the verb stenai Paul employs in the above passage [
Eph. 6:11-13 ]. In ancient Greek literature, stenai is sometimes used in the
sense of rising up in protest or rebellion. Resurrection or anastasis is
literally "standing again" in defiance of enemy powers, and thus contains an
element of vindication. (181)
The Leonards then quote Acts 2:23-24, where Peter argues that after Jesus
was crucified, that "God raised Him up again. . . ." Thus, for the Leonards
"resurrection" means vindication. What they call only "a feature" about
Christ's resurrection becomes the leading motif so that his bodily
resurrection is diminished. For the Leonards, the real victory of Christ was
not his overcoming physical death, but his standing up for his cause. Their
notion that anastasis ("resurrection") is not a theological word is both
unwarrantable and astounding! The weakness of their whole argument is shown
by the appeal to the Greek outside the Bible and even that is indirect--the
best they can do is relate anastasis to the Greek verb stenai, which even by
their own admission is used infrequently outside the Bible. Therefore, what
is universally defined in the New Testament as a resurrection of the flesh,
plays second fiddle to Christ as a mere champion and rebel. Of course, every
interpreter of the New Testament ought to know that it is the context of the
New Testament itself that colors and defines a word. What kind of
credibility can a person have who would argue that the Greek word for
resurrection is "not a theological word"?! The Leonards both dodge and
discount the word anastasis as it is used throughout the Bible.
Hymenæns compound their error about the resurrection further when they argue
that all of 1 Corinthians 15 is a description of the spiritual resurrection
of Israel during the last days of Israel's existence. The Leonards tells us:
All of this shows that, for the New Testament writers, the resurrection is
an ongoing process. It corresponds to the fulfillment in Christ of God's
promises to Israel during the last days of the old covenant period.
Resurrection is accomplished "by the Spirit" and is a progressive overcoming
of sin-death (Ibid, 171).
Not only is Israel not mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15; there is no Scripture
proof that resurrection is "a progressive overcoming of sin-death."
Resurrection is connected to crucifixion and is as once-for-all as the death
of Christ on the cross. That the Leonards see 1 Corinthians 15 as having its
fulfillment in the A.D. 70 experience of Israel makes them the contemporary
disciples of Hymenaeus.
Does all this mean that the Leonards rule out a future, bodily resurrection?
They claim that while the Scriptures do not teach a future bodily
resurrection, nevertheless, "fulfilled eschatology does not take issue with
a bodily resurrection" (Ibid 177). This cavalier concession should not
impress us, for it goes no further than the old Sadducean error. Alfred
Edersheim recounts:
....the Talmud expressly states that the real principle of the Sadducees was
not, that there was no resurrection, but only that it could not be proved
from the Torah, or Law. From this there was, of course, but a short step to
the entire denial of the doctrine; and no doubt it is taken by the vast
majority of the party" (Sketches of Jewish Social Life, 241).
Also, we should note that the comment about not taking issue with a bodily
resurrection is more a concession than a confession. Paul did not concede
the resurrection; Paul proclaimed both the resurrection of Christ and the
resurrection of the believer ( 1 Cor. 15:1-4 ).
1 Corinthians 15
The error of making the resurrection refer to the resurrection of man's
spirit or to the resurrection of Israel is an attack on the resurrection of
Christ himself, for if Christ's resurrection is a true paradigm of ours,
then his and ours must be identical. The believer's bodily resurrection is
tied to the resurrection of Christ, whose resurrection is the down payment
of ours ( 1 Cor. 15:1-9 ). 1 Corinthians 15 teaches that Christ is the
"firstfruits of all that slept" and that "every man in his own order: Christ
the firstfruits: afterward they that are Christ's at His coming" ( vs. 20,
23). This is proven not only by the word "firstfruits" which means that the
first sheaf is the same as the others in the resurrection harvest, but the
fact that the first part of 1 Corinthians 15 defines Christ's resurrection
in terms of his body. He rose again on the third day ( v. 4), he arose
according to the Scriptures (verse 4--which would include such Psalms as
Psalm 16 where the "flesh" of Christ is stated), and he was "seen" ( v.
5-8).
Not surprisingly, many Hymenæns do in fact spiritualize Christ's
resurrection. This is done in two ways: (1) It may be argued that Christ
arose in spirit and that his post-resurrection appearances were in a
temporary bodily form that he assumed after his spirit_resurrection.
Therefore all of the physical appearances of our Lord after his
spirit-resurrection were not, according to them, in the same body in which
he was crucified. (2) The students of Hymenæus will also argue that the body
of Christ was a "spiritual body" (meaning a non-physical body). This
conclusion is made on the basis of 1 Corinthians 15:44, where Paul writes
that "it is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a
natural body and there is a spiritual body."
How shall we respond to the Hymenæus "resurrection" theology? To begin with,
not all Hymenæns are as consistently heretical as they should be. Not all
boldly dispute the physical resurrection of Christ. Some seem non-committal;
others are slippery; others (the Leonards) see vindication for a cause as
the central motif; still others have imbibed the historic Anabaptist idea
that God created a new body for Christ (his resurrection not being a
resurrection so much as a new creation). Yet, whatever the nuance of their
heinous error, they do in fact argue against it when they deny the bodily
resurrection of the believer. Paul deduced that if our bodies are not raised
up, then Christ is not raised up ( 1 Cor. 15:16 ). The reluctance of every
Hymenæn to come to grips with his error resembles the deniers of the virgin
birth of Christ, who would argue against the virgin birth, and yet claim
both the impeccability of Christ and the full Deity of Christ. It is not
difficult to see that the belief that Jesus was begotten by an earthly
father threatens the doctrine of His impeccability. Also, how can a man with
a naturalistic origin be a supernatural Savior? Likewise, if we disclaim the
future resurrection of the believer, we are in fact repudiating the historic
resurrection of Christ, no matter how much we protest to the contrary.
Let us not imagine that the Hymenæn movement is monolithic either. Hymenæns
who claim the title "consistent preterist" disagree with other Hymenæns who
claim the same. While all Hymenæns agree that the resurrection is "already
past," not all formally disclaim the resurrection of Christ in the flesh.
They may discount the importance of Christ's resurrection, but not all
discount its factuality. Other Hymenæns argue for the discontinuation of the
Lord's Supper since Christians are to partake of the Supper "till He come"
( 1 Cor. 11:26 ). Thus Hymenæns themselves do not have a uniform definition
of a "consistent preterist."
Second, the belief of many Hymenæns that Jesus took upon himself only a
temporary body after His spirit-resurrection fails to answer some
significant questions. The Hymenæns have no explanation as to what became of
the body of Christ after his ascension: as far as they are concerned, it may
have peeled off like a space-capsule. Also, this does not explain the empty
tomb. If the resurrection of Christ was a spirit-resurrection, why was the
tomb empty? The empty tomb speaks tons about the physical resurrection. The
fact that there were still holes in the side of Christ and imprints of nails
in his hands testifies that the body that was crucified was the same body
that was resurrected ( Jn. 20:25, 27 ). Christ describes himself as body
when he challenged his disciples, "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 when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet"
( Lk. 24:39-40 ). Notice: Christ describes himself as "I" in the bodily
sense, even denying that he is a "spirit." There is no spirit-resurrection
here.
Third, the "spiritual body" of the believer does not mean that the believer
will possess a non-physical body. The contrast in 1 Corinthians 15 is not
between a physical body and a non-physical body. Paul's contrast is between
a "natural body" and a "spiritual body." What is a "natural body?" The
answer is a body that is susceptible to death, pain, etc. A "flesh and
blood" natural body is different from a "flesh and blood" spiritual body
because the spiritual body is raised up by the same Spirit that raised Jesus
and is incapable of dying ( Rom. 8:11 ). Christ was not raised up a spirit,
but a "spiritual body." As Zacharias Ursinus wrote:
The apostle means by a spiritual body, not that which is changed into the
Spirit, or which is in all its properties equal to the Spirit, but that
which is ruled by the Spirit of God, which is immortal and free from all
misery, adorned with heavenly splendor, glory, activity, strength, and
holiness.
Augustine is also most helpful. He wrote:
We must not imagine that because the Apostle says that the body which we
have in the resurrection will be spiritual, that it will be purely spiritual
without any body. But he calls that a spiritual body, which is wholly
subject to the Spirit, and which is free from corruption and death; For when
he calls the body which we now have a natural body, we must not suppose that
it is not a body, but a soul. Therefore as the body which we now have is
called natural, because it is subject to the soul, and cannot be called
spiritual, because it is not yet fully subject to the Spirit, as long as it
may be corrupted, so it will then be called spiritual, when it will not be
able with any corruption to resist the Spirit.
Perhaps sensing the consistency problem, some Hymenæns are toying with the
idea that there may not even have been an incarnation of Christ too. Others
assert that the resurrection of Christ was spiritual. Despite certain
discontinuities in the movement, all Hymenæns diminish the body--believing
that the body is extraneous to man's being. This obviously raises questions
about their overall view about Christ's Person and work. To be a truly
consistent, Hymenæn preterist, one should deny the flesh of Christ from
cradle-to-grave, resurrection to Second Coming.
So, it is important to understand that the Hymenæn movement is a
Christological error as well as a prophetic error. The fall of just one
"incarnation-domino" will lead to the fall of a second domino, etc. No
Second Coming in the flesh means no resurrection of the flesh and no
resurrection of the flesh means there is no incarnation. Watch the dominoes
fall! We have here a "dispensable Christology" as well as a "dispensable
eschatology."
Paul's Assessment of Hymenæn Theology
How then should we treat those who embrace Hymenænism and yet claim to wear
the badge of Christianity? We must look to Paul's charge to Timothy. Paul
tells us that the Hymenæns have "erred with respect to the truth" ( 2 Tim.
2:18 ). Erring with regard to the truth means that we have erred about the
"truth of the Gospel." His description of the Hymenæns is not that they have
erred with respect to one truth among many Gospel truths. On the contrary,
their error is a capital error; the whole truth has been denied.
Their preterist resurrection theology has overthrown the faith of some. This
is a powerful indictment. Not merely the faith by which we believe, but The
Faith that we believe is defeated, destroyed.
The teachings of the Hymenæns are labeled a "canker," a gangrene, perhaps a
cancer. The Greek word could be a medical word or a word describing
oxidation. If the former, then, the church is compared to a living organism.
A malignancy or a gangrene can only destroy this organism! Hymenæn theology
is a cancer in the living organism of the church.
Hymenæns also make "shipwreck" of the Faith ( 1 Tim. 1:19 ). The shipwreck
is a religious shipwreck. Hymenænism is not a mere pinhole in the hull of
the good ship salvation.
The upshot is that we should not be referring to the disciples of Hymenæus
as "beloved brethren," as "good friends," as "dear Christian brethren." They
are the enemies of Christ and the enemies of the church. The "sons of the
resurrection" should not be taken unawares. Hymenæns who are members in
Christian churches should be disciplined for their error, even delivered
over to Satan so that they would not blaspheme ( 1 Tim. 1:20 ).
If a church unwittingly carries Hymenæn books (such as the Leonards' The
Promise of His Coming, or J. Stuart Russell's The Parousia), these books
should be torched or removed immediately. No church should pray God's speed
on the disciples of Hymenæus. If a church has Hymenæn members, let her
admonish or rebuke these subverters at once. We dare not give them the
Lord's Supper. We must not let them get away with calling themselves
"preterists" or "consistent preterists," or believers in "fulfilled
eschatology." The word "preterist" is a good word. The disciples of Hymenæus
are not preterists; their "dispensable eschatology" makes them heretics.
What is more, they are antichrists; for only the spirit of antichrist says
that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh ( 1 Jn. 4 ff). When we interview
new members, we need to question them about Christ's resurrection and ours.
Hymenæns are not our friends; they are the enemies of the cross. If we deny
the future resurrection of the body then we deny the resurrection of Christ.
And if we deny the resurrection of Christ's flesh, then we deny his
accomplishment on the cross. The design of Christ's bodily resurrection was
to implement His sacrifice on the cross, when He suffered the wrath of God
in his body and in his soul. He came to redeem us in body and in soul ( Rom.
8:23; 1 Cor. 6:20 ).
Hymenænism is damnable heresy.
Jim West, a graduate of Westminster Seminary, is pastor of Covenant Reformed
Church of Sacramento (Reformed Church in the United States), and the author
of booklets on infant baptism and courtship, as well as that "infamous red
book," Drinking With Calvin and Luther. He can be reached at 2020 16th Ave.,
Sacramento, CA 95822.
.
|
|
| User: "Doug" |
|
| Title: Re: The Allurement Of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise Of "Dispensable Eschatology" |
13 Jan 2008 07:45:48 PM |
|
|
On January 12, 2008 01:42 am, Carl <saints@nettally.com> wrote:
<snip>
Reasons for Hymenaen Preterism
Why did Hymenaeus and Philetus argue that the resurrection was past? The
first reason is that they no doubt had a low view of the body--perhaps
thinking of the body as a kind of shell for the more important spirit.
This is the old error of Platonism that taught that the "body is the
prison of the soul." If the body is the prison of the soul, that does not
forebode good things about the body; neither does it envision any future
resurrection of that "prison." The very word "prison" is inflammatory;
couched in modern terms, we could ask why anyone would want to resurrect
Alcatraz so that he might once again occupy cellblock 25?! This is how
they viewed the body: as cellblock 25. Scripture teaches that it is the
grave that is the real prison--not the body. The pathetic Greek view of
the body was influenced not only by Gnostic thinking which despised matter
as evil, but also by a confounding of the good and the sinister usages of
the word "flesh" in the New Testament ( Gal. 5:19; Ac. 2:30-31 ). Its
modern equivalent is those who despise the body, such as monastics, or
those who mistreat their bodies by the neglect of the right foods or
exercise or over-indulgence, such as gluttons and drunkards. An old
expression of this contempt for the body is the doctrine that our souls
preexisted before our bodies. The idea here is that the body was made only
to house the all-important soul. A recent expression of contempt for the
body was the thirty-nine self-murderers in Rancho Sante Fe who wanted to
be liberated from their bodies to reach the "next level." They justified
the exit of their spirits by demeaning their bodies as mere "containers."
Plato's idea about the inherent immortality of the soul (see Phaedo)
influenced many in the early centuries of the church and it was one of the
ideas that Paul warned about, "Beware lest any man spoil you through
philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments
of the world, and not after Christ." [Colossians 2:8]
This doctrine was one of the teachings that obscured the gospel and
fulfilled the prophecy of Joel, "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and
the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the LORD come."
[Joel 2:31]
The sun represents the gospel, as it was called a "great light" in Genesis
1:16, and the gospel of Jesus was also called a "great light", as Matthew
identifies the great light of Isaiah's prophecy [Isaiah 9:2] with the
gospel Jesus preached to the Jews [Matthew 4:16].
In the explanation of his parable about the tares, Jesus said when the tares
are removed, "Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the
kingdom of their Father," which also suggests the sun represents the
gospel.
The woman in heaven in Revelation 12:1 is clothed with the sun, which
represents the gospel. The gospel becoming obscured by pagan teachings such
as the immortality of the soul was foretold by Joel's prophecy about the
sun becoming dark. That doctrine of the immortality of the soul removes the
need for a resurrection, and makes the death of Jesus on our behalf seem
utterly meaningless. Why would the dead need to be raised, if their souls
were inherently immortal, and went either to heaven or hell upon death? It
would make no sense at all.
Doug
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bible Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The Allurement Of Hymenaen Preterism: The Rise Of "Dispensable Eschatology" |
13 Jan 2008 05:13:37 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 01:42:06 -0500, "Carl" <saints@nettally.com>
wrote:
The following article written by Jim West is highly critical of preterism.
He raises many interesting points to ponder.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
Pastor Dave,
You are in trouble with a capital "T". Carl has begun sicking his man
gods on you. Of course Carl doesn't understand what your beleive and
doesn't understand what your critics are saying; but what the heck, he
likes to make himself look big at the expense of others.
As best I can tell Hymenaen comes from the Greek hymen. Does that
mean you preterists are virgins? Or does it mean you are members of
the legume family (Hymenaea L. is a genus in the family Fabaceae
(legume family). )
<snip article>
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Nothing so completely baffles one who is full of trick and duplicity
himself, than straightforward and simple integrity in another.
Charles Caleb Colton, author and clergyman (1780-1832)
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
